Quote (Thor123422 @ Feb 29 2020 07:14am)
Luke is not an eyewitness account. It was authored over 70 years after the fact so if it did contain eyewitness accounts it was of witnesses that were children at the time of the incident. Additionally Luke is not a document that was ever intended as a historical record.
If you want historical records of things then apply the same standard to the quran, or the book of Mormon. They both have much stronger evidentiary basis than any gospel.
Do your best to approach this conversation as though I don't already acceot anything in the bible. Ask yourself why I would accept one book over another and why without assuming the truth of either book. You will avoid wasting time on as many unconvincing arguments.
That's not true. Luke IS an eyewitness account as is every other book in the Bible. That was one of the criteria for ever being included in the Scriptures in the first place. It had to be written by an Apostle or an associate of an Apostle. The only exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Christ Himself. Luke was an associate of Paul. Luke is 100% meant to be historical and Biblical.
From Conservapedia.com:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Luke'"The Gospel of Luke is widely considered one of the most beautiful books of its length written. It tells the story of the life of Jesus, being written to Theophilus. Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness, but instead one who has "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3) and now wants to "write an orderly account" so that Theophilus would "know the certainty of the things" he had been taught. (Luke 1:3-4) The author Luke was a Gentile, as confirmed by Paul at Colossians 4:11,14. The Gospel of Luke is the 3rd book in the New Testament coming after the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and before the Gospel of John.
The Gospel of Luke was written in flawless Greek and has been called "the most beautiful book ever written."[1] Only this Gospel tells the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, and Luke recounts them with exquisite, emotional detail. Only the Gospel of Luke recounts with literary skill the meeting of the risen Lord with the two men walking on their way to Emmaus, whose "eyes were kept from recognizing him."[2]
Luke may have been inspired by the Epistles to the Hebrews, which is perhaps the best-written Greek work in all of history, and which some of Luke's writings (especially parts of the Acts of the Apostles) appear to imitate in style and word choice. Luke is considered one of the synoptic gospels and Luke is generally considered to have borrowed from Mark as one of his sources as did Matthew. It is unknown if Matthew or Luke borrowed from each other or which came first.
Contents
1 Authorship
2 Place of Writing
3 Date
4 See also
5 References
Authorship
This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.
The Gospel of Luke does not name its author, but as a companion volume to the book of Acts, it can be inferred by the use of "we" when describing part of Paul's journeys that the author traveled with Paul and Luke, the doctor, becomes the most likely candidate. The extremely sophisticated Greek of Luke also argues for a man who was very educated as does his attention to detail and the medical language in use matches that of other ancient Greek doctors. The ancient church father Irenaeus ascribed the work to Luke as does the Muratorian Canon. It is also mentioned by Clemente of Alexandria."
This post was edited by xfrodobagginsx on Feb 29 2020 12:21pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.