Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1434403' date='Dec 14 2007, 07:21 PM']"Long standing tradition of the Church" means a lot and nothing at all at the same time.
Where did I state the contrary as a solid position of mine? And how does the "Q" theory contradict this?[/quote]
The Q hypothesis states that a collection of Jesus' sayings was written down, then, over time, people later added embellishments and events around these sayings, resulting in the three synoptic gospels. Most proponents of "Q" do not believe any of the four canonical Gospels to be written by eyewitness, and consider the events of Christ's life recorded therein to be fictional or legendary embellishments, and only the alleged sayings of "Q" to be factually accurate.
Of course, the typical direction of this hypothesis is to cast doubt on the historical basis for Christian beliefs.

According to Q hypothesis, the Apostle Matthew did not write the Gospel Matthew, but the Gospel was written much later by a person or persons, none of them eyewitnesses of Christ, making imaginary embellishments based on a collection of written sayings of Jesus.

[quote][b]existance???? irrelevent ???[/b] What language is this? Looks like you need some English lessons to go along with your theological studies.[/quote]
Oh, so a few misspellings disprove my arguments. I'm a terrible speller when hammering this stuff out quickly on the internet - obviously, this proves me a complete idiot, and therefore my arguments regarding Q are once more proven to be bunk.
Looks like you need some lessons in basic logic.
But, obviously, you're out of your element here, and should stick to playing with your Starwars dolls.
(See, I can play the ad-hominem game too, but mine are funnier.)

[quote]This is philosophical and hypothetical. I asked for "empirical" evidence, but none was provided.

Paz

Kiris[/quote]
Do you mean physical evidence for God? Well, we have the whole created universe, to begin with. But we can't "empirically" "prove" God, as He is Pure Spirit, and therefore cannot be physically measured, etc.
But, unless I have the whole hypothesis terribly wrong, "Q" is not a pure spirit, like God or the human soul, but a document, writings in ink on a physical piece of paper. Proposing the existence of such a document would require some empirical evidence, or at least historical references. Again, you are comparing apples and onions.

And regarding ancient tradition regarding the origins of the Gospels, it was much closer to the time of the writing, handed down by oral and writtend tradition, and should not be assumed to be false unless actually proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on those people, coming centuries later, who would declare these traditions wrong.

Again, if there is such compelling proof for the Q hypothesis, please provide it.

But if your point is not to debate, but merely to make ad-hominems and to be annoying, you can go on "ignore" with the rest of the trolls.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Socrates

[reyb]

[indent]It has been said ‘make every effort to enter through the narrow door and a man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber’.

They may say, it is currently happening in our discussion since we confess, ‘the Gospel of Luke is an authentic word of God written by a true witness’ but, we differ on reason why do we accept such conviction. Reason is the key to pure understanding. The gate, the door and the reason who is Christ himself which the devil failed to realize although he speak as if he is telling the truth for it is written ‘even demons believe that there is one God’ and it is also written in other parts of the scripture that ‘the devil is a liar and no truth can be found in him’.

We are all aware of the devil’s scheme but, some may have forgotten that deception is an act from where the victim is unaware that he is being deceived. In short, a believer can proudly confess as if he is saying the truth – yes, he is saying the truth according to his own rendition to the scripture which has been forewarned ‘do not lean on your own understanding’ - but, if he failed to realize the true reason, the Christ, who is the foundation of heavenly knowledge, he will become the devil’s son who, though unknowingly, robbed the true chosen people of God of their crown and glory. He is a thief, although unintentionally, who steals the word of true witnesses by giving different meaning on their testimony and at the end branded them liars, genuine yet regarded as impostors, eyewitnesses of the word but have been said ‘they are not’.

We need to discuss it since I truly believe nobody wants to be a devil’s son neither have I wanted to be one from the very beginning. Thus, I am always ready to listen and I do expect to your kindness to do the same for me. It is the love of Christ that compels us to help one another in order to see the light of that narrow door. ‘Do not let ourselves be deceived’ apostles reminded us in their letters.

We all know, there is one and only true Jesus Christ but Apostle Paul mentioned another Jesus being preached by false preachers. He even said two kinds of gospel – meaning coming of Christ – from where he said false teachers are preaching a gospel which is ‘no gospel at all’. Now, if they are not referring to historical Jesus as the true Jesus then it only follows that there is no historical Jesus at all because there is no coming of that Jesus. We must remember, in our times, no one has ever seen such historical Jesus even the early church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church and the historians. You, yourselves in accordance with your own tradition even profess that ‘the writer of the Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitnesses of Jesus’ in reference to this historical Jesus and that is rightly so but, it does not necessary mean they did not see the true Jesus for there is other Jesus other than that of the historical Jesus. Neither, I am saying the writer of the Gospel of Luke is referring to historical Jesus since this historical Jesus is just a belief or an interpretation of a reader to the scripture.

On the other hand, if they are referring to historical Jesus which is in line with your ancient tradition and thus leading to a conclusion that Luke and the Holy Prophets were not eyewitnesses of the real Jesus– if that is true, then Roman Catholic’s ancient tradition including the issue on salvation history is binding and correct. Nevertheless, may I remind you again, this historical Jesus is just a belief – an interpretation of a reader to the scripture – but, it does not necessary mean, it is a revelation from God or historical reality. This issue is not about faith for we are all believer of God and His Christ but about the ‘the certainty of those things in which you were instructed’ as it is written in the Gospel of Luke and if you think otherwise, I want to know, in what way such interpretation becomes a revelation from God other than faith for it is written, ‘You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.’ Again, if you really think they are referring to historical Jesus, I will not ask for any evidences of his historical existence as far as this tradition is concern, that is, if you will not do it voluntarily because it may sound too harsh on this request but just explain to us, who are these false teachers who preach a false Jesus mentioned by Apostle Paul in his testimony so that we are informed and satisfied since in order for a man to know who the real Jesus is, he must have been known these two Jesus as it is written in 2 Corinthian 11:1-4

[color="#FF0000"][indent]I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough[/indent][/color].[/indent]

[reyb]

According to some philosophers, truth is the conformity between the thing and the intellect and it is clearly formulated in this way –‘to say of that which is, that it is not, or of that which is not, that it is, is false; while to say of that which is, that it is, or of that which is not, that it is not, is true.’

The above definition and characteristic of truth is a judgment of human mind or an act of mind but the Truth from God is different. It is a truth that comes in the flesh for it is written ‘Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life.’ and ‘Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, ‘. Now, if we will believe that the Holy Prophets and the Apostles including the writer of the Gospel of Luke are of God and testify to the truth from God, which is Christ. How come they can ever testify about him if they themselves are not at first were eyewitnesses of that ‘Truth in the flesh’?

[reyb]

It is written, ‘And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ’. Now, about the Holy Prophets in 1 Peter 1:10-12...

[indent][color="#FF0000"]Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.[/color] [/indent]

Therefore, these Holy Prophets are Christ disciples or Christians because they are blessed with the ‘Spirit of Christ’. And it is only proper to call them ‘servants of the word’. As it is written in Luke 1:1-2

[indent][color="#FF0000"]Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word[/color].[/indent]

Edited December 27, 2007 by reyb

[reyb]

The declaration ‘that have fulfilled among us or surely believed among us’ by the writer of the Gospel of Luke is a confession that he is one, together with at first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, in seeing what they saw and that is, the coming of the word. Now, if anyone who will say he is not an eyewitness of the ‘word became flesh’, the Christ, then you are simply saying, ‘He is a liar’.

[reyb]

In view of the above [post="1438688"]argument and presentation[/post], I do believe that the Gospel of Luke is an authentic word of God written by a true witness, though we differ in reason.

Nevertheless, this discussion is not yet over since, [post="1347243"]as T-bone asks [/post]‘if he was there, why would he investigate it?’ As if he is saying ‘if Luke is an eyewitness of Jesus Christ - who is the wisdom, truth, power, glory, image, mystery, word, son and other attributes and qualities of The Holy God – why then it is still necessary for him to ‘investigate’ as if he lacks the talent and knowledge in order to present to us a complete narration about Jesus – from birth, death, resurrection and to heaven. Then, he comes into realization that ‘it seemed good to me also to preach his coming’ in obedience to the instruction of the Lord.

It is just like writing a biography of a particular person who is already dead. Even if a writer saw him personally, he still needs to ask somebody to put into his writing all important events in the life of his subject, if he wanted to narrate it completely just like in the case of ‘infancy’. Hence, Mary is believed to be one of the many or other sources according to your[post="1426024"] ancient tradition [/post]– that is, if Jesus is the historical Jesus.

[JimFurst]

Hi, just passing through,

This and the "historical Jesus" discussions have been of great interest to me for many years. The contradictions, controversies and impications raised by the subject almost make my head hurt. Being a glutton for punishment, I continue to investigate the topic.

There is another point of view eloquently penned by Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson.
"The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels"

After being caught up in the search for the historical Jesus for so many years, I found Johnson's approach refreshing.

If you're interested, you can Google it for a synopsis.

Jim

[reyb]

[quote name='JimFurst' post='1442727' date='Jan 6 2008, 03:21 PM']If you're interested, you can Google it for a synopsis.

Jim[/quote]
Thank you. I will try to have a copy of this book.

[rkwright]

[quote]We all know, there is one and only true Jesus Christ but Apostle Paul mentioned another Jesus being preached by false preachers. He even said two kinds of gospel – meaning coming of Christ – from where he said false teachers are preaching a gospel which is ‘no gospel at all’. Now, if they are not referring to historical Jesus as the true Jesus then it only follows that there is no historical Jesus at all because there is no coming of that Jesus.[/quote]

Am I missing something, or are you making a major jump here. Lemme map it out..

Just because someone is spreading a false gospel, does not equate to there is no historical Jesus. It just means their Gospel is false.

[Galloglasses]

Another Reyb topic?

[rkwright]

No my fault... this topic was linked to from another topic, and I posted in here, accidentally bumping it up... Sorry

[Galloglasses]

An, alright then. That explains how a four page thread popped out of nowhere.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Galloglasses

[reyb]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1574937' date='Jun 18 2008, 09:52 AM']Am I missing something, or are you making a major jump here. Lemme map it out..

[b]Just because someone is spreading a false gospel, does not equate to there is no historical Jesus. It just means their Gospel is false.[/b][/quote]


[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1575122' date='Jun 18 2008, 02:28 PM']Another Reyb topic?[/quote]


[quote name='rkwright' post='1575233' date='Jun 18 2008, 03:44 PM']No my fault... this topic was linked to from another topic, and I posted in here, accidentally bumping it up... Sorry[/quote]
-----------------------------------------

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1575363' date='Jun 18 2008, 06:20 PM']An, alright then. That explains how a four page thread popped out of nowhere.[/quote]
--------------------------
[indent]If I get you correctly, this is what you mean; Protestant’s doctrine is a false gospel with respect to Roman Catholic Church. While on the other hand, it is the Catholic’s gospel or teaching that is false according to all Protestants or any other churches. In short, all of them are pointing their finger to one another for having false gospel while at the same time claiming that their own respective churches is the true one and having the true gospel. Nonetheless, all of them are looking at this same historical Jesus as their Christ.

And the reason why you said ‘if someone is spreading a false gospel, does not equate to there is no historical Jesus’, is because you are considering that the Holy Prophets and Apostles are also ‘sharing’ to this historical Jesus which I will tell you frankly, they are not.

The above set up of the entire Christianity from where all of these different churches (Roman Catholic Church, Protestants, Baptist, Mormons…etc…etc.) looking or pointing to this historical Jesus is just one group but divided into so many groups. They are one group because they share one doctrine and confession that this historical Jesus is their Lord and Christ. And because they are one group in this respect, their dissenting opinion in small matters like foundation of repentance and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment which are all based from their own interpretation and rendition to the scripture creates more groupings hence they are now saying we are not one group. But the truth remains; they are one in saying, ‘Jesus is Lord’ with respect to this historical Jesus.

Again, if you think the Holy Prophets and the Apostles is referring to this historical Jesus. Let us discuss it there.[/indent]

[rkwright]

The Apostles are 'sharing' (I would say speaking of) the same Christ Jesus. I'm not too sure what you mean by the Historical Jesus - there is only one Jesus Christ. How do we know? Because the Apostles are the early Church, and Jesus Christ told the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Church gives us the Bible, and the Bible sheds even more light on Jesus Christ. I do not believe in Jesus Christ because the Bible says so, I believe in Jesus Christ because the Church says so, and says the Bible is His Holy Word.

Actually all the different denominations are not pointing fingers. The Catholic Church is the only Church I know of (well maybe aside from the Mormons and EO) that is saying it is the true Church Christ Founded. And while all Christians look to the same historical Jesus, just as St. Paul speaks of, there are those who misinterpret and spread a false gospel.

[reyb]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1576001' date='Jun 19 2008, 09:23 AM']The Apostles are 'sharing' (I would say speaking of) the same Christ Jesus. I'm not too sure what you mean by the Historical Jesus - there is only one Jesus Christ. How do we know? Because the Apostles are the early Church, and Jesus Christ told the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Church gives us the Bible, and the Bible sheds even more light on Jesus Christ. I do not believe in Jesus Christ because the Bible says so, I believe in Jesus Christ because the Church says so, and says the Bible is His Holy Word.[/quote]
-----------------------
[indent]The Catechism speaks about Jesus Christ [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM[/url] – This is the One I called ‘historical Jesus’ and his coming the ‘historical gospel.’. I used the term ‘historical’ because of a belief that this Jesus Christ comes in this world more or less 2000 years ago. Please read [post="1333184"]my previous post [/post]in One True Church. [/indent]

Edited June 19, 2008 by reyb