Vaxx has debunked my John thread by pointing out how absurdically ridiculous it can seem at times, so I'm taking on the easier "Gospel According to Luke".

Please read the first post in TGoJ-AS for morals for on this thread.

And Muttley, no gifs please.

Luke 1

The Birth of John, and Announcement of the Birth of Jesus

The Gospels were written by people who believed their God had agency in the affairs of humans, and with the intention to convince others that what they wrote actually happened for the reasons it is claimed they did. So, editorial licence could be assumed. The more rational minded being is more likely to claim that there are other more logical reasons for what is reported therein, if those things reported happened at all.

The authorship of the Gospel According to Luke (TGatL) itself, is unproven, though it has from antiquity been ascribed to Luke, whom some say might have been a physician. The writer states that everything was “Carefully investigated .... from the beginning”, but it must be noted that he is reporting what he claims to have heard from eye witnesses about an event that happened about 30-40 years after they happened.

There are no original copies of the Gospel in existence, and what we have are from third-generation copies which differ amongst themselves to some degree, and from the older Alexandrian versions considerably. It is claimed the, Alexandrian and Western, differ in the slant, however I am not conversant to the extent that I can say how. Hopefully, those who know will endeavour to educate. The reading we have is the Western text of which it is claimed has gone through a further “process of deliberate revision”, “to form specific patterns”. At least, according to wiki.

The first chapter introduces the imminent arrival of Jesus Christ the Messiah. It describes the birth of John by Elizabeth to Zachariah, a priest in the Jewish temple. Both John and Christ are said to be announced by angels. John, “will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God”, and “turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

The lot of the Israelites must have been dire at the time for John to be given so huge a task. I am reminded of Jonah who was sent to Nineveh on a similar mission. Had the Israelites become decadent like we have become in Nigeria perhaps - corrupt, selfish and essentially evil, and therefore needing a reorientation towards the good and the better?

Of consideration is the choice of the name, John. It is not Jewish so one might consider external influence or intent. It is historically known that the Israelites had adopted Greek and Roman influences by the time, so such assumptions might not be so far off the mark, considering they were ruled by the Romans too.

Luke 2

My Father’s Business!

I am going to jump to verse 40 where it says Jesus grew and became strong and was filled with wisdom, as almost everything narrated to that point is enough to make this a work of fiction! In my opinion, the entire chapter suffers from the same embellishments that border on the absurd. But if it was not the case that one is asked by some to literally believe it, it would not matter that it does. Fortunately, that attitude towards scripture is not what is found amongst the majority, who today grow in wisdom and stature. I cannot lay claim to knowing what God makes of them though.

Jesus is described in this chapter by a certain Simeon as "a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel', which sounds to me like a salesman selling Judaism to the Romans. Perhaps that is why the Jews weren't buying it as he never came to sell it to them.

Luke 3

What, Nairalander, is Your Fruit?

John’s day, ‘We have Abraham as our father', would be the equivalent of today's "I am a believer", or "I am born again", yet John, in one broad sweep, thrashes what many consider to be of more importance despite being privy to TGatL. Or is it not being claimed that the quality of one's fruit matters more than the fruitless beliefs that one might hold inside one's head?

Well, the ax is already at the root of those who think otherwise and do not produce good fruit. They "will go to hell", is one interpretation of how Luke places it the mouth of John, and despite all their "Father Lord Jesus Christ Haleluya and Amens!"

Oh, we know what we should be doing, but I understand how difficult it is to change (or be born again, as believers would put it). For how easy really is it to cut off one's offending hand or pluck out one's own dim eye? Is it not much more easier to cut off the offensive hand of others, or blind them?

Shows the need to be baptised in fire and spirit, I suppose.

Luke 4:1-13

Pafun will kill you

Worship the Lord your God and serve him only

I don't have to prove my Lord my God to you, kmt!

Luke 4:14-30

walk right through the crowd and go your way

Luke 4:31-37

Be quiet! Come out of her!

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A1-11&version=NIV]Luke 5:1-11[/url]

From now on you will fish for people.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A17-26&version=NIV]Luke 5:17-26[/url]

You are forgiven

The question is though, why are you not healed?

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A27-32&version=NIV]Luke 5:27-32[/url]

“Why does Jesus eat and drink with Muslims and atheists?”

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A33-39&version=NIV]Luke 5:33-39[/url]

Jesus a Hypocrite?

This is relevant to a conversation being had in another thread so I can't but reference it.

By the statement, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking,” the Pharisees are attempting to set up a fallacy. Their claim rests on the assumption that Jesus has somehow claimed to worship or follow John or the rules the Pharisees go by by setting John, and themselves, up as authority, which Jesus never did.

It must be noted that the Pharisees themselves did not have to follow John before they were able to make the allegation of hypocrisy, as is claimed in the quoted post. Jesus differs from the person referenced above however, as the referenced does claim to believe in Jesus but does not feel anyone has the right to hold him up to the mirror he claims to own.

The fact is that one sets up ones own standards to be measured against. If Jesus had claimed John as his authority, the Pharisees might have had legs to stand on when accusing him. But Jesus' standard and authority comes from 'his Father", as in, "that which is godly", or as atheist me would put it, "that which is right and proper", that being the argument all the way through TGAatLUKE after all.

The Pharisees are asking those who are marginalised and generally have not enough to eat to fast. Basically, they are asking hungry people to go without food! Can anyone of you consider how much godly contemplation one can do on a empty hungry stomach? Not much, I would suggest. And while one might be willing to share the little one has with those who have less, no one is asked to give the little they have to anyone, after all, "as much as you love yourself" goes the teaching, and not "more than you love yourself".

The Pharisees themselves would only fast after a big meal which they hardly shared with those who have eaten nothing!

Jesus is saying, "Let them at least have eaten first before they fast! You hypocrites who fast on full stomachs!"

I can't but help wonder at the hypocrisy of jet flying pastors who's congregations are starving. The giving of stones instead of bread springs to mind.

What is happening on this topic of The Gospel of Luke ? BudaAtum, I have noticed that from April to June you have been talking to yourself and giving lone answers that fits your not so hidden agenda.
Nairalands two million Christians have wisely avoided the poisonous bait CAREFULLY laid by Atheists for them.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A1-11&version=NIV]Luke 6:1-11[/url]

“Why are you doing what is unlawful?”

Seems like this Jesus dude gets to do whatever he wants even though the laws, according to the understanding of some, says one shouldn't!

Seems actions that involve the welfare or benefit of other's is exempt!

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A12-16&version=NIV]Luke 6:12-16[/url]

“You Can't Do It Alone”

Twelve, is the magic number!

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A17-26&version=NIV]Luke 6:17-26[/url]

“Blessings and Woes”

I confess that the difficulty of how I should present this portion of Luke has stumped me for so long. However, I am no clearer on what to say about it as the words speak for themself. Thankfully, I have pondered on it, and can say I have benefitted immensely from so doing. So, let me let them do what they do, is what I have decided to do, albeit with one tiny arrogant ammendment, and perhaps you would benefit too.

I, buda, looking at you all, says:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=NIV]Luke 6:27-36[/url]

Who's Your Daddy?

The entire Chapter 6 is enough to get the ire of us atheists up. The issue with it is that we just can't find any Christians who actually 'believe' it, least not by their behaviour. But let me explain.

Say I have a god whom I worship. Would I not try, really really hard to do the will of my god? I think I will. Especially if by so doing, I receive all the rewards my god promises me. But this is not only about the "great rewards"! For as the text says, "and you will be children of the Most High". And this, even more than being a Christian, is essentially what would define me as a worshipper of God, if God were my god.

Now, it might of course be that being a Christian is of more importance than being a "child of the most high". And that the rewards of being a Christian are greater than being a "child of the Most High". But I'm certain many would assume the two, being a Christian and a "child of the most high", are synonymous. So how does it work that I can have enemies whom I hate, curse those who curse me, not pray for those who mistreat me, slap others even before they slap me, not give my shirt to those who take my coat and not be kind to the ungrateful and wicked, and still claim I am a child of the Most High?

Perhaps some just have different Daddies, I can't help but wonder. Or you're just taking the piss with your God!

budaatum:
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=NIV]Luke 6:27-36[/url]

Who's Your Daddy?

The entire Chapter 6 is enough to get the ire of us atheists up.
The issue with it is that we just can't find any Christians who actually 'believe' it, least not by their behaviour.

As many you find that believe it would suffice. The more the merrier.
No one, not even Christians, have a monopoly of believing it

budaatum:
But let me explain.

Say I have a god whom I worship. Would I not try, really really hard to do the will of my god? I think I will.
Especially if by so doing, I receive all the rewards my god promises me.
But this is not only about the "great rewards"!
For as the text says, "and you will be children of the Most High".
And this, even more than being a Christian, is essentially what would define me as a worshipper of God, if God were my god

What would be the will of this fictional god?
Mind you, the underlined god, in the emboldened, should have it's first letter capitalised and not be a first letter lowercase

budaatum:
Now, it might of course be that being a Christian is of more importance than being a "child of the most high".
And that the rewards of being a Christian are greater than being a "child of the Most High".
But I'm certain many would assume the two, being a Christian and a "child of the most high", are synonymous.

So how does it work that I can have enemies whom I hate, curse those who curse me, not pray for those who mistreat me, slap others even before they slap me, not give my shirt to those who take my coat and not be kind to the ungrateful and wicked, and still claim I am a child of the Most High?

You're right about the assumption, that many think being a Christian and a "child of the most high", are synonymous.
Sadly the assumption is wrong, and this all happened from supressing the truth

Its similar to being Black and being called a nigger.
No matter how much anyone wants to sugar coat the truth, the two are not synonymous

It works with the powerful four letters word – "LOVE"
Love conquers all and that's why Love encourages us, to do good

budaatum:
Perhaps some just have different Daddies, I can't help but wonder.
Or you're just taking the piss with your God!

Your conclusion actually is spot on.
Spiritually, there are two:
Daddy and daddy aka Father and father

Not taking the piss, just admittedly, a work in progress mere mortal

MuttleyLaff:

Mind you, the underlined god, in the emboldened, should have it's first letter capitalised and not be a first letter lowercase.

You noticed the use of the carefully chosen 'd' in a word at the end. Consider the 'gs' to be carefully chosen too.

budaatum:
You noticed the use of the carefully chosen 'd' in a word at the end. Consider the 'gs' to be carefully chosen too.

If you want to be defined as a worshipper of God,
then your "if God were my god"
should be "if God were my God"
Please, at least, be consistent.

MuttleyLaff:
If you want to be defined as a worshipper of God,
then your "if God were my god"
should be "if God were my God"
Please, at least, be consistent.

I think you know me to be a person who carefully chooses words, and even letters, I use. I strongly suggest you understand what I mean rather than try to twist what I say to mean what you want me to say.

God, is not my god, nor do I "want to be defined as a worshipper of God" ! I strongly adhere to the law that states "buda shalt not make unto buda any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: buda shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them." (barv)

Have you not heard me state that gods (including God) are things created in the minds of those who create them, hence they are figments of the imagination? And did not even you say that I am god? Though I am not jealous of myself (it's stupid to be), and do not punish anyone but myself for my iniquities, nor do I bow down and worship myself since the more effective way of doing so is to do to those here whom I see, as opposed to the figment of my imagination which I see not.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42&version=NIV]Luke 6:37-42[/url]

Kaizen is a Japanese word that means continually improving. By implication, however good one is today, by striving, one would be better tomorrow.

It is a common fault that people think they currently are the best they can be. But those who have lived long enough would know that there are quite a lot of times in the past when they thought they had arrived, only to eventually discover they were still on a journey.

I experience this mostly with books. There have been numerous times when on reading a particular book, it felt I had found the elixir of life, the holy grail, the philosophers stone, only to subsequently read another book that is much more holier, grailier, philosophical, stonier, elixirier and life affirming. Born againers might understand this by the fact that over time, they become born againier, as in born again again, and again and again and again.

Seeing the forest in one's own eyes takes some doing. It is much easier to look outwards at the speck in the eyes of others than to see into ones own eye, after all, you need a mirror. And who amongst us does not look into the mirror and ask, who's the most beautiful of all, and thereby see one's own beauty and not one's flaws?

The ability to see one's own errors is of immense benefit. While it is more likely one sees the good and the better in oneself, seeing the bad allows one to determine if one would like to improve and be better and evolve and be good.

It is for this reason that I implore you to disregard this 'judge not' rule where buda is concerned. For when you point out the forest in my eye, you give me the opportunity to reflect, consider, and decide to remove it so that I can clearly see and perhaps help you evolve and improve too.

By judging buda, you make buda budarer.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A+43-45&version=NIV]Luke 6:43-45[/url]

Many claim "belief" is more important as far as Christ is concerned, yet here is Christ himself proclaiming what one does, the fruit of one's belief, one's actions, are more relevant. This idea is further elaborated on with the Parable of the Samaritan, and the fact that some believe but do not "my will".

Some would claim those 'believers' who do not, do not really believe, but I would claim that they sure do believe much more that atheist buda does, or than the unbelieving Samaritan did.

Does 'believing' 'save' you? You would be the judge of that I guess.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A46-49&version=NIV]Luke 6:46-49[/url]

Lord Lordism!

There is indeed a sort of Christianity that could best be described as Lordism. It's fundamental characteristic is to elevate "Lord, Lord" over 'work work'! Somehow, those who practise, or rather, 'believe', have a complete disregard for "do my will". Or perhaps they've read somewhere that the will of their Christ is "believe as I do". They are quick to point to "For God so loved the world" and numerous other verses to justify believing with disregard to whatever other verses have to say on the topic.

Some must most certainly not have read that 'believe' is a thing shared in common with the devil. They further confound it with asking one to fear, which is also a thing devils do. Makes one wonder if satan has not overtaken even the minds of some without their knowing. Ironically, they are one's to evoke the antichrist when referring to others.

Considering "believe" was what those Christ continously argued with and against peddled, saying they gave people "stones instead of bread", one could say he absolutely abhorred such notions, and in fact claimed those who "act not on his words were foolish"! He himself appears to have some element of disbelief, or at least, not holding beliefs in such high esteem with his working on the Sabbath, equating himself with God, forgiving sins and dishonoring his parent to name but a few instances where he appears to disregard scripture.

James said, "Show me your faith without your works (beliefs), and I will show you my faith by my works (fruits)". The road is way narrower than to believe that the thoughts you cook up in your head would take you to a desired destination. Indeed, those who believe it would are foolish people who build on sand! The wise would know that rain will fall, torrents will rage, and the winds will blow them away, eventually!

I would say "understanding" is way more important than mere 'believing'. For when it is said that one should first "seek the Kingdom of God", surely, doing what even satan does could hardly be what could have been meant. Unless God loves satan too, of course!


For further discussion on this topic, see jesusjnr thread titled
Believing In Jesus Without Obeying His Words' Like Building A House On Sand

budaatum:
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A46-49&version=NIV]Luke 6:46-49[/url]

Lordism!

There is indeed a sort of Christianity that could best be described as Lordism. It's fundamental characteristic is to elevate "Lord, Lord" over 'work work'! Somehow, those who practise, or rather, 'believe', have a complete disregard for "do my will". Or perhaps they've read somewhere that the will of their Christ is "believe as I do". However, no one has yet to show me where Christ said you must believe! Yes, they are quick to point to

Bros i dey hail oh! I dey see your handwork oh and i wanted you to know that. I for say God bless you but as you no believe say hin dey, i go talk the 'God' in the spirit and 'bless you' in the physical.

jesusjnr:
Bros i dey hail oh! I dey see your handwork oh and i wanted you to know that. I for say God bless you but as you know believe say hin dey, i go talk the 'God' in the spirit and 'bless you' in the physical.

There's another fundamental error made by some religious people. They tend to reduce the existence of God to a belief, as if, if one does not believe God exists, God disappears in a puff of disbelief and stops existing. If they did not think this way, they would not bother arguing whether God exists or not. For if God truly exists, they would accept that God created all regardless, even the atheist who says otherwise. It's why, if I were a Christian, I would not ever insult God by claiming "I believe my God exists", since I would more than believe, and know my God exists!

It's unfortunate too that people treat Jesus Christ as a god, even though he proclaimed himself a human being. It allows them to disregard the essence of his ideology as contained in the Bible and bow down and worship him instead of doing his will. And when they see someone else driving out demons they try to stop them, because, according to them, "they do not believe as we do". They do not understand that receiving "even a cup of water" does not depend on the faith of the giver, but on the faith of those who "bear the name of Christ" who are in receipt of the "cup of water", for they "will never lose their reward".

But as is said, not to everyone is the gospel preached. While the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised - whether they believe or not - the good news itself is proclaimed to the poor, for they are not blinded by spirits! Those who are blinded by spirits "preach Christ out of envy and rivalry". But those who mud has been spat on and rubbed in their eyes and can see, "preach out of goodwill". "The latter do so out of love. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble." If they but comprehended, they would know that what matters is that "one conduct oneself in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ", which is "do my will". And not the mere uttering of "lord, lord" and "I believe", which even devils do.

Quotations for this post are from the baav.

budaatum:

There's another fundamental error made by some religious people...

One thing i initially wanted to clarify with such ones who emphasize to "believe" and not to "obey", but changed my mind when i saw the extent of their blindness, so as not waste such gems on them, is what they meant by "believe" because i've come to realise that same word means different things to different people. For instance when Jesus used the word in "For God so loved the world..." he meant "obey" but it was typical Jesus doing what he does best in hiding those gems of the kingdom from the blind and unwilling, but revealing them to those who are willing to see. And you can get the Jesus version from other sayings of his such as: "...if any man keeps my saying, he shall never see death"(Jn 8:51), in other words he shall not perish right? And then "i know his command is life everlasting, what i speak therefore even as the father said to me so i speak"(Jn 12:50) which is everlasting life right?

jesusjnr:
Onething i initially wanted to clarify with such ones who emphasize to "believe" and not to "obey", but changed my mind when i saw the extent of their blindness, so as not waste such treasures on them, is what they meant by "believe" because i've come to realise that same word means different things to different people. For instance when Jesus used the word in "For God so loved the world..." he meant "obey" but it was typical Jesus doing what he does best in hiding those gems of the kingdom from the blind and unwilling, but revealing them to those who are willing to see. And you can get the Jesus version from other sayings of his such as: "...if any man keeps my saying, he shall never see death"(Jn 8:51), in other words he shall not perish right? And "i know his command is life everlasting, what i speak therefore even as the father said to me so i speak"

Jesus is not written to have said, "For God so loved the world"! Nowhere in the Bible is that verse said to have been said by him. It's in fact, such an out of context statement that one can only assume someone thought to add it to the chapter. Despite that, interpreting it in light of what Jesus is written to have said, "believe" hardly conveys his message. Nor would it be a problem if many do not literally understand that more than mere 'believing' is meant, despite the numerous verses that suggest it isn't.

I would suggest that the time is right to reveal the "gems of the kingdom" to the "blind and unwilling". Not doing so might be deemed as hiding one's light, and finding treasure and keeping it to oneself. If I'm not wrong, the punishment is to spend "three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish".

So when you go to that very saying and leave everything else but only substitute the "believe" with "obey his words" what you'd get is "For God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten son. That whosoever "obeys his words" shall not perish but have everlasting life." And i consider that saying to be divided into three parts, namely, the God part which is "grace", and the human part, which is "obedience". And then the third and last part which is what you'd get when you put the first two together which everlasting life. So if it's just the one part even that of God which is "grace" then the deal would not be complete and hence can never result in the everlasting life. This can be corroborated by several other sayings of Jesus such as that of "if a man hear and does not keep my saying" for the fall of the man's house signifies him perishing and not having everlasting life. Hence whenever i hear Jesus use the word "believe", i take it to mean "obey"!

budaatum:


I would suggest that the time is right to reveal the "gems of the kingdom" to the "blind and unwilling". Not doing so might be deemed as hiding one's light, and finding treasure and keeping it to oneself. If I'm not wrong, the punishment is to spend "three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish".

Not at all for what else are such gems meant for, but to be disseminated to men, that they would be converted or even grow and develop spiritually for those are already so. However we speak of the importance of the doing part of Jesus words, and Jesus instructed me not to gives such gems to those who would see it as thrash, otherwise they would trample it under their feet, and then come to tear me apart. Hence this is only done in obedience to his words for i wouldn't want to be one of the foolish ones, would i? So i don't have any problem giving such to those that are able or willing to discern its value but when i'm certain that it's just a joker, i desist