Luke - Is He A True Witness Of Jesus Christ?

[reyb]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1576001' date='Jun 19 2008, 09:23 AM']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.[/quote]

[indent]Pointing fingers maybe not literal as it is but, may I ask, what Church was founded by Christ and his apostles? How about the other group of believers? Now, do you think it is not pointing fingers?[/indent]

Edited June 19, 2008 by reyb

[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. [b]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. [/b][/quote]

[indent]The Christ your church is saying is the historical Jesus. That is why I am saying now, that there is another Jesus which your church failed to recognize although the Book you are holding now testify about Him. [/indent]

[Galloglasses]

For goodness sake Reyb, this has been discussed in three topics already, all the Churches recognise the same Jesus, and don't you dare come at us with the same "Then how can only One Church be Right?" Schtick, thats been answered too, unless you want us to explain the concept of Heresy in this thread also. For the record, the Church is not pointing fingers, its always claimed it was the True Church Christ founded, it was only since the advent of Protestantism that attacks on that claim became popular among the [b]new[/b] Churches that Catholics have felt the need to empathise the point. I empathised the word [b]new[/b], to empathise that point that the protestant Churches [b]can't be the ones that Christ founded due to the fact that they are all, at most, [u]400 years old[/u][/b]

And don't start with that 'other Jesus' bull for the third time. [i]There was no other Jesus that the Church failed to recognise.[/i] How many times do we have to say this. Paul was speaking metaphorically. Do you want us to copy and paste exactly what we said in the other two topics to answer the same question in this third one? The Church recognises the Christ of the Gospels, I can't count the number of times Jesus is referred to as this in theological circles. There is no difference between this 'Historic Jesus of the Historic Gospels' which you keep saying, and the Only Son of God. Need me, RKWright, and others hammer this point again?

Edited June 20, 2008 by Galloglasses

[reyb]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1577883' date='Jun 20 2008, 07:28 PM']And don't start with that 'other Jesus' bull for the third time. [i]There was no other Jesus that the Church failed to recognise.[/i] How many times do we have to say this. Paul was speaking metaphorically. Do you want us to copy and paste exactly what we said in the other two topics to answer the same question in this third one? The Church recognises the Christ of the Gospels, I can't count the number of times Jesus is referred to as this in theological circles. There is no difference between this 'Historic Jesus of the Historic Gospels' which you keep saying, and the Only Son of God. Need me, RKWright, and others hammer this point again?[/quote]
--------------
[indent]Whatever I post in here, I address it not only to you but to everyone who may see and visit this thread. Thus, I expect you not to take it personally although maybe your comment is also the sentiment of others. But please bear with me; I am not doing this to insult anyone but to do what our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us – to love one another. The following is our subject verse and comment from Geneva Notes.

[color="#FF0000"]2 Cor 11:4

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].[/color]
----------------------------------

[color="#FF0000"]He shows that they deceive themselves, if they look to receive from any other man, either a more excellent Gospel, or more excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit. A more perfect doctrine of Jesus Christ.[/color]
(Comment from Geneva Notes, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)[/indent]
--------------
[indent]The above Geneva Notes simply means ‘they deceived themselves if they do not have the gospel of the apostles’. Thus, the key is ‘apostolic doctrine’.

Since Roman Catholic Church accept they are of ‘apostolic teaching’ and even Protestants who called themselves ‘bible based’ Christians, it is not surprising, they too will see our subject verse as a metaphorical statement of the writer, [post="1576071"]as you have previously posted something like[/post], the writer did not really mean ‘another Jesus’ but rather it is a flawed attributes being given to Jesus by false teachers. Again, I say, [post="1576072"]it will not work that way as I have shown you[/post]. He did not speak in a metaphorical statement but by plain and simple ‘another Jesus’ different from the Jesus he is saying.

Now, if Apostle Paul is really speaking in this regard (metaphorically), can you please explain to us why he wrote ‘another Jesus’ rather than something like, ‘For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus who do not believe that he is truly god and truly man, the way we preached Him, do not listen to them for they are false teachers.’ Again, may I know why? I am asking you because; I too wanted to learn from you. [/indent]

[reyb]

In another thread I said
[quote]
‘'almost everything these witnesses are saying is a narration of this ‘coming’ but these witnesses tell them in different narration thus, Luke said’ 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us ...’. hence his book is not a type of ‘historical event’ gathered by Luke from witnesses, 'orally' but rather a collection of narration of witnesses which was already written even before this 'coming' was also ‘fulfilled’ to himself. Luke is a true witness of Christ and he is not referring to this historical Jesus. What 'proof' you need to see?
[/quote]

Now, I said ‘Luke is a true witness of Jesus Christ’. How about you? Do you believe that Luke is a witness of Jesus Christ too?

[Resurrexi]

The St. Luke's Gospel is awesome. I love the Gospel Canticles (i.e., the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis), all of which are found in Luke.

[reyb]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 February 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1265930689' post='2055507']
The St. Luke's Gospel is awesome. I love the Gospel Canticles (i.e., the Benedictus, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis), all of which are found in Luke.
[/quote]

Again, Is Luke a true witness of Jesus Christ or not?

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]Again, Is Luke a true witness of Jesus Christ or not?[/quote]

Of course.

[Gregorius]

T-t-t-time warp!!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' date='11 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1265931072' post='2055510']
Again, Is Luke a true witness of Jesus Christ or not?
[/quote]
You have had an answer from the very first page: YES.

[reyb]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='11 February 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1265931941' post='2055522']
Of course.
[/quote]


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='11 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1265944658' post='2055627']
You have had an answer from the very first page: YES.
[/quote]


According to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp:

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.

May I know how Luke becomes a true witness with respect to the above presentation? How about in Luke Chapter 4:1 -4:13, who gives this 'information' to Luke?

Edited February 12, 2010 by reyb

[reyb]

This is our subject verse - Luke 4:1-13:

[color="#FF0000"]4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

9 The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10 For it is written:

"'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

12 Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

13 When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. [/color]
NIV
-----------------------------

If the above presentation on how Luke becomes a true witness, is correct. Who give this 'information' (about the temptation of Jesus by the Devil) to Luke’. It is the Devil or Jesus himself? (Is there anyone who witness this temptation?)

[Gregorius]

Have a look at [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#II"]this page[/url] for basics on Luke's Gospel.

Let me ask this question: was Jesus tempted by the devil?

[reyb]

[quote name='Gregorius' date='12 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1265957174' post='2055730']
Let me ask this question: was Jesus tempted by the devil?
[/quote]

Why? It is written in the scripture Isn’t it?
Now, since you said Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ; from whom this 'information' comes from?

Okay. I will repeat your [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp "]Church’s tradition in relation to the introduction of Luke as follows:[/url]

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

If your Church tradition/teaching is correct who is Luke’s source of information when he wrote this Chapter 4?

Edited February 12, 2010 by reyb

[Socrates]

[quote name='reyb' date='12 February 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1265998357' post='2055948']
Why? It is written in the scripture Isn’t it?
Now, since you said Luke is not an eyewitness of Jesus Christ; from whom this 'information' comes from?

Okay. I will repeat your [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403ntg.asp "]Church’s tradition in relation to the introduction of Luke as follows:[/url]



If your Church tradition/teaching is correct who is Luke’s source of information when he wrote this Chapter 4?
[/quote]
Probably Christ's Apostles or perhaps the Blessed Mother, who heard about it from Christ Himself.



Round 3: Historical Jesus: 213, Non-historical Jesus: 0