What did Luke originally write?

[historia]

How do you know the copy of Luke, for which you and I read, are remotely close to the original? Maybe the originals had no miracles in them at all? Or maybe they did and the original author's intent was completely different? Again, not asking you to prove a negative. I don't really have to. Why? We have absolutely NO idea what the original even says, as a starting point.

Question for debate:

Is the Gospel of Luke that we now possess remotely close to the original? How might we know?

[neverknewyou]

No, you are getting it wrong here.

Luke 24. 46 and said to them, “Thus nit is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for3 the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48uYou are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Nor only do they not go to Galilee, they are told to stay in Jerusalem which they do...

From where do you think the went to Jerusalem, if not from Galilee? I don't see any reason to think they didn't go to Jerusalem from Galilee, sorry.

You are floundering . Do you not know where Bethany is? It is over the mount of Olives from Jerusalem. They returned from Bethany just outside of Jerusalem, to the city. They did not go to Galilee at all. Not in Luke/Acts. Can you - without rewriting what Luke and Acts says - deny that there is no time or opportunity for the disciples to go to Galilee, quite apart from there being no point, since Jesus was visiting them in Jerusalem (or vicinity) for over a month?

Ergo, it supports my contention that Luke altered the angelic Message so they were not told to go to Galilee and (Luke 24 49) they are told that evening (Sunday) to stay put in Jerusalem,because Luke knew that this is what had actually happened, and the Pauline framework for Acts tells us how he knew - He knew of it from Paul's letters.

Why are you guys arguing over fables? None of anything in the gospels or Acts "actually happened," so why not bring yourselves up to date, read some 20th and 21st century literary scholarship if you want to argue over literature?

[TRANSPONDER]

No, you are getting it wrong here.

Luke 24. 46 and said to them, “Thus nit is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for3 the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48uYou are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Nor only do they not go to Galilee, they are told to stay in Jerusalem which they do...

From where do you think the went to Jerusalem, if not from Galilee? I don't see any reason to think they didn't go to Jerusalem from Galilee, sorry.

You are floundering . Do you not know where Bethany is? It is over the mount of Olives from Jerusalem. They returned from Bethany just outside of Jerusalem, to the city. They did not go to Galilee at all. Not in Luke/Acts. Can you - without rewriting what Luke and Acts says - deny that there is no time or opportunity for the disciples to go to Galilee, quite apart from there being no point, since Jesus was visiting them in Jerusalem (or vicinity) for over a month?

Ergo, it supports my contention that Luke altered the angelic Message so they were not told to go to Galilee and (Luke 24 49) they are told that evening (Sunday) to stay put in Jerusalem,because Luke knew that this is what had actually happened, and the Pauline framework for Acts tells us how he knew - He knew of it from Paul's letters.

Why are you guys arguing over fables? None of anything in the gospels or Acts "actually happened," so why not bring yourselves up to date, read some 20th and 21st century literary scholarship if you want to argue over literature?

The situation is that many people, believer and not do broadly credit the gospel story as reliable, give or take a miracle. I did myself.I never doubted the woven together contradictions, and never baulked at the excuse that 'witnesses don't always agree'. I never questioned Acts (which i now regard as little more than a biographical fantasy -novel, or that Paul got his gospel from the disciple originating with Jesus. And even now I credit a lot of the story, though individually reworked from a common original itself Christianized using Pauline opinions.

I can't just dismiss it all as having no real basis and Believers can and do make a tough case, referring to actual persons and placers. I think the refutation is there and plenty of it, but it requires a good case and I can't expect to get away with just waving it away.

[1213]

No, you are getting it wrong here.

Luke 24. 46 and said to them, “Thus nit is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for3 the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48uYou are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Nor only do they not go to Galilee, they are told to stay in Jerusalem which they do...

From where do you think the went to Jerusalem, if not from Galilee? I don't see any reason to think they didn't go to Jerusalem from Galilee, sorry.

You are floundering . Do you not know where Bethany is? It is over the mount of Olives from Jerusalem. They returned from Bethany just outside of Jerusalem,...

I understand the Bible so that they met Jesus in Galilee and then Jesus led them out as far as Bethany, from where they went to Jerusalem.

[JehovahsWitness]

I understand the Bible so that they met Jesus in Galilee and then Jesus led them out as far as Bethany, from where they went to Jerusalem.

No you are both starting from the wrong premise, ie that the risen Jesus and the Apostles were only in Judea once. But there is no scripture that says the word once, it is an assumption and one that cannot be supported if we take all the gospel accounts as a whole.

#1 The week he was resurrected Jesus told the women to tell the Apostles to go to GALILEE and promised to meet them'there. The men didnt believe the women and did not to go to Galilee. Only after he appeared to the men near Jerusalem they did pick up and go to Galilee (as per his initial instruction), where he (Jesus) appeared to them.

#2 Luke reports that Jesus told them to remain in Jerusalem, not to see/meet him, but to receive the holy spirit

Unless Jesus told them to remain in Jerusalem to receieve the holy spirit AND go to Jerusalem to meet him at the same time, Jesus instruction in Luke must have been POST the Galilean appearances back in Jerusalem for at least the 2nd time.


Logic,


JW

For further reading please go to other posts related to...

LOGIC , DEDUCTION and ... CRITICAL THINKING

[TRANSPONDER]

No, you are getting it wrong here.

Luke 24. 46 and said to them, “Thus nit is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for3 the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48uYou are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Nor only do they not go to Galilee, they are told to stay in Jerusalem which they do...

From where do you think the went to Jerusalem, if not from Galilee? I don't see any reason to think they didn't go to Jerusalem from Galilee, sorry.

You are floundering . Do you not know where Bethany is? It is over the mount of Olives from Jerusalem. They returned from Bethany just outside of Jerusalem,...

I understand the Bible so that they met Jesus in Galilee and then Jesus led them out as far as Bethany, from where they went to Jerusalem.

That won't do. it is clear that the final trip to Jerusalem was from Galilee to Perea on the border with Nabatea, then to Jericho, and on to Bethany which is on the east side of Jerusalem beyond the mount of Olives and still is today.

Thus (even if there is a Bethany in the north) this Bethany close by Jerusalem is the one that is meant, even if it was obvious from Jesus leading them out from Jerusalem where he had appeared to Bethany,apparently by way of a short walk rather than a couple of days' journey. You cannot wangle a trip to Galilee in the forty days plus between Jesus appearing to them and ascending, which was all spent in Jerusalem.

[TRANSPONDER]

I understand the Bible so that they met Jesus in Galilee and then Jesus led them out as far as Bethany, from where they went to Jerusalem.

No you are both starting from the wrong premise, ie that the risen Jesus and the Apostles were only in Judea once. But there is no scripture that says the word once, it is an assumption and one that cannot be supported if we take all the gospel accounts as a whole.

#1 The week he was resurrected Jesus told the women to tell the Apostles to go to GALILEE and promised to meet them'there. The men didnt believe the women and did not to go to Galilee. Only after he appeared to the men near Jerusalem they did pick up and go to Galilee (as per his initial instruction), where he (Jesus) appeared to them.

#2 Luke reports that Jesus told them to remain in Jerusalem, not to see/meet him, but to receive the holy spirit

Unless Jesus told them to remain in Jerusalem to receieve the holy spirit AND go to Jerusalem to meet him at the same time, Jesus instruction in Luke must have been POST the Galilean appearances back in Jerusalem for at least the 2nd time.


Logic,


JW

For further reading please go to other posts related to...

LOGIC , DEDUCTION and ... CRITICAL THINKING

Let's see.

Luke 24 50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

This is on the Sunday when he appeared to the 'eleven' after apparently appearing to Simon and to Cleophas and his companion on the way to Emmaeus and then strolling in through the door while they were still talking.

Then - right afterwards - not with a two day trip to Galilee smuggled in there - then he led them either by way of the Temple over Kedron vale or out the north of the city and to the mount of Olives (1) and there he was carried up to heaven. No trip to Galilee can be fiddled in there. Not Logic, invention, fiddlement and excuses, demonstrably.

But of course Jesus came back.

Acts 1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, (KJV) I rather like to use the KJV because my case is made on obvious readings, not interpretation or translation -shopping but what it plainly says. Incidentally, I have an idea that Luke (whoever he is, though aping the habit of Roman writers in dedicating their workto mrich or infliential Patron, has no patron but is rather writing to any an all lovers of God 'Theo -philus'.

after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

So Luke makes it clear that he has reported everything and if they had all trooped off to Galilee for some incomprehensible reason, he would have said so.Now, it seems either that Luke is saying that Jesus taught them over 40 days before he ascended or he came back and taught them and ascended again, but from before the resurrection appearance to the ascension, the order is to stay in Jerusalem, not to go traipsing off to Galilee. The angelic message is even changed to the are told to stay put, not go off to Galilee as Mark and Matthew say.

Try as you like, you cannot credibly wangle a trip to Galilee in there, nor deny that Luke altered the message so they wouldn't have to go. You and our pal 1213 may deny it all you like but you will not make a case to anyone who doesn't already believe that he knows what the Bible says better than the Bible does.

(1) though myself I am sure that all the action happened in the vicinity of the mount of Olives, Gethsemane Bethany and Bethphage and, apart from the Temple, the action was never in the city at all. Sorry folks, the Holy land tours along the via Dolorosa and the (two) Sepuchres are in the wrong place.

[neverknewyou]

The situation is that many people, believer and not do broadly credit the gospel story as reliable, give or take a miracle. I did myself.I never doubted the woven together contradictions, and never baulked at the excuse that 'witnesses don't always agree'. I never questioned Acts (which i now regard as little more than a biographical fantasy -novel, or that Paul got his gospel from the disciple originating with Jesus. And even now I credit a lot of the story, though individually reworked from a common original itself Christianized using Pauline opinions.

I can't just dismiss it all as having no real basis and Believers can and do make a tough case, referring to actual persons and placers. I think the refutation is there and plenty of it, but it requires a good case and I can't expect to get away with just waving it away.

I know when i'm reading fiction, as in Sherlock Holmes, or Superman, and I just accept the stories for what they are, reliable history does not enter into the equation, same goes for Bible stories, all of them, gospel fables included. I was told in school that some people take Bible stories as literally true and it turns out my teacher was right about that.

[TRANSPONDER]

The situation is that many people, believer and not, do broadly credit the gospel story as reliable, give or take a miracle. I did myself.I never doubted the woven together contradictions, and never baulked at the excuse that 'witnesses don't always agree'. I never questioned Acts (which i now regard as little more than a biographical fantasy -novel, or that Paul got his gospel from the disciple originating with Jesus. And even now I credit a lot of the story, though individually reworked from a common original itself Christianized using Pauline opinions.

I can't just dismiss it all as having no real basis and Believers can and do make a tough case, referring to actual persons and placers. I think the refutation is there and plenty of it, but it requires a good case and I can't expect to get away with just waving it away.

I know when i'm reading fiction, as in Sherlock Holmes, or Superman, and I just accept the stories for what they are, reliable history does not enter into the equation, same goes for Bible stories, all of them, gospel fables included. I was told in school that some people take Bible stories as literally true and it turns out my teacher was right about that.

They do, and like it or not whole chunks of society and very influential ones, too, do take these stories as broadly reliable. Many skeptics and Bible critics also take the stories as reliable in order to come up with their interpretations of 'what really happened'.

For example, I recall one book ending with Jesus leading the disciples up a hill (if they were at Bethany, which is on a hill, there is no more hill), and then he climbed up and vanished in a cloud. I could hardly believe that the disciples mistook vanishing in a cloud (as though the hill was 5,000 feet high) for ascending into heaven. But then 'Who moved the stone' (which sorta got me interested in 'what really happened') attempts to create a scenario of something rustling in the bushes and frightening the tomb guard away. Which is not what the story says, anyway, even if one accepts the tomb - guard, which i don't.

But I do (and a lot don't) credit a basic story, because I credit Paul as real, and thus the disciples as real and the man they followed as real and some things he did as real, and I have to judge what is true or not on the evidence, just as I'll have do during jury - service next month. I do give some weight to witness unity, and ascribe doubt to witness disunity about significant things. I also don't credit stretched Interpretations of what the Bible actually says as Really meaning something else, or indeed, something happening rather improbably like (as we had above) the disciples suddenly having Jesus pop up in front of them, teaching them this or that over more than a month and ascending (from Bethany specifically near Jerusalem) at least once into heaven, after Not telling the disciples to go to Galilee, and telling then to stay put until power descended on them, and yet (supposedly) they go off to Galilee to be told to teach all nations, as though Jesus couldn;t have said that last thing before ascending. Just to paper over a contradiction with Matthew who has NO appearance to the disciples that evening and they troop off to Galiiee as instructed.

Neo, even if the believers can swallow that, I can't. If a brace of witnesses tell such discrepant stories, I won't even have to raise it at the deliberations, the judge will strike it as unsafe.

[neverknewyou]

They do, and like it or not whole chunks of society and very influential ones, too, do take these stories as broadly reliable. Many skeptics and Bible critics also take the stories as reliable in order to come up with their interpretations of 'what really happened'.

For example, I recall one book ending with Jesus leading the disciples up a hill (if they were at Bethany, which is on a hill, there is no more hill), and then he climbed up and vanished in a cloud. I could hardly believe that the disciples mistook vanishing in a cloud (as though the hill was 5,000 feet high) for ascending into heaven. But then 'Who moved the stone' (which sorta got me interested in 'what really happened') attempts to create a scenario of something rustling in the bushes and frightening the tomb guard away. Which is not what the story says, anyway, even if one accepts the tomb - guard, which i don't.

But I do (and a lot don't) credit a basic story, because I credit Paul as real, and thus the disciples as real and the man they followed as real and some things he did as real, and I have to judge what is true or not on the evidence, just as I'll have do during jury - service next month. I do give some weight to witness unity, and ascribe doubt to witness disunity about significant things. I also don't credit stretched Interpretations of what the Bible actually says as Really meaning something else, or indeed, something happening rather improbably like (as we had above) the disciples suddenly having Jesus pop up in front of them, teaching them this or that over more than a month and ascending (from Bethany specifically near Jerusalem) at least once into heaven, after Not telling the disciples to go to Galilee, and telling then to stay put until power descended on them, and yet (supposedly) they go off to Galilee to be told to teach all nations, as though Jesus couldn;t have said that last thing before ascending. Just to paper over a contradiction with Matthew who has NO appearance to the disciples that evening and they troop off to Galiiee as instructed.

Neo, even if the believers can swallow that, I can't. If a brace of witnesses tell such discrepant stories, I won't even have to raise it at the deliberations, the judge will strike it as unsafe.

You're down a rabbit hole. What happened was pen was put to paper, Christianity, like other religions, is a written tradition, it's not a record of history and there are plenty of skeptics that realize that. Read the stories behind other religions, they sound silly but people actually believe them as well.

[TRANSPONDER]

They do, and like it or not whole chunks of society and very influential ones, too, do take these stories as broadly reliable. Many skeptics and Bible critics also take the stories as reliable in order to come up with their interpretations of 'what really happened'.

For example, I recall one book ending with Jesus leading the disciples up a hill (if they were at Bethany, which is on a hill, there is no more hill), and then he climbed up and vanished in a cloud. I could hardly believe that the disciples mistook vanishing in a cloud (as though the hill was 5,000 feet high) for ascending into heaven. But then 'Who moved the stone' (which sorta got me interested in 'what really happened') attempts to create a scenario of something rustling in the bushes and frightening the tomb guard away. Which is not what the story says, anyway, even if one accepts the tomb - guard, which i don't.

But I do (and a lot don't) credit a basic story, because I credit Paul as real, and thus the disciples as real and the man they followed as real and some things he did as real, and I have to judge what is true or not on the evidence, just as I'll have do during jury - service next month. I do give some weight to witness unity, and ascribe doubt to witness disunity about significant things. I also don't credit stretched Interpretations of what the Bible actually says as Really meaning something else, or indeed, something happening rather improbably like (as we had above) the disciples suddenly having Jesus pop up in front of them, teaching them this or that over more than a month and ascending (from Bethany specifically near Jerusalem) at least once into heaven, after Not telling the disciples to go to Galilee, and telling then to stay put until power descended on them, and yet (supposedly) they go off to Galilee to be told to teach all nations, as though Jesus couldn;t have said that last thing before ascending. Just to paper over a contradiction with Matthew who has NO appearance to the disciples that evening and they troop off to Galiiee as instructed.

Neo, even if the believers can swallow that, I can't. If a brace of witnesses tell such discrepant stories, I won't even have to raise it at the deliberations, the judge will strike it as unsafe.

You're down a rabbit hole. What happened was pen was put to paper, Christianity, like other religions, is a written tradition, it's not a record of history and there are plenty of skeptics that realize that. Read the stories behind other religions, they sound silly but people actually believe them as well.

Yes, but I don't think that doubters and skeptics do themselves any favors by ignoring the evidence. The fact is that the Bible (New and Old T) cover a lot of historical or arguably historical, material. Skeptics will dig a rabbit -hole for themselves if they claim that Christianity has no more historical validity than Zoroastrianism or Shinto, for example. We have to accept and deal with the historical aspects rather as questionable history than totally man -made myth, or we will simply provide the Christian apologists with ammunition.