Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[reyb]

[quote name='reyb' post='1341207' date='Jul 26 2007, 05:53 AM'][indent][b][color="#000000"]Is it true that the writer of the Book of Luke have not seen Jesus??[/color][/b][/indent][/quote]


[quote name='Pio Nono' post='1342135' date='Jul 27 2007, 10:15 AM']JMJ
7/27 - Sixteenth Sunday

[b][color="#000000"]reyb,

The Fathers (especially Eusebius) tell us that St. Luke was a Gentile of Greek origin. It seems like he did not see Jesus himself, but wrote what he received from those who had seen Jesus (cf. Luke 1:2). Traditionally, his source was the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hope this helps.[/color]
Yours,
Pio Nono[/b][/quote]
----------------------------------------
[indent]Where can I find Eusebius' book/writing about this? Can I have it?[/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"]Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[Socrates]

While Luke was not personally an eyewitness of Christ's life, he wrote directly from the testimony of eyewitnesses, including the Blessed Mother Mary.

Thus Luke was a true witness to Christ in his Gospel.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp"]Good article on Saint Luke here.[/url]

Edited August 2, 2007 by Socrates

[reyb]

[indent]Socrates,
Thank you for info.[/indent]

[indent]Luke was not an eyewitness of our Lord's life. Therefore, when he refers in his introduction to the sources he has used, he includes those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (1:2), among the most outstanding of whom was the Blessed Virgin Mary. It must have been she who provided most of the information Luke gives in the first chapters of his Gospel. Luke liked to get order and chronology right--not just to satisfy his own or anyone else's curiosity, but to pass on to others precisely what the Lord wanted him to write, that is, "the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed"(1:4), the true history of our salvation. That is what his Gospel contains--and the same is true<:f> of Acts; although these two books are independent they do form a perfect doctrinal and literary unity.

(taken from LUKE by By ANTONIO FUENTES see [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp)"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp)[/url][/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]This is another version of the same verse, Luke 1:1-4[/indent]

[indent][color="#FF0000"]Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have reached their fulfilment among us, as these were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received.[/color] (New Jerusalem Bible)[/indent]

[indent]I want to give emphasize on ‘of the events that have reached their fulfilment among us, as these were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word’.

Are Prophets included in ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the word’?[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]I forgot to say - Thank you to Pio Nono for the information. I hope I did not offend you if ever I put it here in the debate forum because I just want to clarify among other things regarding the writer of the Book of Luke.[/indent]

[Budge]

[quote]The Fathers (especially Eusebius) tell us that St. Luke was a Gentile of Greek origin. It seems like he did not see Jesus himself, but wrote what he received from those who had seen Jesus (cf. Luke 1:2). Traditionally, his source was the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hope this helps.[/quote]

Youre kidding me...[the original title of this post]

This is where false Catholic LEGENDS {and "traditions"} will lead to a total doubt and repudiation of Gods Word.

How do you know Luke wasnt a disciple, there were more then just the 12....

If you dont believe in the validity of one gospel while even trust the other three?

[T-Bone _]

[quote]Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. NIV[/quote]

If he was there, why would he investigate it?

[reyb]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1347243' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:41 PM']If he was there, why would he investigate it?[/quote]
[indent]If Luke is not written by a true witness, why then the Roman Catholic Church canonized it? Why They believe that he has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and his book with God's breath in it? [/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1347107' date='Aug 2 2007, 09:12 AM']Youre kidding me...[the original title of this post]

This is where false Catholic LEGENDS {and "traditions"} will lead to a total doubt and repudiation of Gods Word.

How do you know Luke wasnt a disciple, there were more then just the 12....

If you dont believe in the validity of one gospel while even trust the other three?[/quote]
[i]You're [/i]kidding [i]me[/i]!

On the contrary, the early Church tradition [i]affirms[/i] the truth of God's Word!

Where in the Bible does it say Luke was one of the twelve? Luke was in fact a disciple of St. Paul, and his Gospel was based entirely on eye-witness accounts (which tradition says includes Christ's own mother, which is backed up by the Gospel itself).

Luke 1:1-4
[quote]1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2[b] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught[/b].[/quote]
Luke says it in the Gospel itself - he wrote down what was handed down to him from eyewitnesses.

Luke thus is a true witness and His Gospel is the inerrant inspired Word of God, as the Church has always affirmed from the beginning.

Do you disagree with [i]that[/i], Budge?

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='reyb' post='1347420' date='Aug 2 2007, 01:02 PM'][indent]If Luke is not written by a true witness, why then the Roman Catholic Church canonized it? Why They believe that he has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and his book with God's breath in it? [/indent][/quote]

[i]True[/i] witness, yes. Eyewitness, no.

[Katholikos]

One of the four criteria used by the Church in determining which of her own writings should be included in the collection of writings she named the New Testament was that it had to be apostolic; that is, it had to either be written by an Apostle or under the influence of an Apostle. St. Luke wrote what he learned from St. Paul and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St. John Mark wrote the memoir of St. Peter. St. Paul, who wrote 14 of the 27 'books' of the NT was not one of the Twelve, but was considered an Apostle by the Church. So the Gospels of Mark and Luke were canonized along with Matthew and John.

Some scholars say that only three of the 12 Apostles wrote anything -- Sts. Peter, Matthew, and John and that other 'books' in the NT were written by a self-designated "Apostle" (St. Paul) and by disciples of the Twelve Apostles.

All 73 books of the Bible were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How do we know? The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world says so. And the Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16).

[Kirisutodo333]

Let's not forget that Luke also borrowed from the Gospel of Mark as did Matthew. Luke also borrowed from the "Q" source/document as did Matthew and of course he also took from his own material. This is why the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are called the Synoptics. When reading Luke's gospel you have to take into consideration also the validity of Matthew and Mark.

paz

kiris

Edited August 3, 2007 by Kirisutodo333

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1347107' date='Aug 2 2007, 10:12 AM']Youre kidding me...[the original title of this post]

This is where false Catholic LEGENDS {and "traditions"} will lead to a total doubt and repudiation of Gods Word.

How do you know Luke wasnt a disciple, there were more then just the 12....

If you dont believe in the validity of one gospel while even trust the other three?[/quote]

reyb is simply asking a question. You think you know it all and have no need of questions. This blinds you to truth. Reyb is not a Catholic by the way, but people like you will help him along the way with your distortions of the Catholic faith and your hostile bedside manner. I've seen it many times. Thank you for being here.

Edited August 3, 2007 by thessalonian

[reyb]

[indent]Are Holy Prophets included in 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word'?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1347978' date='Aug 2 2007, 09:12 PM'][i]True[/i] witness, yes. Eyewitness, no.[/quote]
I do not get it. Can you please explain to me what is True Witness and Eyewitness?

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1348599' date='Aug 3 2007, 12:13 PM']I do not get it. Can you please explain to me what is True Witness and Eyewitness?[/quote]
Whether or not St. Luke actually physically saw Christ while on earth, he is a truthful and reliable witness to the Truth of Christ. He accurately recorded the truthful testimony of those closest to Christ.

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1348888' date='Aug 3 2007, 07:08 PM']Whether or not St. Luke actually physically saw Christ while on earth, he is a truthful and reliable witness to the Truth of Christ. He accurately recorded the truthful testimony of those closest to Christ.[/quote]
[indent]How can a man be a reliable witness. If he will say he is a true witness but in fact he is not? In that comment alone it is already a lie.[/indent]

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/3 - Seventeenth Friday
[quote name='reyb' post='1346929' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:04 AM'][indent]I forgot to say - Thank you to Pio Nono for the information. I hope I did not offend you if ever I put it here in the debate forum because I just want to clarify among other things regarding the writer of the Book of Luke.[/indent][/quote]
No offense taken, trust me. About 99% of what I say can use clarification. :

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1348916' date='Aug 3 2007, 06:27 PM'][indent]How can a man be a reliable witness. If he will say he is a true witness but in fact he is not? In that comment alone it is already a lie.[/indent][/quote]
What is a lie?

If someone accurately writes down what is told him directly by truthful eyewitness, that is true testimony. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Perhaps you need to learn the English language better.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1348456' date='Aug 3 2007, 09:08 AM']Let's not forget that Luke also borrowed from the Gospel of Mark as did Matthew. Luke also borrowed from the "Q" source/document as did Matthew and of course he also took from his own material. This is why the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are called the Synoptics. When reading Luke's gospel you have to take into consideration also the validity of Matthew and Mark.

paz

kiris[/quote]
While this has been fashionable academic theory for over a century (especially by those who do not believe the Gospels to be true accounts, but myths and legends developed generations later), it is contrary to consistant Church tradition on the subject, and is being called into doubt by more recent archeological discoveries.

Tradition is that Matthew, not Mark, wrote the first gospel.
"Modernists" pose that Matthew wrote later only because his Gospel is more detailed, and contains more miraculous events, which the unbeleiving Modernists regard as later fabrications.

The truth could just as easily be that Mark wrote a more condensed version of Matthew's original.

As for the "Q source/document" no evidence of it exists whatsoever. None, nada, zip. The "Q Source" is a purely speculative invention of 18th-century Modernists, who claim the Gospels were written centuries later from an original (hypothetical) primitive "collection of Jesus' sayings" dubbed "Q."
No evidence of this "Q Source" has ever been found, nor is it referenced by any writings from the early Church.
However, fragments of Matthew have been found dating from the mid-first century, and of John (the last Gospel) from the early second century in Egypt, showing that it was already being widely copied and circulated by that time.

Here's a couple articles on the topic of the Gospels:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea2.asp"]PROBLEMS WITH THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp"]THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPELS[/url]

Edited August 4, 2007 by Socrates