Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>>So I see it more as an adaptation and expansion of the end of Luke rather than an unrelated scripture by different writer. Another minor point is that the writer sees the disciples popping between the house in the city and the one in Bethany (over the hill from the mount of Olives).
How do you see it now?<<
RESPONSE:
There is an obvious discrepancy between the same day and 40 days later.
And, yes, among the contradictions in the post Resurrections accounts in the four gospels, the they stayed in Jerusalem or they went to Galilee difference is very obvious.
Of course, if we accept the Galilee three day journey, then Luke's Gospel Ascension account the same day as the Rsurrection is chronologically impossible.
>>So I see it more as an adaptation and expansion of the end of Luke rather than an unrelated scripture by different writer. Another minor point is that the writer sees the disciples popping between the house in the city and the one in Bethany (over the hill from the mount of Olives).
How do you see it now?<<
RESPONSE:
There is an obvious discrepancy between the same day and 40 days later.
There is. I guess it comes down to whether you buy my suggestion that Luke revised his story to make it 40 days rather than a day or so. If not, then Luke and Acts were written by different people and the Acts - writer just wrote a sequel to Luke. But then, Luke clearly intended to write a sequel as he referred to the promised Pentecost event.
Quote:
And, yes, among the contradictions in the post Resurrections accounts in the four gospels, the they stayed in Jerusalem or they went to Galilee difference is very obvious.
Of course, if we accept the Galilee three day journey, then Luke's Gospel Ascension account the same day as the Resurrection is chronologically impossible.
I have seen some arguments that try to fiddle a journey to Galilee into the staying in Jerusalem scenario, but I don't buy it for a minute. The other writers seem to have the disciples returning to Galilee and staying there but Luke needs them to stay in Jerusalem to await the Pentecost event and indeed to found the Saints/elect party as he knew that was where Paul was summoned in 50/51 AD to explain himself.
So Luke seems to have it right, even if he is in the minority.
Luke 24: 50-51 “50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.” (NRSV)
Acts 1: 9 “9When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.” (NRSV)
Luke 23.43 has Jesus go to heaven on the day of his crucifixion. Luke 24.51 has Jesus go to heaven on the day of his resurrection. Does this mean that these chapters were written by two different Lukes?
Luke 23.43 has Jesus go to heaven on the day of his crucifixion. Luke 24.51 has Jesus go to heaven on the day of his resurrection. Does this mean that these chapters were written by two different Lukes?
RESPONSE:
No. It means that the writer of Luke made another of his errors.
Luke 23:43 "He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’
Jesus didn't go to Paradise until after his Resurrection. It's even in the Apostles Creed.
CCC 631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens." The Apostles' Creed confesses in the same article Christ's descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth
No. It means that the writer of Luke made another of his errors.
Luke 23:43 "He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’
Jesus didn't go to Paradise until after his Resurrection. It's even in the Apostles Creed.
CCC 631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens." The Apostles' Creed confesses in the same article Christ's descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth
Doesn't this then mean that Acts 1.9 could also have been written by the writer of Luke, making another of his errors?
No. It means that the writer of Luke made another of his errors.
Luke 23:43 "He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’
Jesus didn't go to Paradise until after his Resurrection. It's even in the Apostles Creed.
CCC 631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens." The Apostles' Creed confesses in the same article Christ's descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth
Thanks. Yes, Luke's 23.43 seems to be a blunder as it would mean that Jesus did not only rise before the third day but even before the first day had started. I did have an explanation that Jesus didn't rise to his father - after all according to John, he hadn't done that even when he appeared to mary, but that is rather fiddling with semantics. When he was up and about the angels or men in white coats or whatever said that he had risen and risen as he had said - which was on the third day. Thus Luke had blundered and it was only he who had blundered because he could not resist elaborating the synoptic remark that the crucified robbers also reviled him.
Doesn't this then mean that Acts 1.9 could also have been written by the writer of Luke, making another of his errors?
That's rather what I suggest - or rather, he elaborated, taking 24.45 onwards (which looks like a lecture on the Sunday night) and expanding it to an ongoing 40 -day Bible - class in Acts 1.
As I mentioned, another writer could have done the continuation, but I note that Luke left it open for a sequel by referring to a promised gift of power from on high -which we get at Pentecost in Acts.
But of course "Since we are looking at a date around 50 AD or later for 2 Corinthians, a Lucan gospel of 80 AD is feasible ..."
However, 2 Corinthians if really written by Paul who died in 64AD, cannot refer to Luke's gospel of 80 AD.
So we are left with either a forgery or an interpolation (later addition to the text).
I agree. That comment in 2 Corinthians surely can't be related to Luke's gospel, at least as we have it now, if it is dated to 80 AD.
Of course, there is no reason why Luke couldn't have written his gospel much earlier - say ten or so years after the events, except that he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about half the time, and that suggests that he is writing his gospel long after the events and indeed refers to earlier efforts to put it all down on paper.
I agree with you in that I am far from convinced that the brother in Corinthians 2 can possibly be Luke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
