Paul's Epistles and the Gospel

[Sparko]

Luke is a very common name. Is everyone named George president of the United States?

Where is the text? What verses from Acts says that the author was the same Luke as in Col 4:14 and 2Ti 4:11? What verses in Acts says that the author new Paul.

I already pointed out that the author of GoL and Acts does not agree with Paul on the most important point of Paul's, that Paul was an apostle. That alone shows that they were not pals.

who cares what his NAME was. the point is that the person who wrote Acts claims in acts to have traveled with Paul. Paul traveled with several people. The most likely person who wrote acts is Luke, because the church has always claimed this right from the beginning. There are no copies of Luke attributed to any other person. If the authorship was unknown you would expect to find some copies attributed to other people. you don't.

The point of this thread was that you claimed that Paul didn't know about the gospels. We have shown that Paul quoted directly from the Gospel of Luke, and the writer of Luke claims to have been traveling with Paul - it makes no difference if his name was not Luke at that point.


Therefore Paul knew of at least ONE of the 4 gospels. and most likely Matthew and Mark since is is suspected that Luke used parts of them, and was written AFTER them.

[Sparko]

I said he wrote that "it was written", i.e. something written down. Of course "sayings" can be, and routinely are, written down. That something is written down does not mean it is not a "saying". That two sources report the same saying does not mean one copied the other, much less in any particular order.

BZZZT. if you are going to argue you need to at least the sources you are arguing about. He doesnt say "it is written" he says:

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

He calls it scripture. and as Jaltus has shown, it is definitely quoted from the gospel of Luke.

[Tladatsi]

Damienl,

You did not read the thread back far enough, you are missing some of the nuances.

It is a necessary condition of scripture that it be written down, not a sufficient one. A text must be regarded as authoritative to be considered part of `scripture'.

The meaning of the Greek word "grafe" just means something that is written. Paul uses this word to mean the Tanakh but that is not its only meaning. Paul was saying in Tim that he was quotes from something that was written down. It is not clear at all that he means the GoL as two other correspondents here assert. My point is that the text of Tim does not even suggest the existence of any Gospel, much less GoL. If we take the text at face value, it merely suggests some written document that has that quotation of Jesus in it which Paul quotes.

IIRC, the scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century. As for Q, it's possible, but I'm not sure it's likely.

In its final form that we have, that may be true. However, the core of the document, minus the later gnostic additions, is probably much older.

You know what arguments from silence are worth...

The entire hypothesis that the author of GoL and Acts was a contemporary of Paul's who wrote GoL and Acts during Paul's lifetime and was the same Luke mentioned in Paul's letters is an argument from silence. There is nothing in any of the texts to suggest this. Why then would we suppose this?

I would not there is not such thing as the "argument from silence" outside of Biblical studies. In any other field of human study it is called "There is no evidence to support your theory." Anywhere else the lack of evidence IS evidence against a hypothesis.

Maybe because his writings don't focus Luke? Because his readers already knew who Luke was and what he had done. Do you always provide a complete biography of everyone you ever mention in passing in your letters, especially if they are well known?

Consider two hypothesis

1) The physician friend of Paul, named Luke, mentioned in passing in two letters is the author of the GoL and Acts.

2) The physician friend of Paul, named Luke, mentioned in passing in two letters is NOT the author of the GoL and Acts.

Is there anything in the letters of Paul to support hypothesis 1. Is there anything in text of either Luke or Acts to support hypothesis 1. Well they both have the same first name (we don't know any family names or nick names for either) and they both know Paul in one way or another. Other than that there is nothing. Luke was a very common first name in the Greco-Roman world.

The author of GoL and Acts there are exactly 12 apostles, those who followed Jesus while he was alive. When Judas Iscariot died, two were nominated to take Judas’ place, Joseph “Barsabas” Justus and Matthias. By lot, Matthias was chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth. There are only 12 and they must be chosen by Jesus or by God, as revealed through a lottery.

Paul on the other hand believes others may be chosen, himself for example who never knew Jesus, was not chosen by him, nor so designated by the other apostles.

As noted above,
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...78#post2250978

Paul emphatically and repeatedly says that he is an apostle, just as much, as Peter, James, John, etc. Yet the author of GoL and Acts never calls Paul an apostle but calls the others, in particular Peter, apostles. It seems to me, if Luke were indeed Paul's very good friend, the one thing he would call Paul would be the one thing he called himself, an apostle.

Because he's writing to Christians who already know about such matters? Because he's writing them letters for very specific reasons (give them instructions about important matters, answer questions,etc.) and not to tell them about the life of Jesus, which they already know?

Why would we suppose that? What is the evidence?

They would have to have been regarded as equally authoritative as the OT to be quoted alongside it.

Since we have no idea what the text in question was, what it said, or who would be an authority to say that they were equal to the Tanakh it is just speculation.

I

1) that the Luke Paul mentions is also the author of Luke and Acts, that Paul quotes from his work, and that the Church got it right
2) that there are two Lukes (or rather a `Luke' and the unknown author of `Luke' and `Acts'), that Paul quoted from Q or another source which he regarded as authoritative but is lost to us (why the Church would have lost a text that was on par with the OT is anybody's guess), and that the Church got it all wrong.

I think 1) is more likely.

Consider the letters of Peter and James or even Paul himself. They all say "I am X, I have special personal knowledge you need to respect, I am writing this letter, and this is what I think about..." There is no question who claims to be the author or what his special source of knowledge is.

In contrast, the author of GoL and Acts, does not identify himself, makes no claim of special knowledge other than having access to written sources already in circulation. James says he is the brother of the Lord. Peter tells you he is the apostle of the Jesus. Paul tells you he communicated directly with God and Jesus. If the author of GoL and Acts had actually known Paul, it would have added weight to his story to have said so and he would have been following precedent. Why would a companion of Paul, write a very long story about Paul, but not mention that he was a companion of Paul?

Indeed, no one suggests that the author of GoL and Acts is one of the Lukes mentioned in Paul's letters until Jerome, writing centuries later.

That is how I see it.

[Tladatsi]

When was 1 Cor written? When was 1 Timothy? What is the earliest date Acts could have been written? Think about it...

GoL was written between the writing of 1 Cor and 1 Tim? Does anyone know when these letters were written much less when the GoL was written?

Seriously, pick up an introduction to the NT before challenging the authorship of one of its books.

Since the author of GoL does not claim to be the physician of Paul's letters or even to have personally known Paul, nor does Paul claim to have known any Gospel much less one written by a friend of his, I am not chalanging the authorship of any Gospel.

[Tladatsi]

BZZZT. if you are going to argue you need to at least the sources you are arguing about. He doesnt say "it is written" he says:

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

He calls it scripture. and as Jaltus has shown, it is definitely quoted from the gospel of Luke.

As others have noted, the first quote is from the Tanakh, not GoL. In the second case, even if we accept the that the wording is the same, it does not prove that the source was GoL, only that they both had the same source.

[Sparko]

As others have noted, the first quote is from the Tanakh, not GoL. In the second case, even if we accept the that the wording is the same, it does not prove that the source was GoL, only that they both had the same source.

I never said the first quote was from Luke. the point is that he quoted both the Old testament and the new testament and called them both Scripture. Not "a" scripture either, "THE" scripture. He put the second quote on the same authoritive level as the first one. So it was not from just some other source, it was from actual holy scripture and the only place in scripture those words come from is in Luke.

Therefore he was quoting Luke.

[Tladatsi]

Does the author of the GoL or Acts make such a claim? I have been waiting for someone to provide a citation for that. No such claim is made in the introduction to either book. Indeed, in GoL 1, the author states the sources that were used in preparation of his two part book and claims nothing more than existing written materials already in circulation in the Christian community. However despite repeated requests, no one has provided such a citation.

Since no one else seems to know, I will have to do it myself. There are passages in Acts where the story teller - Luke - switches from "they" to "we". For example in Acts 16, the story begins with Paul and Silas meeting Timothy in Asia Minor and plans to go on to Europe through Troy. Paul and Silas are described as "they" in the text. Suddenly the "they" becomes "we"

Acts 16:6-13 - They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. A vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis; and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

Then a few verses later, "they" return and are again identified as Paul and Silas

Acts 16:22 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities, and when they had brought them to the chief magistrates, they said, “These men are throwing our city into confusion, being Jews, and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans.” The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

That is the real claim - the "we" sections of Acts. They make no sense from a literary or story-telling perspective. The story begins with Paul and Silas as "they" and ends with Paul and Silas as "they" but mid way through it becomes "we" without any transition introducing "Luke" as now traveling with Paul and Silas or later a departure when it is "they" again. (Don't thank me for providing the citation on one else would).

Some no doubt read this as a grammatical error of some sort as it is totally out of the trajectory of the story without any transitions. Notably Paul makes to reference to Luke as a traveling companion with Silas in his letters. Also, while there are "we" passages, there are no "I" passages nor any "Luke" passages.

However, If we accept the text as is and read the text to mean that Luke has joined Paul and Silas then he did so only briefly in Asia Minor and Macedonia for later the "they" is back.

I will say that this is not from where I sit any solid claim of direct contact between the author of Acts and Paul.

who cares what his NAME was. the point is that the person who wrote Acts claims in acts to have traveled with Paul. Paul traveled with several people. The most likely person who wrote acts is Luke, because the church has always claimed this right from the beginning. There are no copies of Luke attributed to any other person. If the authorship was unknown you would expect to find some copies attributed to other people. you don't.

The point of this thread was that you claimed that Paul didn't know about the gospels. We have shown that Paul quoted directly from the Gospel of Luke, and the writer of Luke claims to have been traveling with Paul - it makes no difference if his name was not Luke at that point.


Therefore Paul knew of at least ONE of the 4 gospels. and most likely Matthew and Mark since is is suspected that Luke used parts of them, and was written AFTER them.

[Tladatsi]

I never said the first quote was from Luke. the point is that he quoted both the Old testament and the new testament and called them both Scripture. Not "a" scripture either, "THE" scripture. He put the second quote on the same authoritive level as the first one. So it was not from just some other source, it was from actual holy scripture and the only place in scripture those words come from is in Luke.

Therefore he was quoting Luke.

That is a big leap. Even if we accept that he meant "THE Scripture" as opposed to "The written text", it does not follow he was speaking of the GoL. We know that there were many early Christian texts - including Gospels - the GoL did not become "The Scripture" until the Council of Nicea.

[Sparko]

That is a big leap. Even if we accept that he meant "THE Scripture" as opposed to "The written text", it does not follow he was speaking of the GoL. We know that there were many early Christian texts - including Gospels - the GoL did not become "The Scripture" until the Council of Nicea.

The reason it was added to the canon at nicea was BECAUSE it was already scripture. They didnt just randomly pick books and say "lets make this scripture and this not" - one of the criteria was that the book was already considered and used as scripture by the church for the last couple hundred years.

But it is obvious that you are on a mission to just dismiss any evidence that proves you wrong no matter how far of a stretch you have to make to do so.

have fun with that. We have answered you over and over to show that Paul knew of the gospels (at least one)

if you don't accept that, then that is your problem. You seem to be in the minority on that opinion.

[Jaltus]

The author of Acts does not introduce Acts by saying - "Oh, in the previous book I went off of written sources but now I am going to base this on what I learned from Paul". He makes no indication that he using a different set of sources for GoL as opposed to Acts.

Except that he changes to first person plural a few times.

Oh, wait, that destroys your entire theory! Whoops...

[Tladatsi]

Well you have yet to answer my point about apostleship. The word apostle - singular - is used 19 in the Christian Letters, 16 of those are in Paul's Letters, and all of those are used to describe himself. Plus three times he uses the word "apostleship" to describe his position twice. Peter uses the word apostle but twice, both times to describe himself.

GoL mentions Peter 19 times and Acts 55 times. Acts calls Peter an apostle (e.g. "...Peter and to the rest of the apostles..." (Acts 2:37) or "Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said..." (Acts 5:29)). In Acts the word apostle is used 30 times and is never applied to Paul. The author of Acts is quite clear that there are twelve apostles, and only twelve. After Judas commits suicide, there are only eleven apostles. In Acts 1:23 they nominate two men to take Judas' place - Joseph / Barsabas / Justus and Matthias. By lots only one was selected, Matthias.

Paul is mentioned in Act around 120 times but is never called an apostle or mentioned among them.

The author of Acts is unambiguous, there are twelve apostles, not more or less. They are a group, a collective, that works and lives as a group. Moreover, only those chosen by Jesus or the other apostles can be an apostle. Paul who never knew Jesus, only met three apostles (James, John, and Peter), was not appointed by either Jesus or the collective of the apostles, and by the chosen words of the author of Acts, it is clear that the author of Acts did not think Paul was an apostle and could never be one.

Given how very important apostleship was to Paul, it is very difficult for me to imagine that his very good friend the physician word intentionally deny Paul the title he desired and demanded for himself.

Consider further the differences between Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Paul is best known to us for his many letters, more than all of the other apostles put together. Despite this, Acts never mentions Paul writing a single letter. The author of Acts describes Paul relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem as harmonious in Acts 15. However Paul's letters tell a completely story, one of acrimony and conflict which Paul does not flinch from. Moreover, Paul takes direct exception to the idea that there were in fact a fixed number of apostles. In 1 Cor 15:5-7 Paul distinguishes Peter and "the Twelve" from James and "all of the apostles" as they are separate groups. In Romans 16:7 Paul commends some fellow Christians as Greet ...who are outstanding among the apostles..." Paul has a very different and contradictory concept apostleship as compared to the author of Acts.

Paul also has a very different accounting of his troubles. In Damascus, the governor of the city appointed by King Aretas [the fourth of that name who ruled Damascus between 37-39 AD] is source his trouble, who sought to seize him. In Acts, it is "the Jews" who seek to kill Paul in a city run by an Arab governor of an Arab king. Likewise, greedy pagans stir up trouble in Phillipi when Paul exorcises the demons of slave girl and her owner can no longer expect to profit from him. It is always either Jews or Pagans who bring false charge against Paul. Indeed the author of Acts always has the Roman officials who encounter Paul proclaim him innocent of all charges. Acts ends with Paul spending two happy years in Rome meeting everyone and causing no trouble.

Paul on the other hand makes no such claims. He never blames the "Jews" for causing any of his troubles with authorities, nor does he mention all of the Roman officials who proclaim him innocent. He is angry at the counter-apostles and the "super-apostles" who cause trouble within the communities he founded but says nothing about any Jews bringing any charges in Roman court against him.

The reason it was added to the canon at nicea was BECAUSE it was already scripture. They didnt just randomly pick books and say "lets make this scripture and this not" - one of the criteria was that the book was already considered and used as scripture by the church for the last couple hundred years.

But it is obvious that you are on a mission to just dismiss any evidence that proves you wrong no matter how far of a stretch you have to make to do so.

have fun with that. We have answered you over and over to show that Paul knew of the gospels (at least one)

if you don't accept that, then that is your problem. You seem to be in the minority on that opinion.

[Tladatsi]

Except that he changes to first person plural a few times.

Oh, wait, that destroys your entire theory! Whoops...

There are exactly three sections of "we"'s, parts of Acts 16, Acts 20, and Acts 21. All involve voyages to or from Troy (i.e. Troas). In none of the three cases is the author mentioned even by himself much less Paul or Silas or anyone else. There is never an "I" or "Luke" just a few "we"'s. Paul, or Luke, never mentions Luke in Acts, not even a "you". Paul mentions Paul constantly in his letters, as well as Luke.

As noted before, I cannot believe that Paul's very good friend Luke would never call Paul by the title he demanded for himself, apostle.

[Adrift]

It never ceases to amaze me how creative skeptics are in pulling apart the scriptures. According to them: Nazareth didn't exist. The Gospels were written in the 2nd century. The gnostic gospels are the real bible. Paul wasn't an Apostle. Paul didn't know Luke. None of the authors connected to the Gospels wrote the gospels. Christianity copied pagan religions. Jesus never existed. Jesus never died on a cross. Jesus got married and moved to Spain. etc. etc. etc. I mean it simply amazes me that there is such a tooth and nail sort of fight to discredit every facet of Christianity.

[Jaltus]

Acts 14:14 14 "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:"

Try again.

[Tladatsi]

All I do is read what they say, is that so amazing?

It never ceases to amaze me how creative skeptics are in pulling apart the scriptures. According to them: Nazareth didn't exist. The Gospels were written in the 2nd century. The gnostic gospels are the real bible. Paul wasn't an Apostle. Paul didn't know Luke. None of the authors connected to the Gospels wrote the gospels. Christianity copied pagan religions. Jesus never existed. Jesus never died on a cross. Jesus got married and moved to Spain. etc. etc. etc. I mean it simply amazes me that there is such a tooth and nail sort of fight to discredit every facet of Christianity.