History Lesson

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Brother;

As always we want to argue about facts. That is your way. The fact is that
Luke was not among the disciples. That he wrote 2 books of the new
testament. That the book of Luke was to set in order all the rumors and
stories that where going around about Jesus.

That he took his work seriously and that he was a Doctor.  That he did not
have first hand information, and was setting in order all that he heard.
Much like historians do today.

You seem to be content in your world of understanding and that is fine. When
more learned men state something totally contrary to your thinking, you
discard it. That is again is fine. All the gospels are shrouded in mystery.

The problem that folks have is determine who influenced who. Below is the
section of text from "The College Press NIV Commentary" Pg 142, 143

Authorship and Date

The question of the authorship and date of the Gospel of Luke are in the
main handled below in chapter 6 on Acts. The same evidence that indicates
Luke wrote Acts also demonstrates that he wrote the third Gospel, for the
two works were clearly - as the prologues show - written by the same person.

Since we conclude that Acts was written sometime between A.D. 62 and  64
(see Chapter 6), we should place Luke before 62, perhaps between 58 and 60
when Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea Maritima. Luke would have been close to
there to Palestinian oral sources on the life and words of Jesus and he
would have had the leisure to undertake such a project.

Mark is dated at AD 45 to have been written and Matthew after that in lets
say A.D. 50 - 55. There  are some that have dates Matthew out around AD
80-100 supposing that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction at
Jerusalem. Though that crumbles at the weight of evidence.

Quoting New Testament Survey by Merrill C. Tenney:  pg 163 4th para
The close accord of Mark with Matthew and Luke, in which the Gospels most of
the material in Mark can be found, has lead many to believe that Matthew and
Luke used Mark as a source of information and that the written document must
have  antedated the other two Gospels. Such a conclusion would compel one to
believe either Mark was early, or that the others were late.

Again quoting:
Quoting New Testament Survey by Merrill C. Tenney:  pg 173, Chapter 10
Of the Three Synoptic Gospels Luke affords the greatest amount of
information concerning its own beginning. Its author, who does not give his
own name, supplied a literary introduction stating his aims in writing it,
the methods that he employed, and his relationships to his contemporaries
who had attempted the same thing. This introduction (Luke 1:1-4) is the key
to the book, and to the book of Acts also, if Luke-Acts is regarded as a
unit.

>From the introduction a number of inferences may be drawn:
    1) In the time of the writer a number of works were extant that
contained only a partial, or possibly a garbled account of Jesus' life and
work. The author would not have written a Gospel of his own had he been
perfectly satisfied with any of those that he knew.
    2) There accounts had attempted some systematic arrangement of available
facts ("to draw up a narrative"-- 1:1).
    3) There facts were well known to the Christian world and were accepted
independently of the narratives. Luke says that they "have been fulfilled
among us"(1:1).
    4) The author felt himself at least as well informed as the others and
as capable if writing an account on his own responsibility ("it seemed good
to me also").
    5) His information came from competent official sources ("who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" -- 1:2).
    6) He was conversant with the facts, either by observation or by
inquiry, and he was certainly a contemporary of the main course of action in
the sense that he lived in the generation of those who had witnessed it. The
term translated "having traced the course of all things" is the same as the
one used in II Timothy 3:10-11, where Paul said that Timothy has "followed"
his "teaching, conduct. . .  what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium,
at Lystra." The language does not imply that Timothy was present with Paul
at every occasion in those cities, but does indicate that he was a
contemporary of Paul and that he has some firsthand knowledge of these
affairs.
< skipping>
    9) Luke's addresses was probably a man of upper class who may be called
here by his baptismal name, Theophilus, which meant literally "Lover of God"
or "Loved by God." The epithet "most excellent" was generally applied only
to officials or to members of the aristocracy. Perhaps he was a convert of
Luke, or a person who assumed responsibility for circulating Luke's works.

So taking everything into account, I would  say that Like was not there with
Jesus, and that he was trying to put into "perfect" order those things that
he heard. There are several copies of other Gospels around. There is the
Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, which reputes to be the earliest story on
the life of Jesus. It has him studying mysticism and traveling to Babylon to
learn at the hands of the great masters of his time.

So as you can see there is still a lot of debate as to who wrote what first
and when. I tend to stay up on history, since it was my first major in
college.

--
Kirk Moore
Renton, Washington

Black holes are created when God divides by zero!