Is Luke reliable?

[hisgrace26]

Hey guys, I'd like to take some time to study the background of the gospels account (mainly Luke's gospel) and try to come up with my own conclusion whether or not Luke is a reliable author in account of Jesus life and the events that occur during his time. I chose Luke, because Luke depicted an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth with Joseph. This is where it all begin. Christianity depends on the nativity story. If the nativity story is false then there can be no Mary and Joseph and no baby Jesus. So let's begin with the background of Luke's gospel.

According to Luke's dating of the gospel most scholars put it around 70AD-100AD. Actually, the author is unknown (this includes the 4 gospel, but my interest is in Luke for now.) Luke was attributed to his gospel according to tradition. But is there any evidence to support the traditional authorship of Luke's gospel? Luke is not an eye-witness of Jesus. So logical speaking, how could Luke know and accurately recorded the alleged events of Mary and Joseph? So if you think about it Luke's gospel wasn't written until after Paul's death since he was follower of Paul or sometimes later on. None of the disciples were alived. The writings came centuries later on, which is not that far but you get the idea.

I'm not trying to go into all the details of the nativity story right now. My concern have to do with the question "is Luke reliable?" and how do we know he accurately recorded the events and so forth. Thanks all for your patience, I appreciate any answers you might have.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Luke was attributed to his gospel according to tradition. But is there any evidence to support the traditional authorship of Luke's gospel?

One reason to accept Luke as the author is precisely because Luke was not an apostle. If someone were going to attribute authorship of the gospel to someone, it would seem more likely to pick someone who was a "big name" apostle like Peter, Paul, John, or James. Why on earth would anyone choose Luke?

There was a Luke who traveled around with Paul (Col 4:14, Phm 1:24, 2 Tim 4:11, Ac 16:10, 20:5, 27:1). So it's not out of the question that a companion of Paul named Luke penned a gospel (cf 2 Cor 8:18).

Luke is not an eye-witness of Jesus.

Which is even more reason to accept Luke as the author. Why make up an author who everony knows, and the author himself admits admits, wasn't even an eyewitness?

So logical speaking, how could Luke know and accurately recorded the alleged events of Mary and Joseph?

The same way everone else does? I tell things that I wasn't a direct eyewitness to all the time. A friend of mine had a gun stolen from his glove compartment the other day. Now I wasn't an eyewitness, and in fact, neither was he. I heard it from him and I seem to be able to relay the information just fine. There is nothing at all in reality to suggest that if you weren't a direct eyewitness that you then can't relay information reliably. This isn't the way the world works.

My concern have to do with the question "is Luke reliable?" and how do we know he accurately recorded the events and so forth.

You could ask that question about anything at all. How do I know you're reliable? How do you know I'm reliable? How do I know that my friend was reliable about the gun theft? How do I know that my past experience is a reliable guide to my future experience?

And what do you even mean by the question? Are you asking if Luke is as reliable as a scholarly, objective, and unbiased work? Luke is not reporting facts for the sake of reporting facts, as he even says.

In any case, he seems to be reliable to me. I don't have a really good reason to think otherwise. It also doesn't really matter what the author's name was, does it?

 

[GoodMorning2011]

One muslim preacher, Deedat said something in this line that if the Bible is inspired by God he is Ok that he would not speak again and he had palsy and did not speak again. He believed the bible to have errors.

Bible being inspired does not mean Bible means what we understand it means.

Just to let you know. If you ask God for a sign don't ask for a bad one. ask for a car , a house or something else, not illness.

 

[Harry3142]

superman2010-

There are two trains of thought concerning the dating of Luke's gospel. SOme claim that it was written late in the 1st century, while others claim that it was already completed during the lifetimes of those who actually witnessed the events. I agree with those who give it an early date.

A fragment was found which has been dated to circa 170 A.D. This fragment lists all but 2 of the books now in the New Testament, as well as giving us valuable clues as to when they were written. It states that Acts, the book written by the person we call Luke after he wrote his gospel, was already completed prior to St. Paul's release from a roman prison after being arrested the first time. Paul then went to Spain, and was eventually arrested again at the start of Nero reign of terror against the christian community. He was executed no later than 64 A.D.

This puts all 3 of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as having been completed well before 62 A.D. So they were completed well within the lifetimes of Jesus' disciples, his apostles, and his family members. Had they been simply fairy tales, they could have been challenged by both those who knew Jesus and the authorities as soon as they read them.

You can read the english translation of this fragment here:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

You can also read other arguments for an early dating of the New Testament here:

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

The evidence shows that the gospels, as well as the epistles, were written too early for myth to have corrupted them. That takes 3 generations to insert itself, and the time wasn't long enough between the events and the writings concerning those events for that to occur. The Gospel of St. Luke can therefore be trusted as historic and factual.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved from Christian Apologetics to Exploring Christianity.

 

[RefCath]

I'd check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham and Luke 1:1-9:50 by Darrell L. Bock

 

[drich0150]

Hey guys, I'd like to take some time to study the background of the gospels account (mainly Luke's gospel) and try to come up with my own conclusion whether or not Luke is a reliable author in account of Jesus life and the events that occur during his time. I chose Luke, because Luke depicted an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth with Joseph. This is where it all begin. Christianity depends on the nativity story. If the nativity story is false then there can be no Mary and Joseph and no baby Jesus. So let's begin with the background of Luke's gospel.

Actually the reason so many try to desperately discount the book of Luke is so that may discount the book of Acts. With no book of Acts, then one does not have to recognize Paul as the Apostle chosen by God. No Paul and one can discount most of the new testament. No new testament, no God. Or so goes the logic of the disbeliever who tries and discounts the book of Luke.

According to Luke's dating of the gospel most scholars put it around 70AD-100AD. Actually, the author is unknown

Actually it is known because Paul identifies Luke in His works.

(this includes the 4 gospel, but my interest is in Luke for now.) Luke was attributed to his gospel according to tradition.

Actually no again, we know Luke was a servant of Theophilus and it is was to Theophilus in which these books were written by his physician. (Luke the physician identified by Paul.)

But is there any evidence to support the traditional authorship of Luke's gospel?

Yes

Luke is not an eye-witness of Jesus. So logical speaking, how could Luke know and accurately recorded the alleged events of Mary and Joseph?

Oral tradition.

So if you think about it Luke's gospel wasn't written until after Paul's death since he was follower of Paul or sometimes later on.

Not according to Paul (this is where you argument falls apart completely)
Paul sees Luke as a companion or disciple. Or so says His words in His letters to the Colossians.

None of the disciples were alived. The writings came centuries later on, which is not that far but you get the idea.

Not really please explain.

I'm not trying to go into all the details of the nativity story right now. My concern have to do with the question "is Luke reliable?"

yes

and how do we know he accurately recorded the events and so forth. Thanks all for your patience, I appreciate any answers you might have.[/

Because it coincides with 4 separate Gospel accounts.

 

[AlexBP]

I chose Luke, because Luke depicted an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth with Joseph. This is where it all begin. Christianity depends on the nativity story. If the nativity story is false then there can be no Mary and Joseph and no baby Jesus. So let's begin with the background of Luke's gospel.

I agree with all that others have posted in response, but I'd also like to point out that your logic here is obviously very lacking. The truth or falsehood of one event in the Luke's gospel doesn't prove anything about other events. As an analogy, consider that many books about George Washington include a famous incident from his childhood where he chopped down a cherry tree. In fact this episode never happened, but that doesn't mean that George Washington never existed, or that he wasn't a general during the American revolution and later the first President.

 

[ebia]

I'd check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

seconded. Excellent book

 

[ebia]

I chose Luke, because Luke depicted an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth with Joseph. This is where it all begin. Christianity depends on the nativity story. If the nativity story is false then there can be no Mary and Joseph and no baby Jesus. So let's begin with the background of Luke's gospel.

eh? That makes no sense.

According to Luke's dating of the gospel most scholars put it around 70AD-100AD.

most these days in the first half of that.


[quoteActually, the author is unknown (this includes the 4 gospel, but my interest is in Luke for now.) Luke was attributed to his gospel according to tradition. But is there any evidence to support the traditional authorship of Luke's gospel?[/quote]
since the author does not claim to be eyewitness himself, except by implication to a few passages late in Acts, it matters not. We may as well call the author of Luke-Acts Luke. Does it matter if his real name was something else?

Luke is not an eye-witness of Jesus. So logical speaking, how could Luke know and accurately recorded the alleged events of Mary and Joseph?

someone told him. Possibly Mary herself or the "Beloved Disciple".

[quote{So if you think about it Luke's gospel wasn't written until after Paul's death since he was follower of Paul or sometimes later on. None of the disciples were alived. [/quote]
Luke was writing maybe around 70-80, but he may well have been collecting stories much earlier than that, and there is good reason for thinking the Beloved Disciple was still alive as late as that anyway.
[/QUOTE]

 

[texastig]

YouTube - ‪Was Luke one of the greatest historians of all time?‬‏

 

[hisgrace26]

YouTube - ‪Was Luke one of the greatest historians of all time?‬‏

I have one objection. Luke cite many cities that are suggest to be accurate, but Nazareth is missing from ancient maps. Nazareth did not came into existence until the last half of the first century all the way to 4th century at most. Josephus and father Origen did not know where Nazareth was located until father Eusebius came a long in the 4th century and finally acknowledge the existence of Nazareth. Josephus led some army around Japha which is very close to Nazareth, and yet he know nothing of such city.

 

[ebia]

I have one objection. Luke cite many cities that are suggest to be accurate, but Nazareth is missing from ancient maps. Nazareth did not came into existence until the last half of the first century all the way to 4th century at most. Josephus and father Origen did not know where Nazareth was located until father Eusebius came a long in the 4th century and finally acknowledge the existence of Nazareth. Josephus led some army around Japha which is very close to Nazareth, and yet he know nothing of such city.

That used to be the view. The consensus on that seems to have shifted. (Remembering that "city" in this case is small, out-of-the-way, village, not sprawling metropolis).

 

[docpotter]

If you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, and that he wrote the bible basically word for word, by using his Holy Spirit through the authors of the books , then yes Luke is very reliable . Luke was with Jesus during his entire ministry , and he was a physician . To second guess the authenticity of one of the gospels can be quite dangerous. Personally , I trust God , I trust Jesus , and I take the bible at its word, I believe it is fully God breathed . : )

 

[docpotter]

of course we can disagree, respectfully . we can believe what ever we want to , that's the plan of free will. God wants us to be diligent in our efforts to find the truth . no offense taken : )

 

[golgotha61]

Hey guys, I'd like to take some time to study the background of the gospels account (mainly Luke's gospel) and try to come up with my own conclusion whether or not Luke is a reliable author in account of Jesus life and the events that occur during his time. I chose Luke, because Luke depicted an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth with Joseph. This is where it all begin. Christianity depends on the nativity story. If the nativity story is false then there can be no Mary and Joseph and no baby Jesus. So let's begin with the background of Luke's gospel.

According to Luke's dating of the gospel most scholars put it around 70AD-100AD. Actually, the author is unknown (this includes the 4 gospel, but my interest is in Luke for now.) Luke was attributed to his gospel according to tradition. But is there any evidence to support the traditional authorship of Luke's gospel? Luke is not an eye-witness of Jesus. So logical speaking, how could Luke know and accurately recorded the alleged events of Mary and Joseph? So if you think about it Luke's gospel wasn't written until after Paul's death since he was follower of Paul or sometimes later on. None of the disciples were alived. The writings came centuries later on, which is not that far but you get the idea.

I'm not trying to go into all the details of the nativity story right now. My concern have to do with the question "is Luke reliable?" and how do we know he accurately recorded the events and so forth. Thanks all for your patience, I appreciate any answers you might have.

Yes the book Luke is reliable since the Bible is in verbiage and plenary, infallible, inerrant, and unlimited in inspiration. The scholars that I have read put the book’s writing at about A.D 58-60 because the book closes abruptly, describing Paul’s imprisonment, but his release in A.D. 63 is not mentioned.
The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 160-200) reports that Luke the physician was Paul’s traveling companion and traced the matters and compiled the gospel of Christ’s life. Ireneaus (c. A.D. 185), Clement of Alexandria, and Origen also ascribe authorship to Luke.
Luke states in 1:1 that others had written about Jesus’ life but he gives no indication that he relied on those reports for his own writing. Instead he used personal investigation and arrangement, based on testimony from “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (1:2).