Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lmbarre · 02-20-2012, 04:02 PM

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

sotto voce · 02-20-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

This is what happens when 'historians' try to curry favour with the ruling classes.

outhouse · 02-20-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

You have to take luke and base his material for the fact that he used the M source that would be for a roman audience.

Q has possibilities to be a truer source so to speak but we dont know what or if there was additional content.

Like Q, L was probably oral tradition.

I still look at jesus as a poor peasant teacher/healer who hated romans, and what were left with is a roman version of his teachings.

Grog · 02-20-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

You have to take luke and base his material for the fact that he used the M source that would be for a roman audience.

Q has possibilities to be a truer source so to speak but we dont know what or if there was additional content.

Like Q, L was probably oral tradition.

I still look at jesus as a poor peasant teacher/healer who hated romans, and what were left with is a roman version of his teachings.

It is my understanding that Q was a literary source, not oral tradition.

lmbarre · 02-20-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

This is what happens when 'historians' try to curry favour with the ruling classes.

Yes, after all, Luke is writing to the "excellent" Theophilus, apparently a man of some learning.

outhouse · 02-20-2012, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You have to take luke and base his material for the fact that he used the M source that would be for a roman audience.

Q has possibilities to be a truer source so to speak but we dont know what or if there was additional content.

Like Q, L was probably oral tradition.

I still look at jesus as a poor peasant teacher/healer who hated romans, and what were left with is a roman version of his teachings.

It is my understanding that Q was a literary source, not oral tradition.

No one know's

JonA · 02-20-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

Unless he actually believed they were.

sotto voce · 02-20-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote:

1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14

Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

This is what happens when 'historians' try to curry favour with the ruling classes.

Yes, after all, Luke is writing to the "excellent" Theophilus, apparently a man of some learning.

:hysterical:

Vorkosigan · 02-20-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

Unless he actually believed they were.

We know he didn't, because the writer of Luke added additional details to stories taken from the OT, meaning that (1) he knew that the Jesus tales were built out of the OT and (2) he knew they were fictions. It also totally invalidates his claim that he is searching for and presenting historical truth.

Vorkosigan

Minimalist · 02-20-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Yes, after all, Luke is writing to the "excellent" Theophilus, apparently a man of some learning.

Theophilus - "friend of god."

Might not be a name at all.

02-20-2012, 04:02 PM	#1
lmbarre Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: California Posts: 138	Evidence of a historization of the Jesus story Luke appears to be something of a rabid HJer. He wrote: 1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught.14 Luke wants his readers to think that he has the very best sources for his rendition of the life of Jesus--eyewitness accounts from the beginning that was watched over by "servants of the word." However, inasmuch as Luke used Q, Mark, and L, we do not find Luke using "eyewitness acounts" but rather a wide diversity of material that cannot be classified as "eyewitness reports." Instead, Luke seems to be historicizing the story of Jesus, wrongly claiming that his sources are eyewitness accounts.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.