Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?

Tonyg

Member
It sounds to me that you are going to do exactly what everyone does when they approach the scriptures for the truth, you are going to let your own human reasoning and carnal intellect discern what they are saying rather than the Holy Spirit.

I believe it will be for this very purpose that the hardness of men's hearts will become so great, that they will no longer be able to respond to the truth by the discernment of the Holy Spirit and just like Jesus was giving prophecy of when he said the below words.

"I must work while it is yet day, for the night is coming when no man will be able to work".

He was obviously speaking of the day when the many different tongues of false doctrines coming from the false clergy of Mystery Babylon the Harlot church that it would be so prevalent on the earth by human reasoning, that the darkness of confusion because of it would cause that those who really know the truth will not be able to minister it to anyone because they will no longer listen.

This is what is going to bring the judgment of God upon the world and the evidence of this is when the churches go out in great numbers to vote for an arrogant sociopath autocratic dictator type like Donald J. Trump, to me this was a big sign that we are closer than ever to the judgment of God.
No, I'm actually expanding on the scriptures. I expounding on the mind and commentary of Paul in Romans 1.

The judgement was accomplished in my understanding in the first century. Those who received the knowledge and Truth of God through faith in his incarnation in Christ are already crossed over from death To Life. They are judged righteous and a right way of life and truth. Those who did not receive him but persisted in their religions and retained sin and fear of God and you had jealousy and animosity towards the freed in Christ or judged unfavorably.

as Daniel prophesied in chapter 7, the judgment sat and took effect. The time of persecuting the Christians in 66 through 69 ad stopped and was alleviated. The time for the saints to take and possess the kingdom occurred at that time.

It is the church's doctrine of a failing Church and a failing world which is in many theologians minds destined to get worse and worse which is a false doctrine and the source of the very worsening of the world.

On the contrary, it's prophesied in azania 6 that of the increase of his government and of Truth there shall be no end.
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
No, I'm actually expanding on the scriptures. I expounding on the mind and commentary of Paul in Romans 1.

The judgement was accomplished in my understanding in the first century. Those who received the knowledge and Truth of God through faith in his incarnation in Christ are already crossed over from death To Life. They are judged righteous and a right way of life and truth. Those who did not receive him but persisted in their religions and retained sin and fear of God and you had jealousy and animosity towards the freed in Christ or judged unfavorably.

as Daniel prophesied in chapter 7, the judgment sat and took effect. The time of persecuting the Christians in 66 through 69 ad stopped and was alleviated. The time for the saints to take and possess the kingdom occurred at that time.

It is the church's doctrine of a failing Church and a failing world which is in many theologians minds destined to get worse and worse which is a false doctrine and the source of the very worsening of the world.

On the contrary, it's prophesied in azania 6 that of the increase of his government and of Truth there shall be no end.
Yeah I know, everybody is and that is why there is so much confusion and it is no wonder why Jesus called that apostate Harlot Mystery Babylon, because the word Babylon actually means confusion by definition.

Sorry but the generation that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 wasn't their generation but the last generation of this age and those are the facts no matter how you want to reason it otherwise with your human intellect.

Look at 2 Peter 3:8-10 for he is saying the same thing as what Jesus did, for God is waiting until everyone has had the gospel presented to them because he is not willing for any to perish and therefore only after it is preached to all nations bar none, shall the end come and just like Jesus said also.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
Look at 2 Peter 3:8-10 for he is saying the same thing as what Jesus did,
I'm glad you brought up 2nd Peter 3.And I'm glad that you agreed that Peter is talking of the same event as Jesus did.

If it could be shown that the context of Peter's statements were the end of the Mosaic covenant Nation at the time of the new prophet (first century) then we would have to deduce that the dissolution of the heavens and earth which Peter talks about is the same removal of the Mosaic covenant heavens and the nation of Mosaic Israel which is the domain to which they applied. (Job 38:33)

So in order to determine the context and the meaning of 2nd Peter 3 can we go back to 2nd Peter 1? the answer is that yes, we can go back to 2nd Peter 1. In second Peter 1, Peter is telling of the event where they were on the Mount of transfiguration and heard the voice from heaven. Then he's referring to a more sure word of prophecy. Saying that they had the more sure word of prophecy. What prophecy was he referring to?

If you go back to Deuteronomy before crossing Jordan Moses made a speech with conditions to retain blessing in the land. In deut 18, He reminds the people that when they heard the voice from heaven at Mount Sinai that the people had said that if they ever heard the voice from heaven again then they would surely die or cease. Meaning that that covenant and the people and Nation it established would cease and be cancelled. A New covenant and a new nation would be born and in inauggregated. Moses says in Deuteronomy 18 that God would raise up a prophet who would speak the very words of God and that whomever would stay loyal to the Mosaic covenant ordinances ( heavens) and retain loyalty to the national entity which that covenant established (the earth) and would not hear the new prophet would have their lives demanded of them. Peter had made this statement earlier in Acts chapter 3 verse 24 through 26.

So here in 2nd Peter 1, Peter is reaffirming that they themselves heard the voice from heaven affirming that the prophit who was in their midst, jesus, was speaking the very words of God and that the heavens and earth of the mosaic administration would cease.

And it ceased violently as if a flood went through the land, just like the analogy to Noah and his day.

So we see from 2 Peter chapter 1 the context of what was in peters mind, that being Deuteronomy chapter 18 verses 15 through 19, and the burning of the mosaic administration elements.

So just as you stated above Peter spoke of the same things which Jesus did. And we see from Peter's letter that he was referring to the passing of the Mosaic covenant heavens, ordinances, and earth, the nation which the ordinances established. See you again job 38:33 where it associates the word heaven with ordinances and Earth with domain of those ordinances.

So have the old heavens and earth passed by the new words of Jesus?

I'll add an article which talk specifically of 2nd Peter 3 in the context of 2nd Peter chapter 1.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1My8Rr6huICHLYn3pJO3Pic6BASUcM4E2/view?usp=drivesdk
 
Last edited:

Iconoclast

Active member
Jesus predicted the end times.

He describes great tribulation. Nation divided against nation. Wars, natural disasters, famine. He predicted that his followers would be persecuted, and that false messiahs would arise.

And then he says, and I quote:

Mark 13:30, if you want to look it up.

That was about 2,000 years ago.

That generation has most certainly passed away.

So, was Jesus wrong?

Or are we?

Did Jesus make a mistake? A miscalculation error?

Or did Mark just get the quote wrong?

Or perhaps Jesus DID come back, and we missed it?
That happened in 70ad...Jesus "came" in judgment upon Jerusalem which was the "sign" that He was enthroned in Heaven.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
I'm glad you brought up 2nd Peter 3.And I'm glad that you agreed that Peter is talking of the same event as Jesus did.

If it could be shown that the context of Peter's statements were the end of the Mosaic covenant Nation at the time of the new prophet (first century) then we would have to deduce that the dissolution of the heavens and earth which Peter talks about is the same removal of the Mosaic covenant heavens and the nation of Mosaic Israel which is the domain to which they applied. (Job 38:33)

So in order to determine the context and the meaning of 2nd Peter 3 can we go back to 2nd Peter 1? the answer is that yes, we can go back to 2nd Peter 1. In second Peter 1, Peter is telling of the event where they were on the Mount of transfiguration and heard the voice from heaven. Then he's referring to a more sure word of prophecy. Saying that they had the more sure word of prophecy. What prophecy was he referring to?

If you go back to Deuteronomy before crossing Jordan Moses made a speech with conditions to retain blessing in the land. In deut 18, He reminds the people that when they heard the voice from heaven at Mount Sinai that the people had said that if they ever heard the voice from heaven again then they would surely die or cease. Meaning that that covenant and the people and Nation it established would cease and be cancelled. A New covenant and a new nation would be born and in inauggregated. Moses says in Deuteronomy 18 that God would raise up a prophet who would speak the very words of God and that whomever would stay loyal to the Mosaic covenant ordinances ( heavens) and retain loyalty to the national entity which that covenant established (the earth) and would not hear the new prophet would have their lives demanded of them. Peter had made this statement earlier in Acts chapter 3 verse 24 through 26.

So here in 2nd Peter 1, Peter is reaffirming that they themselves heard the voice from heaven affirming that the prophit who was in their midst, jesus, was speaking the very words of God and that the heavens and earth of the mosaic administration would cease.

And it ceased violently as if a flood went through the land, just like the analogy to Noah and his day.

So we see from 2 Peter chapter 1 the context of what was in peters mind, that being Deuteronomy chapter 18 verses 15 through 19, and the burning of the mosaic administration elements.

So just as you stated above Peter spoke of the same things which Jesus did. And we see from Peter's letter that he was referring to the passing of the Mosaic covenant heavens, ordinances, and earth, the nation which the ordinances established. See you again job 38:33 where it associates the word heaven with ordinances and Earth with domain of those ordinances.

So have the old heavens and earth passed by the new words of Jesus?

I'll add an article which talk specifically of 2nd Peter 3 in the context of 2nd Peter chapter 1.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1My8Rr6huICHLYn3pJO3Pic6BASUcM4E2/view?usp=drivesdk
That is a bunch of hogwash out of either your own human reasoning or that of the others you are willingly being taught by. At any rate it is nonsense and I am not interested in going any further with you on it.
 

Tonyg

Member
That is a bunch of hogwash out of either your own human reasoning or that of the others you are willingly being taught by. At any rate it is nonsense and I am not interested in going any further with you on it.
I know it's tough to accept for someone who's been taught like I was for so many years. But there's no denying the contextual meaning that is drawn from chapter one a second peter. I'm happy to not continue either as this becomes quite time consuming only to end in a denial.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
I know it's tough to accept for someone who's been taught like I was for so many years. But there's no denying the contextual meaning that is drawn from chapter one a second peter. I'm happy to not continue either as this becomes quite time consuming only to end in a denial.
I wasn't someone who was taught like you were for so many years however, for I wouldn't let anyone teach me on eschatology because I could see that what they were teaching was a bunch of nonsense early on and almost right from the start.

I didn't then know what the truth was, but I knew it wasn't what they were teaching and God instructed my heart to put that topic on a shelf until he was ready to start showing me what it truly says and so that is what I did.

I believe that all religious organizations bar none, are in the apostasy that Paul warned was coming and I believe that they have been from very early on in church history also.

It took God better than thirty years to finally pull me out of that mess but he finally got my attention and I left it all and so I am on my own now, for I believe that God's true remnant church has been forced underground and are scattered and just like Daniel 12:7 revealed that they would be.

The churches today have exchanged worldly selfish sin for religious selfish sin and are therefore blinded by a form of godliness that is therefore self righteous and denies the power of the Holy Spirit to love without partiality, for they are full of self serving cliques completely.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
If you have studied Luke in regards to Theophilus, then you are aware that the story Jesus told that Luke documents in Luke 16 about the
rich man (high priest) is most likely a pointed reference to some of Theophilus' family.
I am aware of many theories about Theophilus' identity, not every argument put forth for each, particularly for one such as this that exists on the fringes of biblical exegesis... the proposition that the high priest Theophilus was the intended addressee of Luke's two-volume work is not even mentioned, for example, in VanderKam's entry for this man in his history of high priests in the Second Temple period (440-43), nor in the section of Alexander's monograph on the Lukan preface devoted to the Theophilus' identity (188-200). That you trot out this theory (hardly supported by further speculation about Luke 16) as if it is just so obvious suggests you cannot distinguish remote possibility from probability, nor how to couch minority challenges with appropriate caution. I'm curious, given your penchant for considering ancient Christian writers to be authorities on such matters, what they had to say about this proposal of yours...

You say, 'Rubbish,' tell me how many times The Greek word κρατιστος is used in the New Testament and which authors use it, and the social status that is associated with it?
What exactly are your credentials in Koine Greek of the period to dismiss the most authoritative lexicon for study of the New Testament texts on this matter? In answer to your question, κρατιστος is used within the New Testament only by Luke, occurring here in the preface to the gospel and three times in Acts: (1) in a letter addressing Felix, the Roman procurator of Judea [23:26], (2) in a speech by the lawyer Tertullus to this same individual [24:3], (3) in Paul's address to Felix's successor Festus [26:25]. How you make the argumentative leap from these three uses to the fourth found in Luke as necessarily being a high priest is anybody's guess. You further seem to presume that Luke wrote in a vacuum and that his usage is idiosyncratic when compared to other Greek literature of the period... if this is the assumption, it would be far more reasonable to conclude that the individual addressed in the preface is a Roman official of some sort as Felix and Festus were (a theory that has entertained wider support than yours; see below). As I've already pointed out from BDAG, however, the address was used of individuals of "varied social status" (a point also made by Alexander [133]) and it was by no means reserved for kings and high priests (Felix and Festus were neither of these, incidentally) as you erroneously suggested.

I will end with the summary of the matter found in the Oxford Bible Commentary (Franklin 926):

Theophilus ('lover of God') to whom Luke addresses his work is most likely to have been a real person of some standing and may have been Luke's literary patron. It has sometimes been suggested that he was a Roman official, that he was not a Christian, and that Luke was writing to make a case for Christianity and its political innocuousness. If so, the 'instruction' he had received was false, or at least biased, and Luke was seeking to give him the true picture. Luke-Acts as a whole, however, does not suggest that it was written for non-Christians: it contains too much Christian reflection for that and its stories of the trials of Jesus and Paul express little confidence in Roman justice. Theophilus is more likely to have been one who was knowledgeable about the Christian faith (Acts 18:25) and who was in fact already a Christian. In giving him 'the truth', Luke was seeking to offer him a firm foundation for his beliefs, to confirm them, and perhaps even strengthen them when they were undergoing some trials. Luke's work is, of course, meant for public consumption and, through Theophilus, he is addressing every reader.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Alexander, Loveday. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78; Cambridge University Press, 1993)
Danker, Frederick William (ed.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third Edition [BDAG]; University of Chicago Press, 2000)
Franklin, Eric. "Luke" in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford University Press, 2001)
VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Fortress Press; Van Gorcum, 2004)
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
Close
[8] The earliest known person to suggest that most excellent Theophilus was none other than the High Priest was Theodore Hase (1682-1731) who contributed an article in 1725 to the Bibliotheca Historico-Philogico-Theologica, referenced as the Bibliotheca Bremensissome in the Introduction to the New Testament by Johann David Michaelis tr. and augmented with notes by Herbert Marsh, although Hase proposed that Luke was written to Theophilus after his years as High Priest. Christian apologist and philosopher William Paley (1743-1805) accepted this identification in his Horae Paulinae. In recent years contributions are in David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010); Richard H. Anderson, Who are Theophilus and Johanna? The Irony of the Intended Audience (2010); "Theophilus: A Proposal," Evangelical Quarterly 69:3 (1997) 195-215; "The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews," Evangelical Quarterly71:2 (1999), 127-149; "Luke and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants," The Journal of Biblical Studies, January–March 2001, Vol. 1, No. 1; "A la recherche de Theophile," Dossiers d'Archeolgie, December 2002 – January 2003; Josep Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The message of Acts in Codex Bezae: a comparison with the Alexandrian tradition, Volume 4, (2009) 3-4 and prior volumes
 

Tonyg

Member
Wikipedia has a lengthy article on him.
The first paragraph is;

Search

Theophilus (Hebrew: תפלוס בר חנן‎)[1] was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from 37 to 41 CE according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews.[2] He was a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Iudaea Province during the 1st century. A growing but still uncommon belief[3] points to this person as the person to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed, but Theophilus is a common enough name that there are many other possibilities for the addressee of Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.[4]

 

Attachments

  • Kohanim.jpg
    Kohanim.jpg
    113.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
We are talking first and foremost about literacy in the first century Jewish culture and Luke's reference to it, and it has everything to do with
the subject that is being discussed.
Reiterating your earlier assertion makes it no more relevant to the discussion at hand... I made no claims whatsoever concerning literacy in the ancient world so there was no reason to introduce it as a point of critique.

You must be confused, where did I ever infer that Matthew and Mark were not prior to Luke?

Where did I ever infer that Luke as a Historian could not have used Matthew and Mark as sources?

You are creating arguments that never existed, so you can appear to provide evidence to the contrary.

What I have clearly objected to has been stated in a previous posts, "The idea that the Biblical Gospels were not written by who they are attributed to by the Early Church, is a very weak liberal argument." (From post #143)
Let me refresh your memory as to what you also posted here: "No, Biblical scholars are not pretty much in unanimous agreement on 'Source Criticism'" Both the poster who started this thread and I, assuming you knew what source criticism is, challenged your implied criticism of what I had written here, namely that "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." You corrected neither of us and, in fact, when on to contrast this under the label "literary redaction view" with your "independence view" here and outright stated here that your initial objection did concern my claims about "dependence upon a literary source" --- contextually some sort of literary relationship involving the three aforementioned gospels. You ask where you inferred that Luke could not have used Matthew and Mark as sources --- well, I've showed you though technically you inferred only that he did not, but that is either splitting hairs or perhaps you are still equivocating between author and book, implying only that Luke consulted Matthew and Mark themselves rather than their gospels. Instead of continuing to obfuscate, answer plainly yes or no: Do you think Luke, reasonably having access to the earlier gospels of Matthew and Mark, used these documents as sources?

My objection to your position on Luke was date and author, and since you can't defend that...
I have been engaging with your criticisms of my position on this matter from the very beginning of your interjection, most recently here.

The 'Independence View' is in reference to the Apostle's writing underneath the guidance of the Holy Spirit...
Independence implies precisely that, independence... so if you think Luke was dependent on Matthew and Mark, either as authors or books, then he is not writing independently, whatever one might conclude about the proposition of divine guidance.

I have not conceded anything,

If anything you are starting to acknowledge the Apostles as the authors and that Luke consulted with them as source material
I elsewhere referred to Luke as a second- or third-generation Christian writing in the early second century and I have nowhere backed down from that position. As for Matthew and Mark, I reverse your proposed order and date them both after the 70 CE fall of Jerusalem to the Romans... the first (Mark) came from a Pauline (not Petrine) circle of believers and the second (Matthew) revised and supplemented this in favor of a law-abiding Petrine version of Christianity.

It is clear from your statement here that your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is clearly in error...
The only exegetical statement I made about Luke's preface was "Luke certainly doesn't claim to be an eyewitness" and there is nothing erroneous about that. The rest of my comments were hypotheticals trying to make sense of your position... which remains problematic (see below).

Luke 1:1-4 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."


First, the 'Many' are not the Apostles

The 'Eyewitnesses and servants of the word' are the Apostles
Then you encounter another problem because the group you deem to be apostles (and I agree with your interpretation of this verse incidentally) handed down the accounts of the many, they are not the authors of these accounts, which contradicts your so-called independence theory that the gospels themselves originated with divinely-inspired apostles.

Mark is considered by many to have been an eyewitness, though he was not an Apostle (Mark 14:51)
Your speculation here that the naked young man who flees Gethsemane is Mark himself, presumably so that he can be included in the group Luke refers to in 1:2, has been offered a bit too hastily... the Papian fragment found in Eusebius is clear that Mark was not a follower of Jesus --- you criticize me for dismissing claims of the 'Early Church Fathers' I don't think have any basis in reality and yet here you are contradicting them yourself.

Those things unique to Luke show that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as Matthew and Mark
Whatever divine inspiration this author may or may not have had, he states plainly in Luke 1:3 that he has done his own investigation and this is the ostensible basis for his unique material.

You wanted to debate scholarly references because you are incapable of dealing with the Biblical text and Early Church history as they oppose
your position
You claimed here that "many Conservative Biblical Scholars ... hold the Independence View" and I asked you here to "cite a small handful of these" from properly peer-reviewed venues --- your continued evasion to supply even a single example is duly noted and your attempt to project incapability onto me is laughable.

You cannot support your position of dating Luke and your gross neglect of the internal evidence in Luke
Whatever so-called evidence you have supplied has been countered or was dealt with in dialogue with earlier interlocutors in the thread... if you need me to link to specific posts where your points are addressed, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is completely void of correct exegetical skills as I demonstrated to you
You've demonstrated no such thing.

During this discussion, you had to leave your liberal position and identify with Augustine in order to salvage your argument
I did not "identify with Augustine", I invoked him as an example from a respected Christian author from antiquity who argued for a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke --- this was to specifically counter the erroneous idea that this is a recent 'liberal' theory.

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not require any literary dependence because they were first hand eyewitnesses and participants

Luke states his account is dependent upon other's accounts



What is blatantly obvious, is that many liberal scholars cannot deal with the supernatural workings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the
inspired origin of the Gospels, so they have to fabricate a theory (with no evidence) that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all dependent upon
some unknown literary document or documents in order to discredit the Inspired Authority of the Biblical Gospels.
Again, you interjected to challenge the idea that there is some sort of literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke (this alone infers nothing about a hypothetical earlier document) --- you have since all but stated explicitly that Luke used the documents we know as Matthew and Mark in composing his gospel (see above my request for you to answer yes or no to this). If you answer yes, your objection is rendered invalid because all it takes is for one of them (Luke) to use the other two (Matthew and Mark) for there to be some sort of literary relationship between them, which was all I affirmed when I stated: "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." There is nothing whatsoever objectionable about this statement.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member

In the above article, I believe these two statements contradict each other. They are only a few sentences apart.

The independence theory rejects posits that each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps oral tradition.


The independence theory rejects this consensus of documentary dependence; rather, each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps liturgy and other oral tradition.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
Luk 1:1-4 KJV 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

From this testimony it is apparent that Luke was a early second generation believer having received the accounts directly from the eyewitnessing apostles. It sounds like his involvement was early in there preaching, or even contemporary with part of Jesus ministry but not being able to consider himself a eyewitness. That can't be proved from the narrative but seems possible from the tone of Luke's introduction.

Theophilus was obviously a contemporary of Luke and this would fit with the idea of his being the high priest in 41-43 ad and possibly being written to after his priesthood office was complete or even during his office. The book of Acts is completed before Paul is killed so the combination of these two points suggest a time well before the desolation for the authorship of the Gospel and a Time shortly before the desolation for the authorship of Acts
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
In the above article, I believe these two statements contradict each other. They are only a few sentences apart.

The independence theory rejects posits that each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps oral tradition.
The independence theory rejects this consensus of documentary dependence; rather, each evangelist has independently drawn from eyewitness accounts and perhaps liturgy and other oral tradition.
I believe the first sentence is intended without the word rejects.
 

RCM

Active member
I am aware of many theories about Theophilus' identity, not every argument put forth for each, particularly for one such as this that exists on the fringes of biblical exegesis... the proposition that the high priest Theophilus was the intended addressee of Luke's two-volume work is not even mentioned, for example, in VanderKam's entry for this man in his history of high priests in the Second Temple period (440-43), nor in the section of Alexander's monograph on the Lukan preface devoted to the Theophilus' identity (188-200). That you trot out this theory (hardly supported by further speculation about Luke 16) as if it is just so obvious suggests you cannot distinguish remote possibility from probability, nor how to couch minority challenges with appropriate caution. I'm curious, given your penchant for considering ancient Christian writers to be authorities on such matters, what they had to say about this proposal of yours...

En Hakkore,

I don't know why VanderKam did not list Theophilus, but he is certainly recognized by Josephus

In addition to the appearance of the name in the writings of Josephus, we have one other example of the occurrence of the name that conclusively establishes the historical existence of Theophilus the High Priest. Barag and Flusser have published in the Israel Exploration Journal the inscription appearing on the limestone ossuary clearly identifying the bones therein as Yehohanah, granddaughter of the High Priest, Theophilus. Ossuaries are Jewish secondary burial containers, commonly found in Jerusalem dating from 100 B.C.E. to 100 A. D. The ossuaries are cut from a single block of soft limestone found in the Jerusalem area. The ossuary was found in Hizma (Beth 'Azmaweth) approximately 4.5 miles NNE of Jerusalem. The three line inscription reads as follows:

Yehohanah
Yehohanah daughter of Yehohanan
son of Theophilus the high priest

The two brief mentions of Johanna in the Gospel of Luke are now seen to have a far greater role than preciously recognized. Luke has effectively
enlisted Johanna, the granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest as one of his witnesses in Luke 8, and Luke 24.


The more you study Theophilus' identity, the more credible the connection to Luke 16 becomes

And if Theophilus is indeed the person who was the high priest from 37-41 A.D., then Luke is going to require a early date



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
What exactly are your credentials in Koine Greek of the period to dismiss the most authoritative lexicon for study of the New Testament texts on this matter? In answer to your question, κρατιστος is used within the New Testament only by Luke, occurring here in the preface to the gospel and three times in Acts: (1) in a letter addressing Felix, the Roman procurator of Judea [23:26], (2) in a speech by the lawyer Tertullus to this same individual [24:3], (3) in Paul's address to Felix's successor Festus [26:25]. How you make the argumentative leap from these three uses to the fourth found in Luke as necessarily being a high priest is anybody's guess. You further seem to presume that Luke wrote in a vacuum and that his usage is idiosyncratic when compared to other Greek literature of the period... if this is the assumption, it would be far more reasonable to conclude that the individual addressed in the preface is a Roman official of some sort as Felix and Festus were (a theory that has entertained wider support than yours; see below). As I've already pointed out from BDAG, however, the address was used of individuals of "varied social status" (a point also made by Alexander [133]) and it was by no means reserved for kings and high priests (Felix and Festus were neither of these, incidentally) as you erroneously suggested.

En Hakkore,

I have studied Biblical Greek

What words did the Biblical scholars use in translating the four uses in the Greek text in Luke and Acts? 'Most Excellent'

This word was only used by one Biblical author, Luke, so why do I need to go check BDAG for variants in secular Greek literature?

The manner in which Luke uses the Greek, κρατιστος, is clearly established

It is clear that Luke was addressing a dignitary (My reference that it was only for kings and high priests was an incorrect statement)

However, the point is that Theophilus was a person of great importance, which is also critical in dating the Gospel of Luke



RCM
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I don't know why VanderKam did not list Theophilus...
I never said VanderKam did not list Theophilus... he covers him, as one would expect on a scholarly work dedicated to priests in the Second Temple period, on pages 440-43 just as I indicated. What he does not mention is the proposition that this man was the intended addressee of Luke's two-volume work. Why? Because it is not entertained as a serious possibility within New Testament scholarship... it is a proposal that is, at best, within the realm of remote possibility. Its proponents will need to break into peer-reviewed scholarship with some strong arguments and a plausible historical reconstruction before it can or should be taken as a serious alternative among others. It will never attain a status greater than this, however, because identifying Luke's addressee is unavoidably a matter of some speculation.

In addition to the appearance of the name in the writings of Josephus, we have one other example of the occurrence of the name that conclusively establishes the historical existence of Theophilus the High Priest. Barag and Flusser have published in the Israel Exploration Journal the inscription appearing on the limestone ossuary clearly identifying the bones therein as Yehohanah, granddaughter of the High Priest, Theophilus. Ossuaries are Jewish secondary burial containers, commonly found in Jerusalem dating from 100 B.C.E. to 100 A. D. The ossuaries are cut from a single block of soft limestone found in the Jerusalem area. The ossuary was found in Hizma (Beth 'Azmaweth) approximately 4.5 miles NNE of Jerusalem. The three line inscription reads as follows:

Yehohanah
Yehohanah daughter of Yehohanan
son of Theophilus the high priest

The two brief mentions of Johanna in the Gospel of Luke are now seen to have a far greater role than preciously recognized. Luke has effectively
enlisted Johanna, the granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest as one of his witnesses in Luke 8, and Luke 24.
It is unclear why you so strongly assert that the Joanna mentioned in Luke 8:3 and 24:10 is this granddaughter of Theophilus... this is again nothing more than speculation. Bauckham points out that we know of about half a dozen women so named based on epigraphic evidence and that it was therefore the fifth most common name for Jewish women of the period (143); this evidence alone should caution against making the identification so strongly as you've suggested. While Bauckham refers to Joanna the granddaughter of the high priest (145), he nowhere even suggests the possibility that this woman and the Joanna of Luke could be the same individual. Indeed, the gospel woman is from an aristocratic Galilean family whose marriage with the Nabatean Chuza cemented a political alliance between these two client kingdoms of Rome (144, 150-61). More problematic for your suggestion is trying to squeeze the requisite generations between Ananus and a great granddaughter Joanna (already married around 30 CE if equated with the Lukan woman of this name) --- you would have to inflate his estimated age by a couple of decades for it to work out, which would also make him well into his eighties by the time of Acts 4:6. While not impossible, the entire exercise heaped on top of pure speculation strains credulity.

And if Theophilus is indeed the person who was the high priest from 37-41 A.D., then Luke is going to require a early date
So what date(s) do you assign to Luke's gospel and to Acts? Also, what is Theophilus' relationship to Christianity... is he an insider or an outsider? What is the reason that Luke is writing/dedicating his two-volume work to him? The answers to all these questions are important in providing a plausible historical reconstruction for your proposal...

I have studied Biblical Greek
So no formal credentials or presumably you would have supplied them. In any case, you are in no position to critique the conclusion of BDAG on the flexibility of κρατιστος in terms of the addressee's social status.

This word was only used by one Biblical author, Luke, so why do I need to go check BDAG for variants in secular Greek literature?
For the reason I already provided, namely that Luke did not write in a vacuum... why do you think the contributors to BDAG so thoroughly research and document word usage in contemporaneous Greek literature if not to inform biblical exegetes? That you dismiss this information as irrelevant (read: inconvenient to your theory) is an insult to their work.

The manner in which Luke uses the Greek, κρατιστος, is clearly established
Luke can use κρατιστος in any way consistent with its broader and flexible usage in the Greek-speaking world.

My reference that it was only for kings and high priests was an incorrect statement
Props for acknowledging the error.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works Cited:
Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2002)
Danker, Frederick William (ed.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third Edition [BDAG]; University of Chicago Press, 2000)
VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Fortress Press; Van Gorcum, 2004)
 

RCM

Active member
Let me refresh your memory as to what you also posted here: "No, Biblical scholars are not pretty much in unanimous agreement on 'Source Criticism'" Both the poster who started this thread and I, assuming you knew what source criticism is, challenged your implied criticism of what I had written here, namely that "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." You corrected neither of us and, in fact, when on to contrast this under the label "literary redaction view" with your "independence view" here and outright stated here that your initial objection did concern my claims about "dependence upon a literary source" --- contextually some sort of literary relationship involving the three aforementioned gospels. You ask where you inferred that Luke could not have used Matthew and Mark as sources --- well, I've showed you though technically you inferred only that he did not, but that is either splitting hairs or perhaps you are still equivocating between author and book, implying only that Luke consulted Matthew and Mark themselves rather than their gospels. Instead of continuing to obfuscate, answer plainly yes or no: Do you think Luke, reasonably having access to the earlier gospels of Matthew and Mark, used these documents as sources?

En Hakkore,

Let me see if I can clarify this issue from a Biblical Christian perspective,

The Gospel's of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written by the named individuals, witnessing and testifying of the events, which they or people
they knew personally had experienced or participated in, therefore, these Gospel accounts being independent, yet, remarkably similar in content, establishes the authenticity and reliability of these documented events surrounding the words, works, life, and death of the historical Jesus Christ, as being truthful, (based upon Deuteronomy 19:15).

The primary sources that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were dependent upon were real people, first hand eyewitnesses, not documents

Luke may have known many of the Apostles personally

Why must it be necessary for Luke to have depended upon the written Gospels of Matthew and Mark, when he had access to Matthew and Peter? Luke stated that he investigated everything carefully, that implies talking with people, double checking, and verifying accounts

What if Luke's primary sources were the persons of Mary, Peter, and John, and not documents?


What I have written above, clarifies the historical view and is not what most liberal Biblical scholars agree upon,

Here is what most scholars agree upon, see if you recognize the quote,

"Anyone who converted to become a follower of Jesus could and did tell the stories. A convert would tell his wife; if she converted, she would tell her neighbor; if she converted, she would tell her husband; if he converted, he would tell his business partner; if he converted, he would take a business trip to another city and tell his business associate; if he converted, he would tell his wife; if she converted, she would tell her neighbor … and on and on … Who, then, was telling the stories about Jesus? Just the apostles? It can’t have been just the apostles. Eventually, an author heard the stories in his church—say it was “Mark” in the city of Rome. And he wrote his account."


RCM
 

RCM

Active member
RCM said:

Luke 1:1-4 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

First, the 'Many' are not the Apostles

The 'Eyewitnesses and servants of the word' are the Apostles

Then you encounter another problem because the group you deem to be apostles (and I agree with your interpretation of this verse incidentally) handed down the accounts of the many, they are not the authors of these accounts, which contradicts your so-called independence theory that the gospels themselves originated with divinely-inspired apostles.

En Hakkore,

I completely and emphatically disagree with your exegesis, your handling and interpretation of the Biblical text here is just wrong

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,

(1) The 'Many' are probably gathering together what has been written, and if Matthew and Mark exist at the time Luke writes this, then Jame's
letter is in existence, as well as Paul's letters of Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, and possibly the prison Epistles.

just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,

(2) The 'Many' are gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was handed down to them by the Apostles

it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

(3) Luke is under conviction to document the events surrounding Jesus, in order to provide another witness for Theophilus in understanding
the truth about Jesus Christ


Truth demands two and three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15)

Jesus came into the world to testify of the Truth (John 18)

Jesus commissioned His Apostles to teach others the Truth about God and Salvation (Matthew 28)

Jesus informs the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would remind them of what Jesus had told them (John 14)


It was necessary for the Apostles to write and document the words, works, life, and death of Jesus for the ministry that He had called them to,
and they started writing probably not long after His ascension in Acts 1


The reason liberal scholarship wants to push the origin of the Biblical Gospels to a later date is humanize the person of Jesus Christ

If the historical Jesus is truly the great 'I Am' of Exodus 3:14, which He claimed to be in John 8:58-59, and that the Biblical Gospels present
Him to be, then you have a problem

Because in the day of Judgment, you are going to have to give an account for every word you have spoken, Matthew 12:36-37

Jesus stated in Luke 16:29-31 that the Word of God, the Biblical Scriptures, are a greater empirical witness of truth, than a person
coming back from the dead and witnessing about the truth from eternity


RCM
 
Top