chrisengland

Hello
I,ve looked into some of the stuff people told me to look at, I havn't looked at as much as I would have liked because my moniter broke so there will be gaps in what I say.
Anyway it doesn't appear as if prof:Robbins theory is that credible certainly I think the most damaging thing to it is that when he says "we" its not always on the sea sometimes its on land e.g. Acts 16: 10 -17.
Apparently even some scholars who don't think Luke knew Paul don't think he's got it right e.g. somebody with the surname Porter and I think sceptics on here have dought aswell. Although I ahvn't read anything supporting the theory yet so I,ll have to do that.
I think that if he did meet Paul the most pluasible explination could be that (if Paul did tell him that the deciples had a different expeirience from the Gospels) could be that as amaleq13 said he could have read Mark and Q liked the sound of them and then convinces himself that Paul agrred or that it was still right to write Acts even if Paul reported a different kind of resurrection.
I don't think he would have forgoten or got muddled up with what kind of resurrection Paul told him even of he wrote it decades later' its not something you'd forget I don't think.
One thing though I,m certainly keeping in mind is that if most liberal scholars are not convinced that he knew Paul there probably are good reasons for having dought.
chris

aa5874

You bring up an interesting point, if Luke is already a physician at around at the time with Paul, suposedly around 40 CE, then Luke was probably not in his twenties, possibly over thirty. And, Luke appears to have used information from Josephus' writings, which would mean that gLuke appeared to have been written around 93 CE or later. This would mean that Luke would be approching eighty, ninety or a hundred, if Luke was already close to fifty years of age when he met Paul.

Now, it is claimed that Luke does not know Paul, but it seems that Paul knows Luke, or I should say the author of Acts, since in Galations chapter 1-2, this Paul tries to clarify in more detail some important chronology and sequence of events which was omitted by the author of Acts in chapter 9.

Julian

While this is a complex issue and there are many arguments for and against, the main argument, in my mind, against Luke and Paul being acquaintances is that Paul's description of himself and his actions (in Galatians, especially) are quite contrary to what we find in Acts. The same could be said for the 'pillars.'

Julian

-Jay-

Just curious, but what is your understanding of the term "physician" as it was used ca. the 1^st century BCE? (I agree that the author of GLuke would have been pretty darned old when he wrote, but I'm not certain that I agree that because he was claimed to be a physician we can make too many assumptions about his age when he may have been travelling with Paul.)

Again, just curious...

regards,

NinJay

chrisengland

Hello
I think that if Luke write Acts and Luke when he was old it is certainly possible he could have gotten muddled up.
Anyway I wondered' I,ve heard the possible reasons for why the "we" passages don't necesarily meen Luke was an eye witness but I still get the feeling that most liberal Christian scholers would still think that Luke met Paul based on what I,ve read.
Skeptical scholars still probably wouldn't but as leberals are still Christians I don't think they'd have any problem saying Luke knew him but apparently their not sure. So I,m thinking that they must have some good reasons for thinking that he didn't' does anybody know what some of these reasons are?
People have suggested possible contridictions in the accounts are there any other reasons?

aa5874

In The Life of Josephus, written in the 1st century, the word "physician" implies "medical doctor".
TLJ, "......as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintances.
.......so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery, yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

And in other incident in the TLJ, ".........For the horse on which I rode, upon whose back I fought, fell into a quagmire, and threw me on the ground, and I was bruised on my wrist............I therefore sent for the physicians, and while under their hands, I continued feverish that day........"

Toto

What have you read that would lead you to this conclusion?

Sorry - I have to fix your spelling to follow what you are typing.

No one would have any problems saying that Luke (the author of gLuke-Acts) knew Paul if the evidence pointed that way. But it doesn't.

There are more than "possible" contradictions. There are actual contradictions. The personality of Paul that comes through in his letters is very different from the personality in Acts.

mountainman

Would you make up a story for money?
Did Walt Disney employ script-writers?

But wait a moment ... you're talking
about the Book of the One True God
of the Observable Cosmos (within the
Hubble Limit).

He was made out of nothing existing

--- Arius of Alexandria, 325 CE



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

-Jay-

OK. I'm still not clear what that, in and of itself, lets us infer about Luke's age, but since it's not an issue central to the discussion, there's no need to go into a digression on it. Stipulated: If the author of GLuke had travelled with Paul, then he was probably old when GLuke was written.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

What about political or social propaganda?
For the purpose of satirizing a culture?
For preserving oral traditions?
For entertaining oneself?
For entertaining others?
For the purpose of satirizing a culture?
For preserving oral traditions?
For teaching a philosophy?

Lots of reasons, in other words.

regards,

NinJay