tobechi74: Luke wasnt a disciple of jesus,...he followed peter after jesus death and wrote down what peter withnessed since peter was illiterate..

Delafruita: luke 1:1 inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us
2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word
3-it seemed good to me also,having followed all things closely for sometime past to write an excellent account for you,most excellent theophilus
some scholars claim Luke never met Jesus while some claim the book of Luke wasnt written by Luke while some also say it was written by luke but not the luke who lived during the time of jesus.as confusing as that sounds,Luke 1:2 is always claimed to be an admission by the writer of the book of luke that he was not an eyewitness.why else would he say "just as they were delivered to us by those who were eyewitnesses"

Mr_Anony:

What is your confusion exactly and how relevant is it to scripture?

gst101: luke was not an eye withness. He had to rely on what other people told him (cathechism). one of his cathechists was the holy virgin mary. That is why his account of the nativity is more in depth than that given by mathew. He only could have known what discussion went on between mary and the angel, mary and elizabeth, zacharia and the angel, all of which took place in private If and only if someone who withnessd it (mary) told him.

The verses you refered to prove that the written word is no more an authority than oral tradition! This is becos written tradition (bible) came up out of oral tradition!

Delafruita:
luke 1:2 makes a good case for luke never haven met jesus.it makes a good case for most of his accounts been things he heard but was not an eyewitness himself.it also makes a case for those who claim the new testament was actually "composed" on the orders of eusebius in 325 AD. if it can be proven that luke just wrote what he heard or what he was told to write then the authenticity of the new testament is in question.

Delafruita:
it has already been established that peter didnt write the epistles bearing his name.rather it was written by silvanus who even attests this in 1peter 5:12.so if peter didnt write this but silvanus did using peter's name,isnt the authenticity of the epistles of peter called into question?

Mr_Anony:

Luke not being an eyewitness actually doesn't diminish the truth of scripture (most historians - that you would probably quote - also weren't eyewitnesses), but then it also does not make a case for those who say that in was composed in 325 AD because it was written for Theophilus (high priest 37-41) who would have been dead by 325. Also, by 325 those who were eyewitnesses would have died. This same Luke in the book of Acts, writes in a much different manner - as an eyewitness himself. This would suggest that Luke was alive during the time of Paul even though he probably didn't meet Jesus (another probability because it could also mean that he met Jesus but was not present in every instance recorded in his gospel - actually there are suggestions that he was among the 70).



Errhm....no it hasn't been established that Peter is not the author of his epistles. It is only contested. If Peter wrote his epistles by the assistance of another man, it doesn't take away his authorship. Please try to stay objective and unbiased.

Delafruita:
luke not been an eyewitness means luke relied on stories which had probably been embellished.it is established that the author of luke wrote the book of acts.it is not certain when he lived but as can be seen from the manner of writing in acts,the author wants readers to believe he was there from the beginning of the church.he wants us to take his word as authority.theologians believe the author probably knew paul and probably wrote based on what paul told him.it therefore suggests that the authot of luke(who also wrote acts)wrote the gospel according to luke based on what paul(who never met jesus) told him
i think you should take a look at 1peter 5:12 and then decide who wrote the epistles of peter.

Mr_Anony:

You know one thing you do that amuses me? You pretend to be unbiased and objective and yet you are not.
You want to claim that Luke's gospel isn't authentic because of how he wrote i.e. he seems to have secondhand knowledge but on the other hand you also want to equally claim that where Luke seems to have firsthand knowledge, he is pretending. You can't have it both ways. I'd rather you were truly objective instead of stitching theories to favor your bias.

As for 1Peter 5:12, Peter writing by the hand of Sylvanus does not diminish Peter's authorship much in the same way that you dictating a letter for someone else to actually pen it down does not take away the authorship of your letter from you. You still haven't proven conclusively that Peter's letters were not his.

Delafruita:
first,i didnt imply that the author of luke was pretending.i simply stated that it is very probable he got most of his information from paul's writings.some theologians believe he also relied on the works of josephus flavius.there is no evidence to believe he lived during the time of paul though some have suggested it.
if i were to ask someone to write a letter on ly behalf,will i allow him sign his name on me own letter?even to the extent of stating that his wife is also sending her regards to the people I am sending MY letter to?thats just not plausible

Mr_Anony:

Well, it is also not plausible that someone will start writing a letter by saying "Hi I am Peter" only to end the letter by saying "I am really Sylvanus".
How I see it, it was probably not Peter dictating to Sylvanus as such but might have been Peter giving Sylvanus a message to write to the church i.e. the authority and message of the letter is from Peter but Sylvanus may have been allowed to write it in his own style.

My friend, for all the things we have been dealing with, there is little direct evidence but a lot of "maybes". What is concrete however is the words written themselves.
To disprove anything, you have to come up with concrete proof that renders the events absolutely impossible else we will be having a futile argument of my maybes vs your maybes and that will lead us nowhere.

diluminati: the bible is just like naming a street after a big man. these writers heard from someone who heard from someone and so on to write these stories. so to give their stories more authority, they had to name them after those who claimed to be disciples or something.

Delafruita:
you want proof of a discrepancy,why does matthew say judas hanged himself while Acts says judas died from a fall?both accounts stated their claims authoritatively.and since we know Acts and Luke have the same author,it means the author of Luke and Mattew had different stories of the death of judas.and since we know constantine burns a lot of other books,its safe to assume there were many other versions of all the stories in the new testament.
awaiting your response to my question

Mr_Anony:

http://lukehistorians.com/?p=51

Delafruita:
i read through the link and if you really read through it,you wouldnt have posted it because even the author didnt provide an answer and just kept mentioning "maybe""probably".in the end he admitted that the reader should focus more on the relevance of the field of blood in bible prophecy rather than reconciling accounts of how the man who handed jesus over to be crucified,died.
this still proves that these 2 accounts are contradictory

Mr_Anony:

Exactly the same thing I have been trying to show you. once something is a "probably", it doesn't automatically mean it is negated. If I say something in Urhobo and two people translate it to English, It might sound like they contradict even though it is the same message.
Unless you can get me to say it in English, you may never get the true meaning. This is why we ask God for inspiration. Besides the bible says that the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life.
To simply discard it as untrue because it doesn't make sense to you at first glance is just unreasonable and means that you are more interested in finding faults with the message that understanding what the message is.

Delafruita:
there is no "probably" in the fact that Acts and Mattew record conflicting accounts of how judas died.that is a fact which is readily available in the Bible.
the Bible scholars resorted to "maybe""probably" because they have no way of explaining the anomaly in the accounts

Mr_Anony:

The "probably" is not in the message but in the translations. Big difference.

Quite simply one verse says that Judas hung himself and then the pharisees used the money to buy a piece of land.The other verse says that Judas died and the person that bought the piece of land was disemboweled.
Judas couldn't have returned the money then after hanging himself used the money he returned to buy a piece of land and then die again by falling headlong. The verses clearly aren't referring to the same person. Read that link again.

Delafruita:
check your bible,the verses clearly refer to the same person,judas

Mr_Anony:
Oh yeah the verses are there for you to read
Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19

Delafruita:
still same,matthew says he hanged himself,Acts says he fell in a field and his bowels burst open

Quite simply one verse says that Judas hung himself and then the pharisees used the money to buy a piece of land.The other verse says that Judas died and the person that bought the piece of land was disemboweled.
Judas couldn't have returned the money then after hanging himself used the money he returned to buy a piece of land and then die again by falling headlong. The verses clearly aren't referring to the same person.

Mr_Anony:
Read my original response again

Delafruita:
twisting the Bible to suit your own meaning should be a crime punishable by law.lol

Acts 1:16 men and brethren,this scripture must needs be fulfilled which the holy ghost spake by the mouth of david concerning judas,which was to guide them that took jesus
1:17 for he(judas) was numbered with us and had obtained part of this ministry
1:18 now this man(judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity(30 pieces of silver) and falling headlong,he burst assunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out.
1:20 for it is written in the book of psalms,let his(judas) habitation be desolate,and let no man dwel therein and his(judas) bishopric,let another take(KJV)
it is clear every reference is to judas.

Mr_Anony:

The little bracketed judases are your own invention my friend.

3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it! ”
5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.”
7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Matthew 27:3-8

16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”
18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Acts 1:16-19

Notice that in the first account, Judas doesn't buy any piece of land but returns the money to the pharisees. In Luke's account, the person who bought the land is the same person who dies by disembowelment. It is also argued (though this is not necessarily my stance) that the word translated as "man" in Acts 1:18 is houtos which can also be translated to be plural "they".
You may argue - and rightfully so - that they read different meaning to the events especially as concerns how Akel Dama came to be. One thing however that you can't prove that their accounts contradict each other.

Delafruita:
what does Acts 1:20 say?or you didnt get to that level.didnt it say "and his bishopric let another take".is that also in reference to another person?all this your twisting is counterproductive.you're putting yourself into a web.Acts 1:18 clearly says "now this man purchased a field with the REWARD OF INIQUITY"
now you are combining mathew and Acts to create a scenario while Acts and Mathew are supposed to be read apart and they should correlate by stating the same facts.the reality is mathew says judas threw away the money while Acts says he used the money to buy a field.
you can see that in Acts 1,peter was narrating the story of judas to the 120people gathered and he ended his narration by saying they have to replace judas which was why they cast lots to pick matthias in 1:26.

Mr_Anony:
As I said, you can argue that they read different meaning into the event depending on the circumstances as is seen in the prophesies quoted in Acts 1:20 and Matthew 27:9-10. I simply didn't add Acts 1:20 because i didn't think it to be that relevant to our discussion.
Actually in Acts 1, Peter's narration does not necessarily include the bracketed verse 18 and 19. It was probably Luke's commentary. Also it will interest you to note that the word "bishopric" is very likely an added word by English translators because at the time, I don't think the church had a system of bishops yet.

You are yet to show me a contradiction. You are arguing based on a bias that the bible is false and I am arguing based on a bias that the bible is true. I cannot separate Mathew's accounts and Luke's account. I have to treat them as they are, describing the same event and then based on the fact that they are describing the same event, I now look to reconcile "discrepancies" as you put it.
You on the other hand are looking for these "discrepancies" as an excuse for falsification. If you can find such and an explanation cannot possibly be given then you have a real case. If not, you are merely promoting your bias and nothing more.

Delafruita:
religion is not just an opium,its a veil.glaring discrepancies stare you in the face but you conjure imaginary scenarios to wave them away.i wonder what church you attend