What prophecy is Jesus referencing?

[Elijah John]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

Or did Luke just make this up for his own theological agenda, or did he perhaps reference some apocryphal source?

[Mithrae]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

Or did Luke just make this up for his own theological agenda, or did he perhaps reference some apocryphal source?

Luke was a companion of Paul, and from Luke's story of the last supper it seems probable that he was drawing partly on Paul's own version in 1 Cor. 11. There are several elements present in Luke and 1 Cor. which aren't present in Mark or Matthew:

• > The giving of the bread in Mark:
  "Take; this is my body."
  In Matthew:
  "Take, eat; this is my body."
  In Luke:
  "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
  In 1 Cor:
  “This is my body which is for[b; Other ancient authorities read broken for] you. Do this in remembrance of me.�
  
  > The timing of the cup in Mark:
  body." 14.23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them
  In Matthew:
  body." 26.27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them
  In Luke:
  of me." 22.20 And likewise the cup after supper
  In 1 Cor:
  of me.� 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper

As far as I can find at a glance, the specific claim that a resurrection on the third day "is written" can't be found in the other gospels either - but it too can be found from Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Luke is also the only gospel in which Jesus appears to Peter before all the 11 together.

So the direct source for Luke 24:46 appears to be 1 Cor. 15:4. However Paul doesn't say that "it is written" plainly that there'd be a resurrection on the third day, only that he has somehow gleaned that meaning from the Scriptures - presumably from Isaiah 53:10, Hosea 6:2 and perhaps the story of Jonah as used in the gospels.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

But there is no way Jesus would be referencing Paul, who was not an "apostle" till the whole Damascus episode.

If Jesus did say this, he had to be referencing the OT/Hebrew Bible, but where is it written in the OT as explicitly as Jesus seems to make it that the "MESSIAH would be killed and after the third day rise again?"

Yet many apologists use this as a fulfilled prophecy "proof verse" for an OT "prophecy" that does not exist.

[Lotan]

I'm with Mithrae on this one. Since Paul claims to have received the 1Cor kerygma it's also possible that it was written by someone else previously, and the following verse...

"and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

...reeks of Paul as well.

I you are suggesting that the author of Luke invented this speech of Jesus, well, of course he did. It's not like anybody would call him on it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

But there is no way Jesus would be referencing Paul, who was not an "apostle" till the whole Damascus episode.

No, Luke was apparently just guessing what Jesus might have said. All three synoptics do have Jesus 'predicting' his death and resurrection on the third day (eg. Mark 10:32 and parallels), and both Matthew and Luke (Q source?) have Jesus relating that to the 'sign of Jonah' (Mt. 12:38ff, Lk. 11:29ff). Whether or not Jesus really did expect to die, let alone rise again, is open to guesswork.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

But there is no way Jesus would be referencing Paul, who was not an "apostle" till the whole Damascus episode.

No, Luke was apparently just guessing what Jesus might have said. All three synoptics do have Jesus 'predicting' his death and resurrection on the third day (eg. Mark 10:32 and parallels), and both Matthew and Luke (Q source?) have Jesus relating that to the 'sign of Jonah' (Mt. 12:38ff, Lk. 11:29ff). Whether or not Jesus really did expect to die, let alone rise again, is open to guesswork.

I agree, but that is not really what I am getting at with this thread/OP. The point I am trying to make, and challenging anyone to refute, is that there IS no such prophecy in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would die and rise again on the third day. Luke, whatever his sources, tries to make it seem like there is such a prophecy, by putting that reference on Jesus' lips, and saying "it is written".

[Zzyzx]

.

Luke was a companion of Paul,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "Luke" (whoever he may have been) is claimed by some to have been an associate of Paul/Saul.

AND Paul/Saul admittedly never knew Jesus but supposedly "met" him in a "vision" (or hallucination, or a delusion, or a fantasy, or a fabrication). P/S says almost nothing about the "vision" in his own writings. It is Acts (which is also attributed to "Luke") that describes the "vision."

If presented with such shaky "information" about a different religious idol and his followers, most Christians would realize that it should not be regarded as highly reliable.


Apologies EJ if this is aside from your main point, but I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

[Mithrae]

.

Luke was a companion of Paul,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "Luke" (whoever he may have been) is claimed by some to have been an associate of Paul/Saul.

Luke seems to have been the only canonical gospel which was not circulated anonymously; it's attributed to Luke from the very earliest manuscripts and its form (addressed specifically to one Theophilus) suggests that the attribution probably goes back to the original. Paul himself mentions a Luke in one of his letters, and Acts (by the same author) itself strongly implies the author to have been a companion in some of Paul's voyages.

• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
  
  The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke. This attestation probably does not stem from reading Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) or Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2), nor Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82), who also ascribe the third Gospel to one called Luke. Indeed, considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable that the author had indicated his name on the autograph. (The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely his patron, as seen in the similar references to "most excellent X" in the prefaces to the De libris propriis liber of Galenus, the De antiquis oratoribus of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, the Scriptor De Divinatione of Melampus, the Peri ton kata antipatheian kai sumpatheian of Nepualius, and both Josephi vita and Contra Apionem of Josephus.) This Luke has traditionally been identified as the one named in Philemon 24 as a co-worker of Paul. Does the internal evidence support the idea that the author of Luke-Acts had known Saul of Tarsus?
  
  Chief among the features of Luke-Acts that have always been thought to support the idea that the author knew Paul are the "we passages" found in 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16. . . . The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware.

[atheist buddy]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

Or did Luke just make this up for his own theological agenda, or did he perhaps reference some apocryphal source?

Luke was a companion of Paul, and from Luke's story of the last supper it seems probable that he was drawing partly on Paul's own version in 1 Cor. 11. There are several elements present in Luke and 1 Cor. which aren't present in Mark or Matthew:

• > The giving of the bread in Mark:
  "Take; this is my body."
  In Matthew:
  "Take, eat; this is my body."
  In Luke:
  "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
  In 1 Cor:
  “This is my body which is for[b; Other ancient authorities read broken for] you. Do this in remembrance of me.�
  
  > The timing of the cup in Mark:
  body." 14.23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them
  In Matthew:
  body." 26.27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them
  In Luke:
  of me." 22.20 And likewise the cup after supper
  In 1 Cor:
  of me.� 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper

As far as I can find at a glance, the specific claim that a resurrection on the third day "is written" can't be found in the other gospels either - but it too can be found from Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Luke is also the only gospel in which Jesus appears to Peter before all the 11 together.

So the direct source for Luke 24:46 appears to be 1 Cor. 15:4. However Paul doesn't say that "it is written" plainly that there'd be a resurrection on the third day, only that he has somehow gleaned that meaning from the Scriptures - presumably from Isaiah 53:10, Hosea 6:2 and perhaps the story of Jonah as used in the gospels.

The Gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke the Apostle.

It was written by some anonymous author decades after the event, based on multiple generations of oral accounts of the story.

[Mithrae]

The Gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke the Apostle.

It was written by some anonymous author decades after the event, based on multiple generations of oral accounts of the story.

See post #8. In addition to those reasons, it's worth noting that the various figures of the early church Luke was a relative nobody. Even Mark was at least Peter's interpretor, but Luke is known only for an association with Paul - and a rather loose one at that!

If there were anyone in the early church casting around for a name to pin to the gospel, they surely would have picked one of the disciples. Even Barnabas or Timothy or Silas would've been higher up on the list than Luke. The main positive evidence that Luke is probably the author are outlined above, but this is a pretty compelling negative reason - a reason why the false attribution scenario simply doesn't make any sense. Of all the gospels, Luke's authorship is perhaps the most assured.