Paul verse Peter?

[abucs]

The Pauline letters are accepted (at least most of them) by all varieties of scholars as genuine.

Some people who have rejected (what they might call ‘pious’) Christianity, claim there is a difference between the Pauline letters and the Gospels. They tend to have the belief that Paul is only speaking figuratively and that the Gospels were … well … made up.

There are many historical arguements against this, but is Luke also a biblical arguement against those beliefs ?

Mark’s Gospel seems to be the first. The early church understandings of the Gospel of Mark, was that Mark wrote down Peter’s memoirs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias

Luke seems to have been a companion of both Paul and Mark. Of course Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles which heavily include Paul’s journies (written as though Luke was present on some of those journies) and also Luke wrote his Gospel which seems heavily reliant on Mark/Peter.

Is Luke (assuming his credibility) a link between the Gospel messages and Paul ?
If Luke accepts the Gospels, is that not evidence that Paul did/would to ?

bristolmedchi.co.uk/archive/st_luke_the_physician.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

The Pauline letters are accepted (at least most of them) by all varieties of scholars as genuine.

Some people who have rejected (what they might call ‘pious’) Christianity, claim there is a difference between the Pauline letters and the Gospels. They tend to have the belief that Paul is only speaking figuratively and that the Gospels were … well … made up.

There are many historical arguements against this, but is Luke also a biblical arguement against those beliefs ?

Mark’s Gospel seems to be the first. The early church understandings of the Gospel of Mark, was that Mark wrote down Peter’s memoirs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias

Luke seems to have been a companion of both Paul and Mark. Of course Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles which heavily include Paul’s journies (written as though Luke was present on some of those journies) and also Luke wrote his Gospel which seems heavily reliant on Mark/Peter.

Is Luke (assuming his credibility) a link between the Gospel messages and Paul ?
If Luke accepts the Gospels, is that not evidence that Paul did/would to ?

bristolmedchi.co.uk/archive/st_luke_the_physician.htm

Sorry I don’t know of any Christians who don’t accept both the Gospels and Paul’s letters.

Did I misunderstand what you’re asking?

 

[abucs]

well you obviously haven’t studied theology under “liberal” Christian professors.
Lucky you.

 

[diggerdomer]

well you obviously haven’t studied theology under “liberal” Christian professors.
Lucky you.

Ok…thanks (I think)…but this doesn’t help me. No problem, I’ll let others respond to the thread if they can figure out what you’re looking for.

 

[The_Fool]

Well, from what I could determine, there is a statement and he asks if he has a counter-argument to the statement.

Statement: All of Paul’s work is to be taken figuratively and not literally; oh, and the Gospels are made up.

Counter-argument: Luke ran around with Paul, Mark, and Peter. Luke accepted the Gospels otherwise he wouldn’t have written one. Because Luke was a great pal of Paul, Paul also accepted the Gospels.

I think the two are somewhat unrelated unless the statement I wrote above is incorrect or incomplete. I don’t see the connection exactly either unless it is a question regarding the validity of the Gospels or how Paul’s letters are to be interpreted, or perhaps both?

Does one assume that one should read Paul figuratively because he himself did not believe the Gospels, or is it that his letters should be read that way because the Gospels are false? If it is the first assumption, then yes, Luke may be a counter-argument provided Paul knew he was writing it, did not object, and would have been a man to object if he didn’t believe it. If it is the second, then no, because it implies Paul doesn’t care if you write a lot of hooey.

Did I answer the question or just make things worse?

 

[abucs]

Yeah, pretty close.

There are a lot of people who like the idea of Christianity as a movement but who don’t like any of the supernatural side of the religion - or don’t like parts of the supernatural side of it.

To make sense of Christianity, to their minds, they posit that the Gospels are handed down oral stories that were embellished to the point that it has added in all the supernatural bits.

These same people have to accept that Paul wrote his letters fairly early and thus not in time for an oral fairy tale to emerge.

They then say that Paul’s Jesus was a figurative Jesus and not a ‘real’ Jesus. In fact they say that Paul used the ‘Jesus story’ to present his own philosophy.

They then claim that the Gospel stories went a bit overboard with the truth and later people started to see these made up stories as real.

Basically - the above thinking is a way that many people try to rationalise Christianity without the supernatural.

I am asking that doesn’t Luke present these people with a problem.
Luke was a loyal companion of Paul as his Acts show AND he wrote a gospel, copying from Mark. Nowhere in Luke’s writing is there a presentation of a figurative Jesus or a comment of a clash between a figurative Jesus of Paul and a historical (but made up) Jesus of the Gospels. At no time is Jesus presented as anything but real.

This may sound very strange to you, but many people who try to rationalise (they mean take out anything supernatural) Christianity, have the above set of beliefs as their explanation for the history of Christianity.

 

[The_Fool]

Hmm, this seems like an apologetics question under Sacred Scripture, and hopefully someone can redirect it there.

Okay, let’s tackle the question. There are factual and theological differences in Luke-Acts and the Pauline Letters; there are even factual differences between Luke and Acts. As some modern scholars argue that whoever wrote Acts, and Luke if you want, might not have been an eyewitness, and in Acts never claims to be an eyewitness (uses first person plural). That said, there are a number of issues modern scholars dispute regarding the authorship of Luke-Acts which affects the effectiveness of the counter-argument you propose. Your argument argues that the author of Luke-Acts are the same person and was Luke, a close companion of Paul. However, even if we accept that premise, they may argue that the differences between Luke-Acts and the Pauline Letters indicate that Luke didn’t get Paul, changed the story, or got it wrong, especially as Luke and Acts do not always factually agree. Uh, so with regard to the opening post… I don’t think so, no. Hopefully someone has a better idea, I’m not all that good at Bible scholarship and might have gotten some things wrong.

 

[abucs]

Thanks The Fool,

can you give us some of the factual and theological differences between Luke-Acts and the Pauline letters and discuss what that might lead you to suggest.

Likewise with the Acts - Gosplel of Luke.

Could you also outline the argument that suggests that Luke may not have been an eye-witness to the journies of Paul where he uses the plural pronoun - ‘we’.

Assuming that Luke is the companion of Paul, who sufferred much in the different places he was, and then was executed. what is the likelihood that Luke ‘didn’t get’ Paul. Does that make sense ?

Also, seeing as how Paul was killed by the Romans, what would be the incentive for Luke to ‘go beyond Paul’ and change things that would idolise Jesus more in line with the Gospels ?

Also, if Luke wasn’t the companion of Paul - do you have any ideas on who he was, and how did he get his information ? And how were his writings received into the church under the name of Luke ?

 

[The_Fool]

I am relying on wikipedia for this, so please be merciful to my stupidity. It’s also late and the onions got in my eyes. I’m just posting stuff that sounds reasonable to me, not that I care. It’s inspired, that’s it. I’m breaking this up, it’s too long.

Differences between Luke-Acts and Pauline letters and what they could mean:

• Acts and Paul disagree about the number and timing of Paul’s trips to Jerusalem.
• Paul’s conversion are slightly different in each.
• Some believe the theology is slightly different in Luke-Acts and Paul’s stuff.
• The difference in theology may suggest there is no direct contact between the two.
• Other sources may have been used for the portrayal of Paul due to the above.
• General chronology of Paul’s life is off.
• Difference in portrayal of the character and mission of Paul.
• account of Jerusalem in Galations and Acts differ.
• Lot’s of Paul’s stuff is assumed to be authentic, so the one wrong is Acts because the author of Acts didn’t have the letters or a similar source.

Luke not an eye witness and the use of first person plural:

• Luke refers to eyewitness testimony being “handed down to us” and having undertaken "careful investigation in the preface of the gospel he wrote.
• He never mentions his name or explicitly claims to have witnessed any specific event except for the passages using first person plural.
• those already skeptical of Luke’s firsthand knowledge interpret the affected passages to be fragments of a second, earlier account, which is later incorporated by a later author, or is a Greek rhetorical device.
• We passages in Acts occur during voyages, when it is normal to use “we”.
• Theory: the we passages may be poorly integrated quotes from someone else.
• In Acts 5:33-39, two movements are refered to, but their order is reversed and in incorrect order with Gamaliel’s speech.
• 30 miles is a decent distance of a day’s travel by land or sea, but Acts 23 mentions a whopping 45 mile overnight trip for over four hundred guys.
• Discrepency with the timing of a famine in Acts 11.
• How does this guy know what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in private, or what the Sanhedrin say in private either?
• No speech was written word for word, that’s hard. But it does look like some source material was used for them rather than putting the general idea of the speech in the author’s own words.

 

[The_Fool]

Assuming that Luke is the companion of Paul, who suffered much in the different places he was, and then was executed. what is the likelihood that Luke ‘didn’t get’ Paul.

• It’s generally believed Luke didn’t have access to all of Paul’s stuff, and thus never quotes them.
• Personal theology changes of time, it’s possible he got Paul then, but didn’t while he was writing.
• Paul does mention a beloved physician a lot, so Luke would have been there to hear him explain stuff. All the same, have you seriously tried to read Paul aloud and then try to make sense of whatever you just said?
• There are variations in the early manuscripts, it’s not that Luke didn’t get Paul, it’s that editors didn’t like what Luke was saying.
• To go with the previous bullet, sweating blood is the only place in Luke where Jesus seen is in agony, it’s possible Luke’s rolling over in his grave as it doesn’t appear in any of the early manuscripts.

Paul killed by the Romans, why Luke change things and idolize Jesus more in line with the Gospels?

• The Gospel of Luke is based heavily on Mark, but there are differences, and interpretations of why do have to do with whom one assumes to be the author and his intentions.
• He’s writing to Gentiles, and puts a positive light on Roman authorities. Look, Pontius Pilate didn’t find anything wrong, it was the Jews…
• Yeah, like Luke’s going to understand Paul perfectly when I’m having trouble making sense of his run-on sentences.

Luke not Paul’s friend, then who is he, how does he know, and how did he get so popular?

• Luke is… a WOMAN! Luke talks so much about women, you know. It’s not because he’s a physician, honest!
• Not talking about Jerusalem being destroyed and some implications in the prologue to Luke hint at a date well past 70AD, which means it’s not Luke.
• There are clues, perhaps we’re reading too much into this, of events and social changes in the Church that suggest a later date than commonly accepted.
• Clues abound to the idea the author interviewed others, including the preface to Acts.
• Some scholars see the use of medical terminology, he might have been a physician.
• How did he get so popular? Just look at all the other popular stuff at the time… and it’s got women!
• He’s probably a Greek or Syrian.

 

[abucs]

I don’t seem to remember having a problem reading Paul’s letters. Is there anything in particular that you think seems weird or strange ?

The four gospels talk about crucifixion which is of course - excruciating. None of them seem to suggest Jesus did anything except suffer in the usual way. If one of them said Jesus joyfully skipped his way to Galgotha, smiling at everyone as he went, accidently tripped up a couple of times and then told the soldiers to hurry up with nailing him to the cross then perhaps there is an arguement for Jesus not sufferring. The weeping crowd, the need for someone to carry his cross, the multiple falls, the wounds of the nails after ressurrection all speak of a sufferring Jesus.

The idea that Luke was a woman really has no evidence. I would really like for there to have been a woman contributor to the New testament but there is no evidence for that. Saying that Luke included more women in his gospel (marginally) so he was a woman is a bit like saying Matthew included more lepers in his gospel so he must of been a leper. There isn’t a whole lot of logic there.

I agree that there wasn’t mention of the Jerusalem temple destruction (70 A.D.) in Luke’s writings. His second work ACTS, after the gospel seems to end at about 62 A.D. - 63 A.D. The obvious reason that is that they were written before 70 AD.

I agree that if they were written shortly afterwards - say 10-15 years the destruction and all the multitude of refugees would have to not only be written about but be a huge issue. If you take the tack that the writings were well after the destruction then you run into the problem the other way that why were they universally accepted by the church. Luke’s description of not only places but current governors of the time is very impressive. He’s have the trouble of getting that all right and then presenting a work to a persecuted church who simply take him )her ) ) at face value. Much easier to suppose he wrote before 70 A.D. and was accepted by the churches of the time because they knew who he was - Luke - which is why we call the writings Luke today. I think the idea that someone not involved with the church can universally and without credentials slip something into Christian doctrine that is accepted by a persecuted church in Ephesus, Antioch, Rome, Eddessa, Alexandria and the Carthage area does not really make sense. More sense that Luke was written before 70 A.D. to my mind. Which means it;s Luke and not a mystery figure that nobody knows about - that doesn’t really make much sense if you read the history of the early church.

As far as Luke having different theology than Paul, could you please state what that different theology is and whether it is wildly different. It seems much the same to me.

Difference with the reporting of the Jerusalem council don’t seem to be much when you consider there is two different people giving their accounts. With the accounts of Pauls conversions they are pretty much the same. Could you pleae explain there and with your thoughts on the differences on Galations ?

 

[The_Fool]

I had this all written up late last night, then it told me to sign in again, and then it said it couldn’t post because I signed in before the last page loaded, and then my work disappeared.:bighanky: Hopefully this version will make more sense than the original did. Please note, these arguments I present do seem to pull stuff from the air. This post is long, I’m breaking it up.

I don’t seem to remember having a problem reading Paul’s letters. Is there anything in particular that you think seems weird or strange ?

Paul didn’t seem to edit his work; he just writes whatever he’s thinking. He also uses grammar more properly found in speech rather than written text such as when describing Christ crucified as a stumbling block and foolishness to Jews and Greeks. It turns out very few people, at least where I am, can figure out what he’s saying there. He also loves run on sentences. It’s not that he uses hard to understand words, it that he somewhat rambles.

None of them seem to suggest Jesus did anything except suffer in the usual way.

Actually, there are people who claim that Jesus never suffered, and didn’t die, because he was fully spirit. That, of course, is a heresy, and the argument is Luke, as well as possibly other texts, were edited by those who wished to present scripture to fight certain heresies. Luke also makes the Romans look nicer by not mentioning how the soldiers mocked him with robe and rod. For some reason, Pilate says he’ll have Jesus scourged, but never does. Jesus is never mentioned as falling, and Simon is recruited from the get go. If you read through Luke, Jesus never really reacts as if he’s suffering in the Passion except for the sweating blood thing. It’s always, they beat him, they crucified him, but it never says what his reaction is, and the lack of information could be taken as lack of pain.

The idea that Luke was a woman really has no evidence.

I agree, a lot of this school of thought requires conjecture.

His second work ACTS, after the gospel seems to end at about 62 A.D. - 63 A.D. The obvious reason that is that they were written before 70 AD.

Here is one argument, I had multiple the first time around, but this one is more straight forward. Okay, everyone agrees that the preface of Acts refers to a “prior book” which is more than likely Luke. What a number of people argue is that Luke used Mark as a source. They then continue to argue that Mark makes references to the destruction of the temple, that wouldn’t be understood until after the Temple was destroyed. If Mark thought no one would understand the references, then he wouldn’t have written them, so Mark must be written after the destruction. So, the argued chronological order is destruction of Temple, Mark, Luke, Acts. This places Luke and Acts much further along than a number of people like, but that’s modern scholarship for you.

 

[The_Fool]

Luke’s description of not only places but current governors of the time is very impressive.

Some argue that whoever the author of Luke-Acts was, he was a shoddy historian with regard to certain events. Yes, he gets places and governors right, but he screws up the chronological order of some early Christian movements, a famine, and a speech as stated in the last post.

Which means it;s Luke and not a mystery figure that nobody knows about - that doesn’t really make much sense if you read the history of the early church.

I think your opponents would argue that there have always been a lot of weirdos running around, communications back then was bad, forgery was easier to pull off, and we don’t know everything about back then. How do we prove that these books weren’t forgeries, or at least unintentional ones? Look at the number of people who doubt St. Peter wrote 1 Peter or even 2 Peter. Anyone could say, "Hey, I found this really cool old manuscript that was a)hidden to prevent its destruction by my family for years, b)hidden, but the original keepers died and it wasn’t found until now, or c)shoved somewhere and I found it on the street.

As far as Luke having different theology than Paul, could you please state what that different theology is and whether it is wildly different. It seems much the same to me.

There are supposed to be a few, but I’ll give one. Some have argued that Luke changes Paul to conform with Peter, or at least theology to conform with Peter. In Acts, Peter explains the death of Christ and links it to repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. It’s very John the Baptist and a number believe Luke agreed with Peter in this case. On the other hand, Paul, in Galatians 3 I think, describes the death as a sacrifice for our sins. There are other theories regarding the death, including satisfaction, ransom, and moral example.

Could you pleae explain there and with your thoughts on the differences on Galations ?

The chapters in question are Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 22:2-29. The reason for Paul going to Jerusalem appear to be different in each, and how things play out are also different. In Acts, no one makes comments about Paul being the apostle to the gentiles, which may imply that Paul might be big headed. Acts seems to make Peter the apostle to the gentiles, not Paul, and makes him the protagonist, but that’s to be expected. Some argue that this rewrite, a very subtle one, was done to make Peter appear to be the leader where as in Galatians Peter is subservient to James the Just. Another theory is that the second chapter of Galatians actually corresponds with Acts 11:30 and isn’t talking about the council. I’m also amused that in one circumcision is mentioned, but not in the other. My thoughts? Paul does come off as rather full of himself at times in his own letters, so I’m not surprised there is a difference between witnesses. Do the differences matter? I don’t think so. I personally think Luke is Luke the evangelist and in terms of history, Luke is more reliable than Paul. This post is long.

 

[abucs]

OK TF,

there is a bit of theology there.
I’ll have to write back another time in full but quickly -

I agree that Paul is a bit concerned sometimes with his ‘status’ let us say.
I suppose in a way you can understand it. Here is this intellectual well educated Roman citizen living in Tarsus. He is schooled in the Jewish law and in the ways of Roman/Greek culture. He says in his letters he’s been personly chosen by the ressurrected Jesus to ‘spread the word’. He has all the excitement of being specially chosen and having a life changing experience with the supernatural and now is travelling around the Roman empire evading capture, shipwreck and death. It must have been one heck of a ride.

Then he has to deal with these poor uneducated fisherman from the area of Israel/Palestine which is even looked down on by fellow Jews. You can almost feel his frustration and the logic that would tell himself that he is more able to spread the word to the Gentiles. In his place i’d probably think the same thing.

You can see in his letters (i think) he is a bit jealous of Peter and wants to promote himself. In one letter he is saying that he is the least of the apostles and in another he’s trying hard to show he is ‘just as qualified’. So there’s a bit of tension there in the air and you can understand why in his letters he’d try to relay to the Christians of Asia that he stood up to Peter and told him ‘what for’ at the council regarding how gentiles should live. Though even he reports that after this, Peter got up and everyone was silent, and Peter spoke on the matter. This is actually a good apologetics piece as if Paul was making a lot of stuff up, and thought the apostles were too then he wouldn’t be taking second fiddle to these poor fisherman, which he obviously did.

If i was telling the story of the Jerusalem council and i said something there you can bet your bottom dollar i’d be mentioning it in my report. And i would consider it an important part of the event- or at least significant.

Of course if you have a neutral commentator (Luke or Luke’s witness) reporting he probably wouldn’t bother reporting what i said because he wouldn’t consider me a main player next to Peter, John, James etc.

The fact that Paul considers himself best qualified to teach the gentiles (though he never says God/Jesus says this) and comes up against the authority of the Apostles which seems to say something else, explains the different views expressed at the council to my mind.

A lot of people against the Catholic Church like Paul’s little spat as they use it as evidence against Peter having authority although i think that reading is stretched. They then don’t like Luke’s report of the event as it leaves out ‘THEIR’ most important part and actually undermines their theology. Hence the ‘rewrote’ claim which gets a bit silly after a while. ‘I don’t like that part, it conflicts with my views so i’m going to say it was rewritten by somebody’. I agree, Luke seems more reliable.

Another reason why some others don’t like Luke is that he paints the picture of the authority of the Apostles and the well connectedness of Christian missions and the large part played by Peter and the followers of Jesus’ followers from Jerusalem. It shows not a disconnected church allowing speculation and fantasy to emerge but a Church in full contact with the Christian diaspora. a diaspora that is urban and literate. Those people would much prefer that Paul did all the teaching to far flung seperate places and because he didn’t ‘know’ Jesus then we can discount a lot of his theology for speculation and say that things were invented by Christian communities. Hence one of the reasons for my original post. I think Luke’s testimony shoots that idea/hope/belief down in flames.

With Mark’s report of Jesus alluding to the future fall of Jerusalem. Yes, there is a case there and i think it is really the only argument that can be used to date the Gospel after 70 A.D. And i agree, if it is after 70 A.D. then Luke is also after 70 A.D. as it borrows heavily from Mark. I think in Jewish literature though there are a few occassions where there are warnings from the prophets about the fall of Jerusalem. Reading (i think chapter 9) Daniel he speaks of God’s future messenger being killed unjustly and then the Jerusalem temple being destroyed and the great Horror being installed there. I think there is enough language of warning of the Temple to be destroyed to account for Jesus’ warning also. The allusion to it is a one liner in Mark and would fit into the above idea. Of course if you think Jesus is God and would know what would happen there isn’t a problem with Jesus giving the ‘familiar’ warning. But if Mark was writing before it happened then you wouldn’t expect Mark (or Luke) to dwell on it - which they don’t. If however Mark and Luke wrote after the destruction of the temple you could understand why they might make a big deal out of Jesus’ warning, simply because they know understood its full ramifications. But neither of them (nor Matthew) dwell on this which would support i think a pre 70 A.D. writing. To my thinking anyway.

 

[The_Fool]

You were just signed in and now you’re not! I missed you! :sad_bye: Okay, another argument I heard for Luke, at least, being written after the destruction of the Temple is Luke 21:5-30. Some argue it’s too accurate, more accurate than Mark at least.

 

[abucs]

I guess people come to Luke’s prophecy from Jesus’ destruction of the temple in different ways.

protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jesus_and_the_temples_destruction

If i just put on my atheist cap for a while :

1. A lot of the prophets in the past warned Israel with the destruction of the temple, especially during important occassions.

If Jesus saw himself that way then it should be of no surprise that Jesus would also warn about the destruction of the temple.

1. Some of the prophets told of the future destruction of the temple and connected it to God’s annointed one. For example, Daniel in chapter 9 speaks of God’s future messenger being killed unjustly for the forgiveness of sins, after which the temple will be destroyed and a foreign army trample the city and set up their ‘awful horror’ there.

Saint John in Revelation obviously sees this passage as referring to Jesus and the Roman destruction of the temple.

Shortly before this passage Daniel talks of one ‘like a human being’ who will be presented to God and who will be given glory, a kingdom and rule for ever.

Reading what the Gospels say Jesus thought - he thought he would die, he thought it was in atonement for sins, he spoke about the Kingdom of God being at hand, he said HIS kingdom was not of this world, he called himself the son of God who is given every authority, he spoke about the prophets prophesying about Him.

So with all that, with my atheist cap on, why would Jesus not take the next step in Daniel and assume that the temple would be destroyed ?

Of course, as a Christian i have no trouble in accepting Jesus as the incarnation of God.

But if i pretend i am an atheist for a minute, it is entirely plausable that a Jesus Messiah would prophesy the destruction of the temple. If he didn’t, you’d almost have to ask why he didn’t, since it follows in Daniel.

Also, we know that events such as Jesus’ death and ressurrection were known to the Gospel writers and in several places they write in brackets something like - ‘we didn’t understand what this meant at the time’, or ‘it was later shown to have come to pass’ which clearly show a relationship between the author’s writing time and the past event being prophesized AND fulfilled.

In the prophecy of the temple being destroyed, we don’t get any language like this to highlight that it happened. With such a big occurrence as the destruction of the temple we might expect it, since it is present on other occassions. Instead we only get 2 or 3 lines of the destruction of the temple which mirrors many of the prophets and fits in especially with the words of Daniel, already known to Jesus.

In conclusion the short reference in Luke to the destruction of the temple cannot be used to date the gospel after 70 A.D.

That’s not to say it wasn’t written after 70 A.D. (although i don’t think it was), but that the prophecy, even with my atheist cap on, would still be reasonably expected from someone who saw himself as Jesus saw himself. IMHO.

 

[NDfan]

The Pauline letters are accepted (at least most of them) by all varieties of scholars as genuine.

Some people who have rejected (what they might call ‘pious’) Christianity, claim there is a difference between the Pauline letters and the Gospels. They tend to have the belief that Paul is only speaking figuratively and that the Gospels were … well … made up.

There are many historical arguements against this, but is Luke also a biblical arguement against those beliefs ?

Mark’s Gospel seems to be the first. The early church understandings of the Gospel of Mark, was that Mark wrote down Peter’s memoirs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias

Luke seems to have been a companion of both Paul and Mark. Of course Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles which heavily include Paul’s journies (written as though Luke was present on some of those journies) and also Luke wrote his Gospel which seems heavily reliant on Mark/Peter.

Is Luke (assuming his credibility) a link between the Gospel messages and Paul ?
If Luke accepts the Gospels, is that not evidence that Paul did/would to ?

bristolmedchi.co.uk/archive/st_luke_the_physician.htm

Abucs Ignatius who is believed to have had contact with the Apostles affirmed the authenticity of both the Gospel of Luke and John claiming that they were in fact written by those 2 people. Originally the churches didn’t accept John’s Gospel because the style was so vastly different than the others. But Ignatius confirmed that John wrote it. Same for Luke.

 

[NDfan]

If i just put on my atheist cap for a while :

1. A lot of the prophets in the past warned Israel with the destruction of the temple, especially during important occassions.

If Jesus saw himself that way then it should be of no surprise that Jesus would also warn about the destruction of the temple.

Jesus didn’t just warn. HE flat out stated that no stone would be left unturned.

 

[abucs]

Abucs Ignatius who is believed to have had contact with the Apostles affirmed the authenticity of both the Gospel of Luke and John claiming that they were in fact written by those 2 people. Originally the churches didn’t accept John’s Gospel because the style was so vastly different than the others. But Ignatius confirmed that John wrote it. Same for Luke.

Thanks NDfan. I’ll take a closer look at Ignatius.

 

[The_Fool]

So with all that, with my atheist cap on, why would Jesus not take the next step in Daniel and assume that the temple would be destroyed ?

Because Jesus isn’t trying to follow any ol’ prophet’s footsteps, but his own, and whoever writes his biography, and promotes a religion based on him, wants him to be big! Anyway, don’t forget all those God is “Love and Peace” people who believe all that negative stuff is man-made or something like that. Anyway, I suppose I should clarify that they believe it is not the existence of any statements about the destruction, but the references that they believe to be too specific.

But if i pretend i am an atheist for a minute, it is entirely plausable that a Jesus Messiah would prophesy the destruction of the temple. If he didn’t, you’d almost have to ask why he didn’t, since it follows in Daniel.

There are actually people who believe that Daniel’s words refer to the reign of Antiochus, or that he is referencing the destruction of the first Temple, not second.

Also, we know that events such as Jesus’ death and ressurrection were known to the Gospel writers and in several places they write in brackets something like - ‘we didn’t understand what this meant at the time’, or ‘it was later shown to have come to pass’ which clearly show a relationship between the author’s writing time and the past event being prophesized AND fulfilled.

Point, but I think I’m missing something here.

In the prophecy of the temple being destroyed, we don’t get any language like this to highlight that it happened. With such a big occurrence as the destruction of the temple we might expect it, since it is present on other occassions. Instead we only get 2 or 3 lines of the destruction of the temple which mirrors many of the prophets and fits in especially with the words of Daniel, already known to Jesus.

Why would you need to highlight the destruction of something that is already made obsolete with the appearance of Our Lord? It’s the only thing that comes to mind about now.

That’s not to say it wasn’t written after 70 A.D. (although i don’t think it was), but that the prophecy, even with my atheist cap on, would still be reasonably expected from someone who saw himself as Jesus saw himself. IMHO.

So there’s the Mark argument. Here’s another that I think is fairly easy to follow. Luke was written after the destruction of the second Temple, because it does not say Jesus will come back in the lifetime of some listeners. Recall that it was thought that he was going to come back before or after the Apostles’ deaths, but he didn’t. In fact, Luke doesn’t mention the promise as Matthew and Mark do. He even has a parable about a master who is upset at his servants for not expecting his return, or being ready. It’s a message that says you better not lose faith, even if he doesn’t show up with a big bang when you expect. This puts Luke after the death of the last Apostle though, so that’s longer than the Temple’s destruction, if I recall correctly. Blast, this post is still long.:banghead: