Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?

Timtofly

Member
This is no better, perhaps even worse as I would then move from the sledgehammer analogy to that of torturing the text to make it say what you want. You do know what the Inquisition was, don't you?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
This seems slightly unfair. Do scientists "torture" their hypothesis with reasonable experiments to get to an inductive point in their research? Do they not ask the relevant questions in this endeavor? How many questions and at what point, about an unknown, turns into torture?


Since when in science has asking questions been torture? Final exams?
 

Timtofly

Member
That's funny. Using the word Inquisition because I use it as a hermeneutic tool.!!!

Do you and your peers as you would call them ascribe or affirm a literal hermeneutic? As contrast with a literary hermeneutic?

It is the literal hermeneutic that has shown itself to be the source of much, much error. I didn't think anyone used that literal reading of scripture anymore.
A literal hermeneutic with the Holy Spirit works just great. Has education from man replaced the Holy Spirit? That is a resounding yes. Can the Holy Spirit still use such worldly wisdom, or the person who thinks with worldly wisdom? The Holy Spirit can use any human, and even those who outright reject and deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. At the end of the day all thoughts are just words on a page. The Holy Spirit works in the mind.
 

Tonyg

Member
We have some different viewpoints on what was meant by the age to come. I view it similar to the terms new heaven and new earth as compared with the Mosaic covenant ordinances and domain of Judea. The words knew to describe the heavens and earth are in contrast with the old in the same way that the New covenant is in contrast with the old covenant. Thus an age to come would be also classified as a new age and it would be in contrast with the age that was then or the old age referring to the old covenant age. That's my present perspective but I will think about doing a study on the use of the words present age or age to come. Thanks for your comments have a good day
 

Tonyg

Member
Another old/new comparison would be such as New Jerusalem as compared with Jerusalem of the Mosaic covenant administration.
 

Tonyg

Member
It was Paul an educated Jew that still claimed an age to come in the NT. Paul saw the continuation of the Covenant in the growing church. It was Peter who actually lived with Christ, who could not understand where Paul was coming from, because Peter was not indoctrinated in academia, but Christ and the Holy Spirit.

However Peter did not claim the church was the age to come and deny a physical Kingdom for a spiritual one, himself. Peter in knowing Jesus and Peter's denial of the Cross (at first) should be self explanatory, no? The Resurrection of Christ changed Peter's view of a new age and and earthly Kingdom, but it would be postponed, not a natural realization of the church itself.

Paul was coming from the point of Jewish education. Peter was coming from being taught by Jesus Christ.

Neither of them deny a coming age. The age to come was not their focus, but a thriving church in relation to the Covenant itself. The Covenant that still postponed an earthly Kingdom in an age yet to come. Why do some deny that both taught an age to come, even though they (Peter and Paul) did not see fit to describe that age? There was a good reason not to put emphasis on an age to come. The church had to get through the great tribulation of many generations in the current on going Covenant age.


The Cross changed the after life more than the Covenant age. Why is that hard to grasp? The church was freed from Abraham's bosom in the domain of hell, and allowed to enter the heavenly Paradise, a city not built by human hands. That was the promise, that physical death allowed entrance immediately and no more waiting under the earth. It was not about judgment on physical Israel. It was about being alive in Christ. The vineyard of the earth was taken from Israel as Stewards and handed to the church. Now 1990 years later the church is facing the same judgment as Israel, and all the church can do today is point fingers at 70AD Israel.

Is the church trying to ignore her own condition and concentrate on a totally irrelevant historical event written down from a non church perspective, and totally missing from God's Word? Why has this event even been conflated into Scripture? The event of the church today giving account to God is far more pressing than Israel 1990 years ago. In the Words of Christ, "Let the dead bury the dead". The church is full of dead people reliving the past.
I would invite you to post some references that indicate that Paul and Peter still taught of an age to come. I haven't found any, to my understanding anyhow. In fact in Hebrews the writer says that Christ has come at the end of the world...age..

Here is a list of the verses and ideas thus far that I've scanned and purviewed. Interesting to note that at least two verses the word genea for generation and aeon for age are somewhat intertwined and possibly interchangeable. Thus in Ephesians 2:7 it's possible that when Paul says ages to come he could refer to generations to come and ages of men. But thats just a hypothesis.

I'm using Bible sword software. It allows a KJV light and a KJV option. The KJV option includes the strong numbers. It's easy to see when the word genea or aeon are used (1074 and 165), while using the KJV option. But I just use the KJV light here for easiness of reading.

*[[Eph 2:7/KJVLite]]* That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

*[[Eph 3:5/KJVLite]]* Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

*[[Eph 3:21/KJVLite]]* Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

*[[Col 1:26/KJVLite]]* Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

*[[1Co 10:11/KJVLite]]* Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

*[[Eph 3:21/KJVLite]]* Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

*[[Heb 9:26/KJVLite]]* For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
 

Tonyg

Member
The Resurrection of Christ changed Peter's view of a new age and and earthly Kingdom, but it would be postponed, not a natural realization of the church itself.
I don't ascribe to the doctrine of a future earthly kingdom with Christ on the throne. In Revelations it says that the kingdom is among men and he shall reign forever and ever

. It is such things as religious liberties some of the inalienable rights, and individual rights which have been established by Christ generation after generation. As Christ himself said the kingdom of God is within you it will not or does not come visibly..

A little different topic than what we've talking of on this thread. Perhaps it would be better to open a new thread on this topic of a future physical kingdom rather than occupy thread primarily about Matthew 24.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
And it might be quite similar! Or very similar with only a few different nuances, as noted which are actually good to verify the originality of the apostle.
There are two subtle problems here. First, you refer to "originality" --- confining ourselves to the so-called Olivet discourse, there is enough similarity in the wording to convince the vast majority of scholars that there is a direct literary relationship between the three versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Only one version therefore might lay claim to being "original" and the others are revisions of it or its source. The so-called Synoptic gospels do not provide independent attestation of this sayings complex. Second, you refer to "apostle" in connection with gospel authorship --- tradition connects each of the gospels either to an apostle (Matthew, John) or to a companion of one (Mark, Luke), but internal evidence suggests they were written by second or third generations of Christians, none of whom had direct connections to his early followers.

That they wrote in Greek May equally indicate the end of the local language due to the end of its nation and the global/universal audience of the reader.
The gospels were written in Greek because it was the most widely used language in the Roman Empire... Aramaic was not used only by Palestinian Jews and it continued to flourish for centuries as both rabbinic literature and the plethora of Christian writings in Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, demonstrate.

Yes they were jews, but they were also the first Christians.
There were no "Christians" listening to the historical Jesus teach and the charge of anachronism stands.

I think you're getting a little defensive in always proclaiming that my interpretations are erroneous when yours could be equally erroneous.
I'm defending my position, but I'm not getting defensive... digs at what you label an "unscholarly" approach are a little irksome, but mostly just amusing.

For one you mentioned the genre of literature. And yet you ignore the prophetic genre of Isaiah 13 which prophetic genre includes if not demands the probability of allegory, symbolic and hyperbolic language.
Prophetic genre? There's no such thing... at least not within historical-critical circles. There is literature purportedly written by and about figures known as "prophets" that may include a number of non-literal forms such as parable or allegory and that may employ figurative language at times, but there is no prophetic genre per se. Apocalyptic, on the other hand, is a recognized literary genre within historical-critical circles even if its features are a matter of some debate.

When one cannot objectively defend their stance against analysis, it's common and easy to get offensive towards the person or claim their method rather than the issue at hand is flawed.
Method is extremely important and a section of every good scholarly monograph is devoted to it. Scholars raise objections to method all the time. You and I are reading the same biblical texts... we come to different conclusions because of our different starting assumptions and methods --- it is perfectly valid to discuss and point out flaws in method, as well as in assumptions.

Can you direct me to a website that refers and teaches the tenants of this historical/critical method?
No, but I can suggest a number of academic books that would provide you with a range of views on the historical-critical method and related issues:

David R. Law, The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark, 2012)
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Fourth Edition; WJK Press, 2011)
John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (WJK Press, 2007)
John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Eerdmans, 2005)

You claim to use a critical analysis, but mock the use of the word Inquisition.
I used the word to offer another lighthearted analogy of what, from my perspective, you do with the biblical text... mostly because I thought the word was a mistake arising from your dictation software, which automatically capitalized it precisely because of its widespread if not universal association with the violent ecclesial courts of the medieval and early modern periods. Your continued use of it is rather disturbing, actually, and I would recommend you substitute something like "inquire of" or "make an inquiry of", which is all I think you're trying to convey anyway... at least I hope so.

From your denial of Jesus as anything other than a historical teacher, and having interacted with persons from other faiths before, I have suspicions about your background religion as to whether it is Christian or other,

That is part of the reason about asking about your seminary and whether or not it was labeled as christian.
As I've already pointed out to you, there are Jewish scholars affiliated with the seminary and this no more makes them Christians than it makes the seminary itself Jewish... this isn't a difficult concept. Jesus was a first-century Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose teachings have permeated Western thought... he is considered to be a whole lot more than this by others, but I'm not among them. A number of his ethical teachings, as well as his challenge of the Roman collaborators exploiting the people, are amenable with my own outlook here in the present... I have no interest in "doctrine", my Christianity is purely praxis-driven, to comfort those who mourn and alleviate suffering within my sphere of influence. Whether you extend Christian identity to me or withdraw it is of no concern to me...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
This seems slightly unfair. Do scientists "torture" their hypothesis with reasonable experiments to get to an inductive point in their research? Do they not ask the relevant questions in this endeavor? How many questions and at what point, about an unknown, turns into torture?


Since when in science has asking questions been torture? Final exams?
Despite a witty last line, I have no interest in discussing this matter except with the poster to whom I made the comments... I am interested, however, in picking up our own sub-thread that you have either forgotten about or abandoned here.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
Only one version therefore might lay claim to being "original" and the others are revisions of it or its source
Or all four MIGHT be original. Your still in hypothetical land on both points.

You say "internal evidence" suggests a possible 2nd or 3rd century authorship, and yet church fathers known to exist in the second century referred to them and Paul. So the gospels {MIGHT) have been written before jerusalem fell.

Again we are beyond the topic of the olivet. And I don't have anything new or additional to say on that topic and I'm tiring of the critical, analysis with an objectiv noe of warfare against Jesus.

One can be liberal and allow for new ideas and thinking outside the box but one must still have foundations, principles, character and integrity when doing so. Your responses that Jesus was mistaken in his words in the olivet contradict the number one law in order to understand the writing. That is faith that Jesus was the son of god. (john 6:28,29, rom 3:27-31 etc.

If indeed God is God then he would have the power to ensure that his paper testimony is relatively reliable. That was a deduction that I had made at a early age and it has served me well and proven itself accurate multitudes of times.

The inductive study techniques result in a exegesis with a goal of finding the original intent and meaning.

Textual analysis is part of the realm of things taken into consideration but to suggest that the gospels were written two centuries beyond what is traditionally accepted needs better words and proof than 'might' or 'possibly' and so forth in order to weigh heavily for reconsideration of the meaning of the text.

Sometimes, there are people or groups of people who will continuously research topics in order to find something new and make a name for themselves. That's not a good foundation for liberal thinking and research. The foundation must be truth, not being liberal for the sake of being liberal and finding something new

An inductive study will also turn up proving parts of information and proving cross-references of the intent of the living word. For example when Jesus mentions in the olivet about the time of coming in the clouds, one can ask is there other times in the old testament or the New testament when this coming in the clouds is mentioned. The question is then are they referring to the same time, and what were they referring to.

I'll see if I can find a link to inductive study techniques, but a person's interpretation and understanding grows as their knowledge and awareness of Bible themes and covenantal themes grows. The inductive study technique will not give all the information that a person gathers through those years. It will just set up a few principles of questions to ask the text and observations to make when reading the text and so forth.

I understand things differently than I had 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Or all four MIGHT be original. Your still in hypothetical land on both points.
Again, biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke... a subsection of those scholars (myself included) would add John to the mix, but that is irrelevant to an analysis of the so-called Olivet discourse since there is no parallel for it there. As long as you acknowledge everything you say is also hypothetical, I have no objection to your statement... it then boils down to whose hypothesis has the better evidence to support it. Verbatim agreements are hard evidence in every other context of direct literary dependence, the biblical texts are no exception and no serious scholar disputes this...

You say "internal evidence" suggests a possible 2nd or 3rd century authorship, and yet church fathers known to exist in the second century referred to them and Paul.
I never said the gospels were written in the second or third centuries but rather by second or third generation Christians... there is a rather significant difference between these two propositions so you just knocked down a strawman. Incidentally, I do date Luke-Acts to the early second century and this is perfectly compatible with both the internal and external evidence.

So the gospels {MIGHT) have been written before jerusalem fell.
I see no good reason to think so and a lot of reasons to think otherwise.

Again we are beyond the topic of the olivet. And I don't have anything new or additional to say on that topic and I'm tiring of the critical warfare against Jesus.
There's no one warring against Jesus here... I am critical, however, of some of the interpretive positions held by a number of his contemporary followers, but that describes pretty much everyone who posts here.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
it then boils down to whose hypothesis
As long as the word hypothesis exists in your opinions they're not much worth talking about are they? And you're understanding you might have more supporting data but I'm not overly really concerned about that data. Nor am I overly concerned if one writer used another raiders work as a general source of reference it just doesn't matter. in a general sense they got the record rate.

Your responses to some of the angles that I presented such as an analysis of the word aeon (matt 24:3 and the observation of jesus's use of the same words of Isaiah 13 in the olivet, lets me know that you're emphasis is on textual criticism and fault finding, and not on honest, objective, inductive study and exegesis.

I believe will call this discussion over. :)
 

Tonyg

Member
it then boils down to whose hypothesis
As long as the word hypothesis exists in your opinions they're not much worth talking about are they? And you're understanding you might have more supporting data but I'm not overly really concerned about that data. Nor am I overly concerned if one writer used another raiders work as a general source of reference it just doesn't matter. in a general sense they got the record rate.

Your responses to some of the angles that I presented such as an analysis of the word aeon (matt 24:3 and the observation of jesus's use of the same words of Isaiah 13 in the olivet, lets me know that you're emphasis is on textual criticism and not on inductive eisegesis.

I believe will call this discussion over. :)
Incidentally, I do date Luke-Acts to the early second century and this is perfectly compatible with both the internal and external evidence.
If memory serves correct Theophilus was one of the noble I want to say hi priests but I don't think that's accurate, who serves somewhere around the time of 60 to 63 ad. Some people have alleged and hypothesized that Theophilus was the solidifying factor in Jerusalem / Judea which was then taken out of the way for the man of lawlessness to appear. Who would have been another less noble Temple official. So whoever was writing to Theophilus was writing to this man. The endings of Luke and acts do not include any mention of the temple Construction. One would think that if they were writing a history some of those events and activities would have been included. Paul's beheading isn't even mentioned. But if you want to continue this topic it should go in another thread. That way others might join in. I have limited interest and limited time for higher criticism.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
you might have more supporting data but I'm not overly really concerned about that data.
This statement is telling about how little evidence actually matters to you and to those likeminded... it is nothing to be proud of.

Nor am I overly concerned if one writer used another raiders work as a general source of reference it just doesn't matter. in a general sense they got the record rate.
It matters a great deal if, as you were arguing previously, differences are evidence of "originality" --- the differences are, in actuality, evidence of each successive author's redactional tendencies, which sometimes includes disagreement with and correction of his sources.

Your responses to some of the angles that I presented such as an analysis of the word aeon (matt 24:3 and the observation of jesus's use of the same words of Isaiah 13 in the olivet, lets me know that you're emphasis is on textual criticism and fault finding, and not on honest, objective, inductive study and exegesis.
Do these words sounds familiar: "When one cannot objectively defend their stance against analysis, it's common and easy to get offensive towards the person or claim their method rather than the issue at hand is flawed."? You posted them yesterday here and ironically this is precisely what you've done in your latest post... you've subtly impugned my integrity (ie. if it's not an honest exegesis it is implicitly a dishonest one) and challenged my method. I have no objection to you doing the latter, but if you're going to do so you would do well to get your terminology straight. I've made no text-critical arguments at all in this sub-thread (for an example of such see my post here), though textual criticism is an important tool of the historical-critical scholar. Textual criticism is sometimes referred to by practitioners of the historical-grammatical method as lower criticism and is viewed positively whereas so-called higher criticism is viewed negatively, indeed, as you so dismissed it in your addendum (to which I am not responding since the dating of Acts was pursued at length with another poster in the same thread beginning here).

I believe will call this discussion over.
You are welcome to withdraw... I can only hope that you will think further and with more sophistication on the subjects that were raised in our dialogue. At present your knowledge of these issues is rudimentary (as the terminological mistakes I point out in my previous paragraph demonstrate) and your objections to my position are quite facile. The good news is that this can be remedied by educating yourself... a good place to start would be the resources I cited for you earlier today.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
This statement is telling about how little evidence actually matters to you and to those likeminded... it is nothing to be proud of.
No it's indicating that I'm tired of the heaviness of the conversation. You claim your opinions are of great value because you are among a group of educated persons. Sometimes that education is good. Sometimes as noted in one of the first entry posts I made that education is just a cyclical self-approvement.

Start a new thread if you want to dialogue about textual criticism. .
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
matters a great deal if, as you were arguing previously, differences are evidence of "originality" --- the differences are, in actuality, evidence of each successive author's redactional tendencies, which sometimes includes disagreement with and correction of his sources.
Again hypothetical theoretical statements. Can you prove that an alledged successive author was correcting a previous author in the points where they differ. It's a hypothetical assumptio. .

These are tactics that Islamic scholars are thought to do.,. Is your name rene akbar?: That Muslim, "scholar" joke who wrote the Jesus book?
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
hope that you will think further and with more sophistication on the subjects that were raised in our dialogue. At present your knowledge of these issues is rudimentary (as the terminological mistakes I point out in my previous paragraph demonstrate) and your objections to my position are quite facile. The good news is that this can be remedied by educating yourself... a good place to start would be the resources I cited for you earlier today.

Kind regards,
Lol! As another poster mentioned and I agree that there is some room for scrutinizing and researching well accepted claims in any situation.

9/11 truthers are an example of people who critically analyze the background information that is supposed to be accepted. Some are engineers and pilots. There are others who are doing the same with the virus and vaccine rollouts, Some are doctor's lawyers and high ranking business people.. Others yet question the moon landings From your statements, I'm glad to know that you would support such activity and scrutiny. I'm sure you would agree that they have a scholarly liability to research such questions.


But there is also room for those who have received Christ as God by logical and reasonable faith, and who have repro0ved that faith into experiential knowledge multiple times oved as John 17:3 indicates.

When a few of the disciples were preaching in the temple they were chastised and whipped by the Pharisees. They were chastized verbally by saying they were ignorant and unlearning men and who were they to speak back against the elders. But they took note at these men had been with Jesus.!

Well if the unlearning and uneducated men were right and were actually more learned and educated in the scriptures than the Pharisees. Pharisees may have been mulling over which copy of deuteronomy they should preach from on the next sabbàth and was the weather or not any more accurate.
. The apostles were bringing the news that the fulfillment of those prophecies in either copy were being fulfilled in their day and in Jesus whom they crucified.

No I'm not withdrawing out of a sense of defeat but rather a sense of victory which you can't or won't acknowledge.

To summarize from the opening post, Jesus stated that all those things would occur within the generation of his disciples to whom he was speaking. And I have shown how history records that they did occur and were fulfilled.. I've given enough confirming historical fulfillments to encourage any seekers asking in wisdom to research the positive fulfillment of any other questions they might have.

Peter in 2nd Peter chapter 3 talks of those who are twisting and misunderstanding both the old testament scriptures and Paul's letters. He doesn't say that they are using the wrong text or that the previous texts are not reliable. But they are simply misinterpreting and misunderstanding or intentionally twisting the old testament and at least the letters of the Epistles. There he calls them ignorant and unloaded men.

I'll look for your thread titled texture criticism of the Gospels where you can present your analysis and hypotheses.!
 
Last edited:

rod.ney

Well-known 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?
Jesus spoke in parables and some times Figuratively! The " This Generation " that He told them about was the Fig Tree ( Figurative of Israel ) Blossoming in the Spring ( May 14 ) 1948 AD ( see Matt.24:32-34 )! Amos 9:15 ( Israel back in their LAND Permanently - Fig Tree Blossoming - not to get uprooted or scattered again ) is part of ALL those things Jesus was telling those first century AD people about! If they were to be the " This Generation " then He would of told them " Your Generation " will not all Pass ( die ) before He makes His Post Trib. future return! So no, Jesus did Not tell a Lie when you Look at that Fact ( the Fig tree representing Israel Blossoming in the Spring of AD 1948 )! Thus He will return sometime BEFORE all the people of that " This Generation " die! Remember that people can still live to be 120 ( but Very few )! Thus since the Church age is supposed to last about 2 Days ( 2000 Years - Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8 in conjunction with Hosea 6:2 )! After the 3rd day is at the end of His 1000 year Reign, when He then creates the new heaven & earth ( Rev.21:1/Isaiah 65:17 ) with no seas to Reign on Forever in that Sin Free new creation!
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
No I'm not withdrawing out of a sense of defeat but rather a sense of victory which you can't or won't acknowledge.
You are welcome to your self-proclaimed victory, but it's rather obvious you are out of your depth here.

I'll look for your thread titled texture criticism of the Gospels where you can present your analysis and hypotheses.!
It will be a book, not a thread... incidentally, while text-critical arguments may be used to fine tune certain disputed passages, the overall approach is called redaction criticism. Just one more indication that you don't actually know what you're talking about... and that's factoring in your dictation software that presumably yielded 'texture' in place of 'textual'.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

RCM

Active member
Again, biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke... a subsection of those scholars (myself included) would add John to the mix, but that is irrelevant to an analysis of the so-called Olivet discourse since there is no parallel for it there. As long as you acknowledge everything you say is also hypothetical, I have no objection to your statement... it then boils down to whose hypothesis has the better evidence to support it. Verbatim agreements are hard evidence in every other context of direct literary dependence, the biblical texts are no exception and no serious scholar disputes this...

No, Biblical scholars are not pretty much in unanimous agreement on 'Source Criticism'


I never said the gospels were written in the second or third centuries but rather by second or third generation Christians... there is a rather significant difference between these two propositions so you just knocked down a strawman. Incidentally, I do date Luke-Acts to the early second century and this is perfectly compatible with both the internal and external evidence.


Kind regards,
Jonathan

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

As for Luke,

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."

Luke and the person Theophilus indicate that the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 70 A.D.



RCM
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
No, Biblical scholars are not pretty much in unanimous agreement on 'Source Criticism'

Yes, Biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Anyone who doesn't say that is not a Bible scholar.
 
Top