Need some help with Luke

[abucs]

I would agree that Luke wrote the Gospel in the early 60’s.

One angle in looking at Luke is to look for the medical language and style he used which fits with Paul’s descrition of Luke the physician who was his travelling companion.

Also, Luke mentions many rulers, prominant people and ordinary people in his book Acts in the different places he visits and describes. Such details cries out for authenticity as it would not be accepted by that Christian community if it were otherwise.

ext.sagepub.com/content/91/6/168.short

jstor.org/stable/310439

 

[Vince1022]

I would agree that Luke wrote the Gospel in the early 60’s.

One angle in looking at Luke is to look for the medical language and style he used which fits with Paul’s descrition of Luke the physician who was his travelling companion.

Also, Luke mentions many rulers, prominant people and ordinary people in his book Acts in the different places he visits and describes. Such details cries out for authenticity as it would not be accepted by that Christian community if it were otherwise.

ext.sagepub.com/content/91/6/168.short

jstor.org/stable/310439

Where does Paul describe Luke as a physician and traveling companion? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

Such details cries out for authenticity as it would not be accepted by that Christian community if it were otherwise.

Yet most scholars point to the example of the census that Luke cites in his opening chapters as being historically inaccurate. Historical accuracy is not the sole criterion for accepting the Gospel.

 

[abucs]

Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11.

curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1708667

Also we don’t have firm corroborating evidence from other sources that there was a census at the time Luke says but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. With the accuracy of Luke’s reporting elsewhere then some may say that his saying there was a census is pretty good evidence that there was.

Regards.

 

[Vince1022]

Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11.

curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1708667

Also we don’t have firm corroborating evidence from other sources that there was a census at the time Luke says but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. With the accuracy of Luke’s reporting elsewhere then some may say that his saying there was a census is pretty good evidence that there was.

Regards.

What evidence apart from Luke is there for a Roman empire-wide census at the time of Jesus’ birth?

Also, if Luke is so accurate, what about Acts 5:36-37?

 

[NHInsider]

What evidence apart from Luke is there for a Roman empire-wide census at the time of Jesus’ birth?

Also, if Luke is so accurate, what about Acts 5:36-37?

What about it?

 

[abucs]

Hi Vince,

i think the easiest thing to say is to have a look at the following link under the The census of Quirinius heading and then go from there.

newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX

also

christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html

There’s a Lutheran website which assumes the census was Roman Empire wide and speaks of the Acts passage you cite.

orlutheran.com/html/census.html

 

[Vince1022]

Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11…

Thanks! Only the quote from Colossians refers to Luke as physician, though. And it may or may not be written by Paul himself.

 

[Vince1022]

What about it?

From the NAB footnote:

The movement initiated by Theudas actually occurred when C. Cuspius Fadus was governor, A.D. 44-46. Luke’s placing of Judas the Galilean after Theudas and at the time of the census (see the note on Luke 2:1-2) is an indication of the vagueness of his knowledge of these events.

 

[Vince1022]

Hi Vince,

i think the easiest thing to say is to have a look at the following link under the The census of Quirinius heading and then go from there.

newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#IX

That’s the old edition, from about a century ago. Please compare that entry with the current (2003) edition.

also

christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html

Interesting, though the conclusions are of course open to speculation. Also, please note, this article seemed to be refuting those who cite “historical inaccuracies” in the Bible as a means to discredit the reliability of the Bible. The Catholic Church does not hold this view (and it’s not mine either, of course).

There’s a Lutheran website which assumes the census was Roman Empire wide and speaks of the Acts passage you cite.

orlutheran.com/html/census.html

This article, too, makes a number of assumptions that different scholars have different opinions on. Regardless, it does not affect the Catholic view on the truth of the Scripture nor define what Catholics need to believe regarding the historical accuracy of the census noted in Luke’s Gospel.

Thanks for the links!