Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Luke have access to the complete Matthew?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="drich0150" data-source="post: 74410517" data-attributes="member: 218229"><p>If you look at the in bible narrative you are both wrong.</p><p></p><p>In that Luke was the first to write. remember He was a slave to Theopilus and was sent at the time of Christ to investigate and report back to his master what was going on. The intro of Luke tells us this. (most honorable theophilus) </p><p></p><p>Then After his gospel he also wrote the book of Acts as to theophilus but this time in an informal fashion as if he where a free man, which we know he was as he pledged himself to Paul so in a sense the gospel of Luke is actually the gospel Paul taught.</p><p></p><p>This means the book of luke had to be written first because at the time of the writing he was a slave to theophilus and address theophilus as master in the gospel telling, which is different than how he address the same man while in service to paul. Which was still alive by the end of acts that gives us the idea that acts was complete pre 65 AD. which puts the book of luke first.</p><p></p><p>Which makes sense as Paul's gospel through luke is the most complete and as they get further and further away from the actual events the more that is forgotten which means less and less detail.</p><p></p><p>Again this is a chronological account of the order by a contextual reading of the events and how they would logically play out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="drich0150, post: 74410517, member: 218229"] If you look at the in bible narrative you are both wrong. In that Luke was the first to write. remember He was a slave to Theopilus and was sent at the time of Christ to investigate and report back to his master what was going on. The intro of Luke tells us this. (most honorable theophilus) Then After his gospel he also wrote the book of Acts as to theophilus but this time in an informal fashion as if he where a free man, which we know he was as he pledged himself to Paul so in a sense the gospel of Luke is actually the gospel Paul taught. This means the book of luke had to be written first because at the time of the writing he was a slave to theophilus and address theophilus as master in the gospel telling, which is different than how he address the same man while in service to paul. Which was still alive by the end of acts that gives us the idea that acts was complete pre 65 AD. which puts the book of luke first. Which makes sense as Paul's gospel through luke is the most complete and as they get further and further away from the actual events the more that is forgotten which means less and less detail. Again this is a chronological account of the order by a contextual reading of the events and how they would logically play out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Luke have access to the complete Matthew?
Top
Bottom