Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[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

[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]