GakuseiDon

Can you explain how it is obvious that Luke is writing fiction? Are you saying, for example, that you believe Luke didn't think that there was a Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem under Pilate?

GakuseiDon

I'm not worried about whether it is reliable at this stage, merely affirming that Luke is claiming that his information came (originally) from eye-witnesses to Jesus.

Again, I'm not interested at this stage whether Luke is reporting something that actually did occur. I'm interesting in making sure that my understanding of Luke here is correct -- that Luke is claiming that he is reporting events based on eye-witness testimony.

Doug Shaver

In my opinion, that manner of presentation was just a literary device. I don't believe Luke was writing fact, and I don't believe he thought he was writing fact. I believe he was writing fiction that he knew to be fiction, and I believe he would have been quite surprised to learn that someday a lot of people would think otherwise.

Johnny Skeptic

As far as I know, Luke did not claim, in the first person, that he saw Jesus perform miracles.

As far as "based upon eye-witness information" is concerned, hearsay alledged eyewitness testimonies are not very convincing, especially when they are made decades after the facts.

Why do you consider the miracles that Jesus performed to be non-historical?

GakuseiDon

:huh: Johnny, please don't keep putting words into my mouth. It's annoying and rude. Yes, yes, I know you will innocently say "But that's what I thought you believed!" But the way you phrased this is still putting words into my mouth, nonetheless. Can I ask you to be a little more considerate, please.

aa5874

There is no external source to verify or confirm the veracity of Luke, the only option is to read gLuke and look for information that is consistent and appear to be credible or to see if the author's story is filled with "holes" or blatant inconsistencies.

The story about the conception of John the Baptist appears to be ridiculous where a barren old woman conceives after her old husband sees an angel and is made dumb.

A very dumb story indeed. I don't think this event was witnessed by anyone.

The story about the conception of Jesus is equally outrageous where a young woman conceives a child through the Holy Ghost. Again, I don't think any one witnesses such event.

The temptation where the devil had Jesus on a high mountain, the baptism where the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like doves, the miracles where Jesus used spit to make people see, the transfiguration where Peter, James, and John saw people alive who were dead for hundreds of years, the resurrection where a dead man came back to life, in the nude, (he forgot to take his clothes) and the ascension where a man supposed to be dead floated through the clouds, all these are outrageous occurences and I don't think anyone saw those things.

I think the author of Luke wrote fiction under the pretense of either being an eyewitness or having heard from them.

But , according to Justin the author of Luke must have proposed "nothing new", in antiquity, these fabulous stories could have been seen and witnessed and believed even though they never happened.

Johnny Skeptic

Since it is well-known that you are a very liberal Christian, I assumed that you do not believe that Jesus performed miracles. Do you believe that Jesus performed miracles? If not, then you consider the miracles that Jesus performed to be non-historical.

I have never heard of a very liberal Christian who believed that Jesus performed miracles.

Perhaps we do not agree regarding the meaning of the word "historical." To me, the word means that something happened in the past. What does the word mean to you?

GakuseiDon

Thank you for asking rather than assuming. My other complaint about you is your habit of bringing tangents to threads, fragmenting them. If you can tie your question into the OP, I'll be glad to discuss this. Otherwise, please start a new thread.

Johnny Skeptic

Do you mean that Luke claimed to be an eyewitness himself, or that he claimed that he got his information directly from eyewitnesses, or something else? If an alleged event actually happens, as far as I know, testimonies about it have to be based upon eyewitness testimonies somewhere along the line. Otherwise, no one would ever hear about the event. Such being the case, I find it strange that you said that Luke presented his Gospel as being based on eye-witness information. If the claims that he made were true, it couldn't have happened any other way.

ModernHeretic

I've always heard that our earliest copies of the gospels were unsigned. Does anyone know the date of the earliest manuscript that reads something like "The gospel according to Mark" etc.?