Luke's Gospel

[BigDaddy4]

Let's just provisionally assume that Luke's source was the holy spirit. Why, then, does he mention anonymous sources?

Once again, from Luke's perspective, it was a letter to a fellow disciple, Theophilus. In versus 1 & 2, he includes himself as part of "us" as among the first "eyewitnesses and servants of the word". There were 12 Apostles, plus another 60 or so (Luke 10, where Jesus sends out the 72; 12 Apostles + 60 = 72), plus the thousands who witnessed the fish and bread picnic, plus the 500+ that Paul writes who saw Jesus post-resurrection. That's a lot of people and sources to draw from.

In verse 4, the purpose was to "know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Given that, it is reasonable to conclude that Theophilus was familiar with at least a part, if not the whole, of the people, places and events that follow in the letter.

Finally, the point of the Gospel is to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of heaven. The focus is on what Jesus did, not necessarily who he did it to specifically (i.e., the blind man, the rich man, the beggar, etc.) or who specifically saw what.

And you still took it out of context. Jesus didn't say that to you, did he? He said it to his disciples.

Verses 8-10 before that - "whoever publicly", "whoever publicly", and "everyone". So, yes, it is applicable to more than just his disciples.

If you want to take everything Jesus said to other people and apply it to yourself, consider selling all that you have and giving the money to the poor. After all, since you have access to the internet you are certainly rich by the standards of the world. If you aren't willing to do this, how do you know riches aren't a stumbling block to you? Don't you believe that if you do this, God will continue to watch over you? The birds of the air and the flowers of the field neither reap nor sow, yet God provides for them. Wouldn't he do the same for you? OK now that I have that out of the way, let's hear your excuses as to why the one thing Jesus said to other people applies to you but the other thing Jesus said to other people doesn't apply to you.

I've seen your arguments before on this passage and you still don't get it. Not going to waste my time.

If the holy spirit is what guided people to write the gospel, I'd expect the holy spirit to have compelled members of isolated American tribes to come up with a gospel. I see no reason that this wouldn't occur, given your model, and I see a large need for it. Yet it hasn't happened, and never will.

Why would the Holy Spirit guide people to write a gospel about events they did not witness and had no part of. Your expectations are illogical. However, the mormons attempted this, so maybe you'll find your need fulfilled there.

So you say that what you're trumpeting here is Christian tradition even though the other Christians here won't defend it. Hmmm. Sounds a bit off to me.

It's my opinion. Other Christians here can agree/disagree and do not have to defend my position. I'm not asking them to. One thing they should agree with is that the Holy Spirit was given to all people in Acts 2. These people will prophesy, see visions, dream dreams, and be shown heavenly wonders. Since Luke is credited with authoring Acts and is quoting the OT prophet Joel in Acts 2, I find it reasonable that Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down what he and others he knew and had witnessed to his fellow disciple.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again, from Luke's perspective, it was a letter to a fellow disciple, Theophilus. In versus 1 & 2, he includes himself as part of "us" as among the first "eyewitnesses and servants of the word". There were 12 Apostles, plus another 60 or so (Luke 10, where Jesus sends out the 72; 12 Apostles + 60 = 72), plus the thousands who witnessed the fish and bread picnic, plus the 500+ that Paul writes who saw Jesus post-resurrection. That's a lot of people and sources to draw from.

So the holy spirit, being infallible, will allow a gospel writer to draw from other sources. I see no reason for that. Basically everything you've stated in this paragraph supports my position, not yours. And yet you seem to think the opposite.

In verse 4, the purpose was to "know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Given that, it is reasonable to conclude that Theophilus was familiar with at least a part, if not the whole, of the people, places and events that follow in the letter.

Finally, the point of the Gospel is to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of heaven. The focus is on what Jesus did, not necessarily who he did it to specifically (i.e., the blind man, the rich man, the beggar, etc.) or who specifically saw what.

In Matt Smith's first episode as the Doctor in Doctor Who, he needed cooperation from world governments to defeat an alien invader. To prove he was the Doctor, he provided them all with several mathematical proofs of open questions. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that the holy spirit couldn't have included information in the gospels that were impossible to have been known at the time. There is no need for writing a letter to another person or mentioning sources if this approach is taken.

Verses 8-10 before that - "whoever publicly", "whoever publicly", and "everyone". So, yes, it is applicable to more than just his disciples.

Why, then, does Jesus switch from saying "everyone" and "whoever publicly" to "you"?

I've seen your arguments before on this passage and you still don't get it. Not going to waste my time.

If you had said this is off topic, maybe you'd have saved face. Even though telling the author of the thread that something is off topic is a bit silly. But seeing as how you are fighting me tooth and nail on the issue of Luke's source, it's obvious that you simply have no answer for this other issue. Why not just admit it? After all, do you profess to be omniscient? Are you ashamed that there's something you don't know?

Why would the Holy Spirit guide people to write a gospel about events they did not witness and had no part of. Your expectations are illogical. However, the mormons attempted this, so maybe you'll find your need fulfilled there.

What a silly question. Even the most conservative view of Christianity doesn't hold that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses for everything they wrote down.

Or do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John secretly followed Jesus into the wilderness and up onto the highest mountain?

It's my opinion. Other Christians here can agree/disagree and do not have to defend my position. I'm not asking them to. One thing they should agree with is that the Holy Spirit was given to all people in Acts 2. These people will prophesy, see visions, dream dreams, and be shown heavenly wonders. Since Luke is credited with authoring Acts and is quoting the OT prophet Joel in Acts 2, I find it reasonable that Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down what he and others he knew and had witnessed to his fellow disciple.

OK. Thanks for backpedaling. It's your opinion, so it's not a fact. So you can't really give me a good answer as to who the source is for Luke, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lawyers are fundamentally dishonest because they work backward from a conclusion rather than working forward from facts.

Oh did I say lawyers? I meant apologists.

Did you ever figure out that Kenton L. Sparks is neither a lawyer nor an apologist?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Did you ever figure out that Kenton L. Sparks is neither a lawyer nor an apologist?

Ok, can you get him on these forums then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, can you get him on these forums then?

I've never talked to the guy. But, I do have one of a couple of his books, and a journal article or two. And the main point he will make is that the typical Fundamentalists will indeed defend the Bible in implausible ways. In fact, his 'attack' is so succinct and specific, and successful, that I even read a review made my atheist John Loftus who basically said something to the effect that Sparks' book basically spelled the death-knell of faith (at least from Loftus' point of view), and that if a person were to read Sparks' book, there basically be little reason to go ahead and read Loftus' books. Lol! What an irony.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I even read a review made my atheist John Loftus who basically said something to the effect that Sparks' book basically spelled the death-knell of faith (at least from Loftus' point of view),

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2009/06/i-highly-recommend-new-book-by.html

 

[hedrick]

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2009/06/i-highly-recommend-new-book-by.html

If the review is right, this is an attack on conservative Protestantism, not Christianity as a whole. He’s saying what critical scholars have always said. But you shouldn’t overplay the significance of one book. Conservatives have been dismissing this kind of thing for centuries.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2009/06/i-highly-recommend-new-book-by.html

Yep. That's the review. And even though Loftus disagrees with Sparks, he still says, "I really like the fact that he’s being honest about what we can know about the Bible."

 

[BigDaddy4]

So the holy spirit, being infallible, will allow a gospel writer to draw from other sources. I see no reason for that. Basically everything you've stated in this paragraph supports my position, not yours. And yet you seem to think the opposite.

You see no reason for it so it can't be so? Ok then. That 100% is becoming less and less...

In Matt Smith's first episode as the Doctor in Doctor Who, he needed cooperation from world governments to defeat an alien invader. To prove he was the Doctor, he provided them all with several mathematical proofs of open questions. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that the holy spirit couldn't have included information in the gospels that were impossible to have been known at the time. There is no need for writing a letter to another person or mentioning sources if this approach is taken.

Don't care about Dr. Who. The rest doesn't make sense. You appear to be dictating what the Holy Spirit should/could or shouldn't/couldn't do. What percentage are you at now?

Why, then, does Jesus switch from saying "everyone" and "whoever publicly" to "you"?

Verse 8 : "I tell you..." He's talking to the disciples, but the teaching and application are for everyone. Do you think it applied only to just the disciples he was talking to at the moment? Many others who were not there were brought before rulers and authorities. Ever hear of Nero?

What a silly question. Even the most conservative view of Christianity doesn't hold that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses for everything they wrote down.

Or do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John secretly followed Jesus into the wilderness and up onto the highest mountain?

The silly question was yours about isolated American tribes and such. The Gospel writers were at least in the same geographical area at the time of the events they write about.

OK. Thanks for backpedaling. It's your opinion, so it's not a fact. So you can't really give me a good answer as to who the source is for Luke, right?

Again, no backpedaling. All anyone on this thread has is their opinion. Your question was answered early on - by me and several others. Luke doesn't specifically name his source(s). Wow. Big whoop! Does that meet your preconceived agenda despite your stated "allowances"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You see no reason for it so it can't be so? Ok then. That 100% is becoming less and less...

Don't care about Dr. Who. The rest doesn't make sense. You appear to be dictating what the Holy Spirit should/could or shouldn't/couldn't do. What percentage are you at now?

I don't think you're a great source or authority for what Christian tradition really is. I'm trying to be charitable by assuming the holy spirit is infallible and using the only means I have - my brain - to process it all. What exactly are your expectations? Should I be using someone else's brain to think about this?

Verse 8 : "I tell you..." He's talking to the disciples, but the teaching and application are for everyone. Do you think it applied only to just the disciples he was talking to at the moment? Many others who were not there were brought before rulers and authorities. Ever hear of Nero?

I don't understand why bringing up Nero is a great point on your end. If you really believe Jesus ensured the holy spirit would help the Christians when brought before Nero, I'm sorry to tell you but they ended up dying in terror and agony. I don't think they said the right things.

The silly question was yours about isolated American tribes and such. The Gospel writers were at least in the same geographical area at the time of the events they write about.

Therefore...?

Again, no backpedaling. All anyone on this thread has is their opinion. Your question was answered early on - by me and several others. Luke doesn't specifically name his source(s). Wow. Big whoop!

Ok thanks. That seems to be the end of the thread. I'll just be on my way then...

Does that meet your preconceived agenda despite your stated "allowances"?

...wait, what preconceived agenda?

You realize that this apologetics subforum is in the outreach forum, right? Are you doing that? Or are you just trying to win an argument on the Internet? I can honestly say I'm seeking truth and I concede points when I see that I'm wrong. Go ahead and look at my thread on fine tuning. Or my thread on God and Gödel. I'm an honest person sincerely seeking the truth. All you have done is accuse me of being dishonest (which is against the rules, but hey, you're Christian and I'm atheist so it's fine). The outreach part of this forum seems to be beyond you.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I don't think you're a great source or authority for what Christian tradition really is. I'm trying to be charitable by assuming the holy spirit is infallible and using the only means I have - my brain - to process it all. What exactly are your expectations? Should I be using someone else's brain to think about this?



I don't understand why bringing up Nero is a great point on your end. If you really believe Jesus ensured the holy spirit would help the Christians when brought before Nero, I'm sorry to tell you but they ended up dying in terror and agony. I don't think they said the right things.



Therefore...?



Ok thanks. That seems to be the end of the thread. I'll just be on my way then...



...wait, what preconceived agenda?

You realize that this apologetics subforum is in the outreach forum, right? Are you doing that? Or are you just trying to win an argument on the Internet? I can honestly say I'm seeking truth and I concede points when I see that I'm wrong. Go ahead and look at my thread on fine tuning. Or my thread on God and Gödel. I'm an honest person sincerely seeking the truth. All you have done is accuse me of being dishonest (which is against the rules, but hey, you're Christian and I'm atheist so it's fine). The outreach part of this forum seems to be beyond you.

Your statement that I quoted here has been shown throughout the thread to be not 100% "factual" despite what you claim to have granted. For almost 2,000 years, since Pentecost in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit has been guiding Christians, yet you discount that as a source for Luke's gospel account. Someone posted quotes from early church fathers which agreed that Luke's gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but you discounted that, too. Many others have agreed that specific sources are not named in Luke's gospel and yet you have claimed that the question has not been answered.

So you're 100% "granting" is not really 100%, is it? Characterize it how you like, but it certainly is less than 100% and therefore was an inaccurate statement on your part.
Luke's Gospel

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your statement that I quoted here has been shown throughout the thread to be not 100% "factual" despite what you claim to have granted. For almost 2,000 years, since Pentecost in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit has been guiding Christians, yet you discount that as a source for Luke's gospel account.

Once again, for what must be a fifth time, you haven't shown me where the claim is actually made that Luke's source was the holy spirit. With the Bible and Christian tradition being fully granted, you've shown me nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your personal opinion that the holy spirit did something does not count as a source from Christian tradition. Small little snippets where Jesus says the holy spirit will guide someone's speech is not the same thing as Luke saying his source was the holy spirit.

Someone posted quotes from early church fathers which agreed that Luke's gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but you discounted that, too.

Yes, I explained in detail why he was wrong and he chose to not reply. You apparently chose to not even read what was actually said.

Many others have agreed that specific sources are not named in Luke's gospel and yet you have claimed that the question has not been answered.

OK, so the answer is that the source is unknown. Great, let's move on.

So you're 100% "granting" is not really 100%, is it? Characterize it how you like, but it certainly is less than 100% and therefore was an inaccurate statement on your part.
Luke's Gospel

Show me a source that says the source for Luke was the holy spirit and I'll concede the point. It's as simple as that. And no, you don't count as a source. That's just how it works. You've been dancing and dancing and dancing for pages upon pages because your argument is as brittle as Sam Bradford's knee.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Show me a source that says the source for Luke was the holy spirit and I'll concede the point.

I doubt it. Being filled with the Holy Spirit is one of the basics of Christianity. His role is spelled out in numerous places in Scripture, of which I've referenced a few and you have dismissed. You won't even grant that aspect to Luke, despite your 100% statement. So, I'll leave you with your inconsistencies and hope you find the answers you're looking for.