My friend, you are demonstrating the point that you have to perform a whole lot of mental gymnastics in order to come to the conclusions you have. First, you want to suggest that Eusebius may have been the author of two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, and this would have been impossible. Now, you want to suggest that it may have been those who were not working from Luke, but rather "from the synoptic original they all three used" as if this was an established fact. My friend, this is not an established fact in the least. I mean, let us think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that not one but two of the authors had a copy of the first Gospel. Do you understand how rare copies would be at that time? I mean, it is not like there would have been folks walking around with their own personal copy of these things. Copying in those days would have been a long-drawn-out process, and the few that were had would have been kept more than likely by the Churches at that time.
However, those who came up with the idea these folks copied from another, understand this does not explain it all, and therefore, they are forced to come up with the idea of them all having a copy of another source we have no idea about which they call Q. So now, we not only have all these folks having their own personal copy of a synoptic, but we also have each of them with a copy of another source no one is even aware of. Do you wonder why I refer to this as mental gymnastics? I mean, which is really easier to believe? Would it be the natural evidence we have from the text itself that the author was a traveling companion of Paul? Or is it easier to jump through all these hoops in order to avoid having to believe what the natural reading would be? I am not in any way suggesting that we should simply believe what is easier to believe. What I am saying is, it speaks volumes for one to go to the extent to jump through all the hoops in order to avoid having to read the text naturally.
Have you really thought about what you are saying? I mean, it would be extremely involved. We know Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and this would be a fact. We also know that Paul would have known the original apostles and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips. So then, what we have is the fact that we can know the apostles were making claims which caused Paul to be a persecutor of Christians, only to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, spending the rest of his life traveling around planting Churches. We know for a fact that Paul did and would have to have others traveling along with him, and we know for a fact that Paul authored letters to these Churches, along with the fact that the letters of Paul we do have would not be all of the letters he wrote, because we know he wrote more. Now, do you suppose that Paul would have been the only apostle to write letters? Would it be hard to imagine that one of the traveling companions of Paul would have been compelled to chronicle the travels of Paul since he would have been a witness to these travels? I mean, this is exactly what the evidence suggests, and we are to ignore the plain evidence, and go with the idea that Paul was the only one from whom we have letters, and even some of his letters are questioned, and none of the rest of the folks involved would have written anything at all, and what we now have in written form would be what others wrote decades later who would not have been alive at the time, and were simply passing on what had been passed on to them.
I could keep typing for days, but let us think about the fact, that it would be a fact that the apostles were making the claim of the resurrection. With what you are saying, these folks would have been making false claims for whatever reason, all the while making these claims they were being persecuted for making the claims, and then sometime later there are folks who decide to carry on these claims, by writing material to promote the claims they were making. Do you even understand what all would have to be involved for all of this to be fact? GOOD GRIEF! It is making my head swim. On the other hand, all I have to do is to read the text just as it is in order to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul.
Let us also think about the fact that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus addressed these letters to one individual. OH? But we can have none of that now, can we? No not at all. We absolutely cannot have one who sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, in order for this individual to "know the exact truth". Rather, someone thought of the fact that the meaning of the name Theophilus is "lover of God" and therefore the author was using the name Theophilus in order to appeal to a wider audience. GOOD GRIEF! It is not at all shocking to me that someone would come up with this idea. What is shocking is the way in which many folks eagerly grab ahold of what the scholars have to say, when there is no way any of these folks would have come close to this conclusion on their own. So again, we cannot possibly read the text just as it seems to read. NO! We have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops, in order to ensure one can continue to hold on to any sort of doubt at all.
GOOD GRIEF! You do not have to suppose in order to believe the author was Luke or that he was a traveling companion of Paul, because I have demonstrated there are facts and evidence in support of this so one can build this belief upon these facts and evidence as opposed to having to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to doubt. Now, you may look at these facts, and evidence and come to a different conclusion, but it is certainly intellectual dishonesty to accuse those opposed to you as having to suppose when there are facts and evidence in support. I mean, there are indeed Christians who assume the author is Luke, and there are those who were at one time convinced Christians who supposed this to be the case, but simply because there are those who do suppose, does not in any way demonstrate one must suppose this to be the case.and I see no reason at all to suppose that the writer of Luke or Acts actually was named Luke or was a companion of Paul.
Now, you tell me who is doing the supposing? So then, we have the facts and evidence I have supplied which would support the belief that Luke was indeed the author, which means one would not have to suppose, but we are simply to go on the idea that "it wouldn't be surprising someone may have been pretending to be Luke"? GOOD GRIEF! What evidence do we have that someone pretended to be Luke? If there is no evidence this is the case, then one would have to suppose. And again, we have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops to avoid taking what was written at face value.it isn't surprising that someone pretending to be Luke would write as he supposed a companion of Paul would do.
No one is asking you to be impressed. Heck! I am not impressed by this. However, if we are impressed or not, this would be part of the evidence this author was alive at the time of the events he records, and unless we have some sort of evidence this would not have been the case, we would simply have to suppose that it would not be the case. It is not supposing for one to look at this as evidence the author may have been alive at the time of the events recorded. What would be supposing is, if one were to look at this evidence and say something to the effect of, "I am not impressed with the author making this statement" along with saying something like "it wouldn't be surprising for someone to pretend to be Luke" with no evidence in support. Can you see the difference? If one can point to facts, and evidence in support, there is no supposing. If one is simply pointing to what they would prefer to believe, that is what is supposing.I am not impressed by Luke declaring his research.
What I am attempting to tell you is, even scholars who do not believe the material to be reliable, are coming to the conclusion that the early followers were somehow convinced they encountered the risen Christ, by reading the material they do not believe to be reliable. You are attempting to attack the credibility of the author and the fact is, even if the author is not credible, there are certain things we can know to be fact by reading the material. I am not attempting to argue the author is credible, nor am I attempting to claim that what is contained in the Bible is without error. I am simply saying that there are things we can all know by reading the material, just like the scholars who do not believe the material to be reliable are convinced by this material that the early followers of Jesus at least believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death.So my pointing up of the fiddling and fails of the Acts doesn't bother you?
Now, let's think about this. If these earlier followers were not convinced they saw Jesus alive after death, then what exactly occurred? If they did, what would cause them to believe this? I can tell you this. I cannot imagine any explanation which would not involve the extraordinary. In other words, there is no denying the fact that whatever occurred some 2000 years ago, the events have had the most significant impact the world has ever known and counting. Therefore, one is not going to eliminate the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary). Rather, one can only exchange one extraordinary tale for another. Or they will have to suppose what they believe to be the least extraordinary and go with that.
I doubt Aretas had even heard of him let alone invaded Syria just to get him.
