It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9200
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

I found this interesting.

https://scottmsullivan.com/a-proof-for- ... of-luke-so...
Now, here’s the interesting part: the word that Luke uses for “worship� is the Greek term “π�οσκυνήσαντες� (proskunesantes).

I know what you’re saying “John, this all Greek to me. Why is this important?� (Ha… I’m funny….right?)

Anyway, the root of the word for “worship� in Luke 24:52 is π�οσκυνέω (proskuneo) and unlike the other Gospels, Luke hardly uses this word at all.

In fact, he uses it in only one other passage in his whole Gospel.

The only other place that Luke employs this particular Greek term is in Luke 4:7-8 when Satan offer Christ every kingdom of the world under one condition:

“If you, then, will worship me (π�οσκυνήσῃς (proskynēsēs), it shall all be yours� and Jesus answered him � it is written, ‘you shall worship (Π�οσκυνήσεις Proskynēseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve. (Deut. 4:5)�

Luke’s highly selective use of the term proskuneo in the early chapters of the Gospel give give it a definition so that it ought to be taken to say that God alone is worthy of proskuneo (Luke 4:8). But the disciples offer Jesus proskuneo and connects it with their worship in the Temple where they “glorify God.�
It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Links to see the actual Greek.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/4-7.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-52.htm

Setting aside our dogma and theology and just reading the text it really does look like the worship Satan wanted from Jesus was given to Jesus by the disciples.

Anyone want to still disagree that Luke thought Jesus was God (based upon the evidence in the text)?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3277 times
Been thanked: 2023 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #31

Post by Difflugia »

WeSee wrote:Stute makes a big deal out of the "highly selective use of the term proskuneo" in Luke. Of course the simple answer is that in Luke only used the word a couple of times simply because his gospel story only had a couple of occasions where "worship" came up. It's not reasonable to read more into it than that.
It's easier to offer a "simple answer" to an argument if one misrepresents it. "Worship" was literally in the sources that Luke copied, so it most definitely "came up." Luke made changes to some words and kept others, so it was definitely intentional. It may not have been for the reason Stute claims, but it's pretty hard to claim that a conscious literary decision is simple happenstance.

I mean, I guess it's not that hard to only claim such; you just did, after all. It is, though, a bit more difficult to be "reasonable" while doing so.
JehovahsWitness wrote:It seems as if the possibility that proskynēsēs is used in one way when referencing the first commandment and another way for what the disciple did is not entertained.
Since you keep arguing against the same straw man argument, I'll assume you don't have any responses to the real one.

The actual argument is about the same word being used in a way that might be construed as having a unified literary purpose. You are right (as rebuttals to straw men generally are) that the word could have meant two completely different things. That would mean, though, that Luke just missed the implication of his own writing. That does happen occasionally* and is at least plausible, but then we have to believe that Luke saw neither meaning nor the possibility of a misunderstanding when using the same word he removed from all but one copied pericope. Remember that the last sentence of the Gospel appears in none of the other Gospels. Luke consciously removed it from copied text, then used it in a sentence that he apparently crafted himself.

Now, I've been hearing from conservative Christians for decades about what a skilled and conscientious historian Luke was. So, what do they think of his literary chops? Was he sloppy enough to miss something with that kind of theological impact? Would a competent writer offer no contextual clues for proper reading? I see π�οσκυνήσεις of Luke 4:8 as Chekhov's gun and it was fired in 24:52-53. Was it instead the mere bumblings of a proverbial monkey at a typewriter?

Could it be that as an atheist, I have a higher opinion of Luke's literary ability than a self-described "Bible believing Christian?"
JehovahsWitness wrote:Since the word has of itself has a wide scope in meaning, one can only supposed such dichotomic thinking stems from not being familiar with what they word actually means.
There are two points I'd like to make in response to this. First, I'd like to point out that the two meanings that you are shilling for within this "wide scope" are contextually appropriate in either pericope. Luke could mean Satan to be requesting and Jesus condemning "obeisance" as easily as he could that the disciples "worshipped" Jesus. The only reason to assign them different meanings is an a priori assumption about Luke's doctrine. Since that's exactly the subject of this very discussion, your argument is dangerously close to being circular.

The second response is more in the nature of ironic comedy than of an actual argument. I'd like to quote an esteemed member of this community:
JehovahsWitness wrote:This is a nonsense "counterargument". Proposing that Luke was in some way mistaken by pointing out how modern day translators may or may not have alternatively rendered the passage is totally irrelevant.
Hear, hear.

*An interesting example of this that I find entertaining is the suggestion that the HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey could have been a thinly veiled cipher of IBM (H→I, A→B, L→M). Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick have both denied this.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21144
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 795 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #32

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Wootah wrote: I think the evidence given by others doesn't allow for such a cop-out.
What evidence is that? I dont see any evidence as to the meaning/definition of the greek word to counteract my point in this thread at all. We have speculated on the what was in the writers mind and I have analysed his description of the encounter between Satan and Jesus to glean what the writer was trying to convey (no Greek required) but I see nothing about proskynēsēs over and above showing what the word looks like in greek.

You wish to talk about the Greek, do so but dont claim it has been done when it is clear to anyone that scrolls through the thread, that as yet it hasn't.




JW






PROSKYNEO: DEFINTION (word studies)
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9200
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #33

Post by Wootah »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Wootah wrote: I think the evidence given by others doesn't allow for such a cop-out.
What evidence is that? I dont see any evidence as to the meaning/definition of the greek word to counteract my point in this thread at all. We have speculated on the what was in the writers mind and I have analysed his description of the encounter between Satan and Jesus to glean what the writer was trying to convey (no Greek required) but I see nothing about proskynēsēs over and above showing what the word looks like in greek.

You wish to talk about the Greek, do so but dont claim it has been done when it is clear to anyone that scrolls through the thread, that as yet it hasn't.




JW






PROSKYNEO: DEFINTION (word studies)
I read your links - none of them discussed the usage of Luke in the book named after him.

Please provide your analysis for the book of Luke's usage of the the word:

proskynēseis

https://biblehub.com/greek/proskyne_seis_4352.htm

It will help you with your list of links when you need to post in the future.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #34

Post by Elijah John »

Wootah wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

You do make a good case, but that raises the question why then wasn't Luke more explicit? Why didn't Luke shout from the rooftops "Jesus is God"? Or have one of his characters make that proclamation?

Also, when writing in Acts, Luke had Paul (or was it Peter?) characterize Jesus as a "man whom God raised from the dead". The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, the hypostatic union" had not even been formulated yet. So to Luke, (in Acts at least), Jesus was a man.

But back to his Gospel, just because Luke may have thought Jesus was God why should I? Or anyone else?
You don't have to believe the Bible or anyone else. I always thought you were interested in this stuff. For me, it is enough for you to know what the Bible says.
I am. But I find the Bible to be a mix of the believable and the absurd. We differ in that I don't see the Bible as perfect. Only God is perfect.

Remember, it was fallible humans who compiled the canon of the Bible. OT and NT. God did not dictate it, then bind and publish it, and proclaim "it is finished, it is good".
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9200
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #35

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

Which makes it more marvellous and makes the victory even more complete.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

WeSee
Banned
Banned
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:31 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #36

Post by WeSee »

[Replying to post 28 by bjs]



This is a strange statement. Stute seems to build his entire case around keeping the verses in context. Why do you think that he was taking them out of context?


In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is reporting Jesus' interaction with the devil. This is the purpose of the passage. This is the context. In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is not claiming that he thinks that Jesus is God. It is not the purpose of the passage. It is not the context.

Similarly for Luke 24:50-52.


Is there a textual justification for saying that Luke used the word one way in other circumstances, but changed the meaning when addressing Jesus?

Anything is possible. However the idea that Luke used a word to mean one thing early in his Gospel, and then used the same word to mean something completely different later in his Gospel without giving us any textual clue that he was changing the meaning is not reasonable.


I made no claim that Luke "used the word one way in other circumstances, but changed the meaning when addressing Jesus".

I made no claim that "Luke used a word to mean one thing early in his Gospel, and then used the same word to mean something completely different later ".

This is not my position.

This is more of an ad hominem attack then an actual alternative.

Do you have a genuine fourth possibility that is not just a personal attack against Stute?


From Wiki:
"Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Actually it isn't an ad hom. My argument addressed the "substance of the argument itself". It was made in the text that preceded the text that you quoted. For whatever reason you omitted it in making your claim that it was an "ad hominem attack".

How is it not a "genuine fourth possibility" that Stute does not understand what the text actually says? Simply because you believe Stute is correct?

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9200
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #37

Post by Wootah »

WeSee wrote: In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is reporting Jesus' interaction with the devil. This is the purpose of the passage. This is the context. In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is not claiming that he thinks that Jesus is God. It is not the purpose of the passage. It is not the context.
Why did Jesus reply to Satan: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only�?

Assuming you correctly answer: Because Jesus knows to only worship God. Then you must know from this thread that the only two times that word is used in the gospel in Luke is with Satan and when the disciples worship Jesus.

Luke isn't making an accident here and accidentally having the disciples doing the very thing of worshipping not God. Luke is showing at the end of the gospel that it is correct to worship Jesus.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

WeSee
Banned
Banned
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:31 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #38

Post by WeSee »

Wootah wrote:
WeSee wrote: In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is reporting Jesus' interaction with the devil. This is the purpose of the passage. This is the context. In Luke 4:5-8 Luke is not claiming that he thinks that Jesus is God. It is not the purpose of the passage. It is not the context.
Why did Jesus reply to Satan: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only�?

Assuming you correctly answer: Because Jesus knows to only worship God. Then you must know from this thread that the only two times that word is used in the gospel in Luke is with Satan and when the disciples worship Jesus.

Luke isn't making an accident here and accidentally having the disciples doing the very thing of worshipping not God. Luke is showing at the end of the gospel that it is correct to worship Jesus.
Why did Jesus reply to Satan: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only�?

Assuming you correctly answer: Because Jesus knows to only worship God.


"Assuming you correctly answer"?
How is that not a blatant example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question"?

As I wrote in my first post on this thread:
Stute then goes on to say the Luke 4:8 "ought to be taken to say that God alone is worthy of proskuneo" even though the text doesn't actually say that.

Luke 4
8Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’�

Jesus quotes God wherein He commands His followers to worship Him and only serve Him. There's no compelling reason to take it otherwise.
Breaking it down for you, the words in the text actually say the following.
1) You shall worship the Lord your God
2) [You shall] serve Him only.

The words do not say "You shall the Lord your God only and serve Him only". The words in command #1 simply say to "worship the Lord your God". Period. The words do NOT say "only worship God".

Then you must know from this thread that the only two times that word is used in the gospel in Luke is with Satan and when the disciples worship Jesus.

Luke isn't making an accident here and accidentally having the disciples doing the very thing of worshipping not God.


As I also wrote in my first post on this thread:
Stute makes a big deal out of the "highly selective use of the term proskuneo" in Luke. Of course the simple answer is that in Luke only used the word a couple of times simply because his gospel story only had a couple of occasions where "worship" came up. It's not reasonable to read more into it than that.
[/quote]

User avatar
tigger2
Sage
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #39

Post by tigger2 »

[Replying to post 37 by WeSee]

WORSHIP

The words usually translated as 'worship' have different levels of meaning. When applied to YHWH God (the Father) it was clearly understood as the highest form of the words.

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.�

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.�

“Obeisance,� of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence� - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]� - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …� - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship� is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’� And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).� - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.�

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before� at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship� there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships� [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.�

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.� - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.�

We can see the same thing at Is. 45:14. Here God, speaking to his faithful human followers of the last days, says:

“and they [the rest of surviving mankind] ... shall fall down [shachah - ‘worship’] unto thee, they shall make supplication [palal - ‘pray’: see The Jerusalem Bible and AT] unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee [see IN/WITH study]; and there is none else.� - KJV, ASV. - cf. Is. 49:23.

Even the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, says at Is. 45:14 -
“and they ... shall [proskuneo - ‘worship’] thee and make supplication [proseuchomai - ‘pray’] to thee: because God is in thee; and there is no God beside thee, O Lord.� (Notice all the trinitarian-type “evidence� here that could “prove� these men are “equally God�!) - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Greek and English, Zondervan Ed., 1970.

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships� ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship� is here translated “did obeisance� in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo.
..................................
Part of the problem many modern English-speaking students of the Bible have in understanding this concept is that they haven't learned that their own language has changed so much in just the last few hundred years. If we all knew the parallel in our own language with the ancient understanding of this concept in the original Bible languages, it would be much more clear. In other words, the word "worship" in English had, just a few hundred years ago, the very same levels of meaning as did the original Bible words, shachah and proskuneo. A professor of Bible languages at Union Theological Seminary in New York, Dr. Marvin R. Vincent, wrote that in the KJV (and other old translations into English) some uses of 'worship' may seem to be:

"An unfortunate translation, according to modern English, but justified by the usage of earlier English, according to which to worship meant simply to honor. Worship is worthship, or honor paid to dignity or worth. This usage survives in the [British] expressions 'worshipful' and 'your worship.' In the marriage-service of the English Church occurs the phrase, 'With my body I thee worship.' So Wycliffe [one of the earliest English Bible translators] renders Matthew 19:19, 'Worship thy father and thy mother;' and John 12:26, 'If any man serve me, my Father shall worship him.'" - pp. 533, 534, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1, Sage Software, 1996.

So, just like the Bible words shachah and proskuneo, The word 'worship' in English also, until relatively recent times, had various levels of meaning and could be applied to other men in a lower sense of the word. But the very same word also could be used in the highest sense to apply to the one true God only.

Sojournerofthearth
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 11:24 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Post #40

Post by Sojournerofthearth »

[Replying to Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:
You do make a good case, but that raises the question why then wasn't Luke more explicit? Why didn't Luke shout from the rooftops "Jesus is God"? Or have one of his characters make that proclamation?
Just because we are using Luke, I'll stick to this one example, but there are several passages in the Bible that say this.

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. (Luke 10:21-24)

I, personally, take the Bible as a whole and do not break it down book by book but in the spirit of cooperation...

Soj

Post Reply