Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[reyb]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1347978' date='Aug 2 2007, 09:12 PM'][i]True[/i] witness, yes. Eyewitness, no.[/quote]


[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]


[quote name='Socrates' post='1349105' date='Aug 3 2007, 10:14 PM']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.[/quote]

[indent]Okay. I get it. Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus but he become a True witness because…’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’.

In other words, He become a true witness though he himself did not see Jesus but because somebody told him about Jesus and he carefully investigated it, among other things and thus, he is now a true witness but not an eyewitness.

Is this what you mean?

[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Socrates and to all phatmasser,[/indent]

[indent]Whatever your answer is - it is immaterial to me if it will cause trouble. I am not here to fight neither to depend anything even my faith. God is our judge and he is the only One who has the authority to judge. In coming here, I have no intention to serve myself as if I am right and all of you are wrong. Even if somebody will judge me that I am wrong, that is nothing to me.

What do you think a man will gain from claiming all authority and honor as if he knows the secret of God? Although it is true that without faith no one can please God but faith is powerless when truth is at stake because, faith cannot change a lie to become truth. Our mind is limited and yet we know if we are lying. And if we lie even to ourselves rest assured truth will never come. As I already said, you yourself will decide in anything and everything we discuss. If ever I hurt anybody in bringing-out questions, it does not mean that is my intention. We are simply discussing what the truth is,[/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1349344' date='Aug 4 2007, 05:05 AM'][indent]Okay. I get it. Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus but he become a True witness because…’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’.

In other words, He become a true witness though he himself did not see Jesus but because somebody told him about Jesus and he carefully investigated it, among other things and thus, he is now a true witness but not an eyewitness.

Is this what you mean?

[/indent][/quote]
Basically.

He accurately wrote down the testimony of those who were truthful eyewitnesses, and thus testifies (witnesses) to the Truth.

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1349812' date='Aug 4 2007, 08:06 PM']Basically.

He accurately wrote down the testimony of those who were truthful eyewitnesses, and thus testifies (witnesses) to the Truth.[/quote]

[indent]How about the holy prophets are they witnessess of the Word?[/indent]

[White Knight]

Luke was a true witness, not an eye witness though, he was a disciple of Saint Paul I believe or maybe Saint Peter, however I wanna say He was a disciple of Paul.

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1349179' date='Aug 3 2007, 10:45 PM']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][/quote]
[indent]Thank you for the info.[/indent]

[indent]But may I ask, are prophets eyewitnesses of the word? How about apostle Paul, is he an eyewitness of Jesus?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1349812' date='Aug 4 2007, 08:06 PM']Basically.

He accurately wrote down the testimony of those who were truthful eyewitnesses, and thus testifies (witnesses) to the Truth.[/quote]


[quote name='White Knight' post='1353685' date='Aug 9 2007, 02:59 AM']Luke was a true witness, not an eye witness though, he was a disciple of Saint Paul I believe or maybe Saint Peter, however I wanna say He was a disciple of Paul.[/quote]

[indent]To socrates, White Knight and other phatmasser,

I want you to consider what abecius24 wrote in 'Historical Jesus' Thread. If Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus, will you consider him a historian? (because he wrote an event based on other witnesses). [/indent]
[quote name='abercius24' post='1360958' date='Aug 17 2007, 01:22 AM'][color="#0000FF"][i]You have to remember one person can have completely different values from another. This is always reflected in the writings of historians. Bias of perspective is innevitable. If these historians had witnessed the works of Jesus, then we would likely not have called them historians because they would have become disciples, and their work would have joined the ranks of other religious writings, such as the Scriptures. [topic="1360958"]Because they did not have such a personal involvement in the works of Jesus, they likely heard of them from others. So with their records ultimately reflecting "hearsay[/topic]", why would we not expect Jesus' works to be filtered of their miraculous nature. Its only miraculous to the person who witnesses the event, not the person who hears of the event from someone else.[/i] [/color]

Steve S -- abercius24
CatholicQandA.com[/quote]

[indent](I know abercius24 is not referring to luke in these words but, why not apply it to Luke that is if he is not an eyewitness of Jesus.)[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1346402' date='Aug 1 2007, 08:10 PM']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][/quote]

[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.
(from : LUKE by Antonio Fuentes).[/indent]

[indent]May I know where did Antonio Fuentes get this information about Mary as a source of information of Luke? Why he arrived to this conclusion?[/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1425596' date='Nov 27 2007, 08:35 AM'][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.
(from : LUKE by Antonio Fuentes).[/indent]

[indent]May I know where did Antonio Fuentes get this information about Mary as a source of information of Luke? Why he arrived to this conclusion?[/indent][/quote]
This was not just the personal conclusion of Antonio Fuentes, but has been the longstanding ancient tradition of the Church regarding St. Luke, handed down from the earliest times.
This tradition is backed up by the text of the Gospel of Luke itself, as it contains information that only Mary personally would be able to give, particularly pertaining to the events concerning the incarnation and infancy of Christ, inlcuding the inner thoughts of Mary herself
"But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart." ~ Luke 2:19

Why do you doubt the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke?
St. Paul was not a personal witness of Christ while He walked the earth, yet this does not mean we doubt the truth of Paul's words concerning the Christian Faith.

[reyb]

[indent]We believe and accept that the Gospel of Luke is an authentic word of God written by a true witness as his testimony regarding the fulfillment of prophecy or the word manifest best known as the coming of the Messiah, and I earnestly hold it. But, it seems the Roman Catholic Church by her ancient tradition has some variation on this subject - Luke is a true witness but not an eyewitness. Do you think Luke will agree with such corrupt statement?

I am simply saying – if you are on Luke’s shoes or suppose you are Luke himself and somebody ask you, ‘Are you a true witness of Jesus Christ?’ Can you answer something like – ‘Yes I am but I am not an eyewitness’?

In witnessing or giving one’s testimony in any particular subject – it only follows that the one who does it must have first-hand knowledge of whatever he is saying. Otherwise, it is not admissible.

Anyway, may I know in particular whose idea that Luke is a true witness but not an eyewitness? (Can I have a copy of his writing, I mean, if it is Eusebius or whoever).


Thank you all phatmasser for the info posted in here.[/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1426737' date='Nov 29 2007, 12:36 PM'][indent]We believe and accept that the Gospel of Luke is an authentic word of God written by a true witness as his testimony regarding the fulfillment of prophecy or the word manifest best known as the coming of the Messiah, and I earnestly hold it. But, it seems the Roman Catholic Church by her ancient tradition has some variation on this subject - Luke is a true witness but not an eyewitness. Do you think Luke will agree with such corrupt statement?

I am simply saying – if you are on Luke’s shoes or suppose you are Luke himself and somebody ask you, ‘Are you a true witness of Jesus Christ?’ Can you answer something like – ‘Yes I am but I am not an eyewitness’?

In witnessing or giving one’s testimony in any particular subject – it only follows that the one who does it must have first-hand knowledge of whatever he is saying. Otherwise, it is not admissible.

Anyway, may I know in particular whose idea that Luke is a true witness but not an eyewitness? (Can I have a copy of his writing, I mean, if it is Eusebius or whoever).
Thank you all phatmasser for the info posted in here.[/indent][/quote]
We'll let Luke himself answer, as recorded in the prologue to his Gospel:
[quote]Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, [b]according as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word[/b]: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.[/quote]
Luke states that he is writing down the testimony of eyewitnesses, who handed down the truth to him.
There is no "corrupt statement"; you are playing silly and pointless word games and solipsism.
We Catholics believe the Gospel according to Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, preserved from error, and contains only the truth.
Any implication that Catholics reject the truth of Luke's Gospel is pure nonsense.
Since we agree on the truth of Luke's Gospel, there is nothing to debate. Take your foolishness elsewhere.

[reyb]

[indent]It is written in Gal 1:11-12

[color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

[indent]and in 1 Cor 9:1

[color="#FF0000"]Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? [/color][/indent]
[indent]-------------------[/indent]
[indent]From the above verses, obviously, Apostle Paul is saying that he is an eyewitness of Jesus Christ and the gospel he is now preaching – he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ and not from any man.

Now, if I will follow your rendition to the scripture regarding Luke, it seems he did not receive it by revelation from Jesus Christ but rather from other man. Even if its source is an eyewitness or whatever, it will remain ‘tradition’ and not ‘revelation’. Does the Roman Catholic Church consider the Gospel of Luke a tradition or revelation?[/indent]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' post='1427246' date='Nov 30 2007, 08:46 AM'][indent]It is written in Gal 1:11-12

[color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

[indent]and in 1 Cor 9:1

[color="#FF0000"]Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? [/color][/indent]
[indent]-------------------[/indent]
[indent]From the above verses, obviously, Apostle Paul is saying that he is an eyewitness of Jesus Christ and the gospel he is now preaching – he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ and not from any man.

Now, if I will follow your rendition to the scripture regarding Luke, it seems he did not receive it by revelation from Jesus Christ but rather from other man. Even if its source is an eyewitness or whatever, it will remain ‘tradition’ and not ‘revelation’. Does the Roman Catholic Church consider the Gospel of Luke a tradition or revelation?[/indent][/quote]
Both.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1427264' date='Nov 30 2007, 10:08 AM']Both.[/quote]


[indent]If that is the case, why the Roman Catholic Church believe that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ?

How come Catholic Church accepts that the Gospel of Luke is both from man, meaning tradition and from revelation of Jesus Christ, meaning ‘revelation’ while the writer of the book himself did not get this information from God through Jesus Christ but entirely from other man?[/indent]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='reyb' post='1427450' date='Nov 30 2007, 07:23 PM'][indent]If that is the case, why the Roman Catholic Church believe that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ?[/quote]


Because Luke was did not physically see with his eyes Christ walking the earth. But Luke did write his book by the revelation of The Holy Spirit and also the testimony of eyewitness who did physically Our Lord with their eyes.

[quote name='reyb' post='1427450' date='Nov 30 2007, 07:23 PM']How come Catholic Church accepts that the Gospel of Luke is both from man, meaning tradition and from revelation of Jesus Christ, meaning ‘revelation’ while the writer of the book himself did not get this information from God through Jesus Christ but entirely from other man?[/indent][/quote]

You must understand the difference from the traditions of men and Holy Tradition. Luke received testimony from Holy Tradition which comes from God, which is pass down by the guidance of God, not from the traditions of men. Holy Tradition ultimately comes from and is guided by God alone, where as the traditions of men are made up.

Luke did not get his information "entirely" for other men. He received it entirely though God, and God used the men who where physical eyewitnesses to Christ on earth as a tool for Luke. The Holy Spirit also guided Luke as he wrote his gospel, so we know it is free from error.

As for Paul, we know he was an actual physical eyewitness to Christ because of his conversion. Christ chose to directly and physical show Himself to Paul, where as Luke while indeed received revelation from God, did so in a different manner, that being revelation of the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition.

[reyb]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1428500' date='Dec 3 2007, 02:42 AM']Because Luke was did not physically see with his eyes Christ walking the earth. But Luke did write his book by the revelation of The Holy Spirit and also the testimony of eyewitness who did physically Our Lord with their eyes.
You must understand the difference from the traditions of men and Holy Tradition. Luke received testimony from Holy Tradition which comes from God, which is pass down by the guidance of God, not from the traditions of men. Holy Tradition ultimately comes from and is guided by God alone, where as the traditions of men are made up.

Luke did not get his information "entirely" for other men. He received it entirely though God, and God used the men who where physical eyewitnesses to Christ on earth as a tool for Luke. The Holy Spirit also guided Luke as he wrote his gospel, so we know it is free from error.

As for Paul, we know he was an actual physical eyewitness to Christ because of his conversion. Christ chose to directly and physical show Himself to Paul, where as Luke while indeed received revelation from God, did so in a different manner, that being revelation of the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition.[/quote]
------------------------------

[indent]If I am correct the above reasoning is the basis of Sacred Tradition of Roman Catholic Church to wit;.[/indent]

[color="#0000FF"][indent]This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. [b]This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing[/b]. (2)[/indent]
[indent]But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3)[/indent]
[indent]DEI VERBUM ,CHAPTER II, HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION[/indent][/color]

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1349179' date='Aug 3 2007, 10:45 PM']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][/quote]

"Fashionable academic theory" is quite an understatement. And when did something need proven to exist for it to be most probably true? Where is the empirical evidence for God? In most scholarly circles, it would be considered poor scholarship to not accept the "Q" theory or at least have it as a valid option.

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' post='1427450' date='Nov 30 2007, 07:23 PM'][indent]If that is the case, why the Roman Catholic Church believe that the writer of the Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ?

How come Catholic Church accepts that the Gospel of Luke is both from man, meaning tradition and from revelation of Jesus Christ, meaning ‘revelation’ while the writer of the book himself did not get this information from God through Jesus Christ but entirely from other man?[/indent][/quote]
I have already explained how Luke himself wrote that he was recording the testimony of eyewitnesses.

St. Paul did not personally see Christ while He was walking the earth, but first met Christ in a vision of blinding light while on the way to Damascus, which resulted in his conversion from a persecutor of Christians to an apostle of Christ.

[quote]And it came to pass, as I was going and drawing nigh to Damascus, at mid-day, that suddenly from heaven there shone round about me a great light: And falling on the ground, I heard a voice saying to me: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered: Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light: but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with me.
And I said: What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me: Arise and go to Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things that thou must do.[/quote]
Acts of the Apostles 22:6-10

The truth of the Faith is preserved in the teachings of the Church, handed down from Christ's Apostles. Both Paul and Luke lived among the Apostles that had lived with Christ when He was on earth.
This can be found in the words of the Bible and in the tradition of the Church.
There is no contradiction.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1428821' date='Dec 3 2007, 08:24 PM']"Fashionable academic theory" is quite an understatement. And when did something need proven to exist for it to be most probably true? Where is the empirical evidence for God? In most scholarly circles, it would be considered poor scholarship to not accept the "Q" theory or at least have it as a valid option.[/quote]
If something is not proven to exist, and there is no solid evidence for it, we should not presume it exists. The existance of such a thing should be regarded as no more than hypothesis. There is evidence to prove the existance of God, as is taught by the Catholic Church, but that is another debate.
There is no evidence, however, for the existance of "Q." And until you can either show me some form of concrete evidence (such as a fragment of "Q"), or some ancient reference to such a document, I will stand by my word.
In fact there is no mention of such a document for 1800 years of Christian history.
It was invented by "liberal" scholars who reject the literal truth of the Gospels, as well as "traditional" Christian dogma.

There are men learned in the study of Scripture who reject the "Q" hypothesis, and their number is increasing - Did you even read the articles I linked to?
In most of the "scholarly circles" who believe in "Q," they also deny the literal truth of the four Gospels, and consider them embellishments and fabrications.
They posit "Q" as part of their explanation of how the Christian Gospel "evolved."
There is no factual reason to believe their hypothesis - and using mere "scholarly consensus" as proof in itself is poor science. The truth or falsehood of a hypothesis does not depend on its current popularity. Today's "scholarly consensus" becomes tomorrow's discarded fad.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1428882' date='Dec 3 2007, 10:53 PM']If something is not proven to exist, and there is no solid evidence for it, we should not presume it exists. The existance of such a thing should be regarded as no more than hypothesis. There is evidence to prove the existance of God, as is taught by the Catholic Church, but that is another debate.
There is no evidence, however, for the existance of "Q." And until you can either show me some form of concrete evidence (such as a fragment of "Q"), or some ancient reference to such a document, I will stand by my word.
In fact there is no mention of such a document for 1800 years of Christian history.
It was invented by "liberal" scholars who reject the literal truth of the Gospels, as well as "traditional" Christian dogma.

There are men learned in the study of Scripture who reject the "Q" hypothesis, and their number is increasing - Did you even read the articles I linked to?
In most of the "scholarly circles" who believe in "Q," they also deny the literal truth of the four Gospels, and consider them embellishments and fabrications.
They posit "Q" as part of their explanation of how the Christian Gospel "evolved."
There is no factual reason to believe their hypothesis - and using mere "scholarly consensus" as proof in itself is poor science. The truth or falsehood of a hypothesis does not depend on its current popularity. Today's "scholarly consensus" becomes tomorrow's discarded fad.[/quote]

Wow...last time I looked, this little "fashionable academic theory" is what makes up the introduction to the Gospels in the Catholic Bible (that would be the New American Bible-I'm sure you know, but just in case). Funny how a fashionable academic theory ends up in the official teaching of the Catholic church. This is just more than scholarly consensus, it's accepted by the Catholic Church, by way of the Church issuing their official Bible supporting this theory. If you want to take up this "theory" with someone, then take it up with the Church and see how your scholarship stands up to the Church's. Let me know how it goes.

Paz

Kiris