The Gospels Are Not Literal Biographies of Jesus

[kayky]

In his book, Liberating the Gospels, Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, inspired by the work of English theologian Michael Goulder, proposes the synoptic Gospels were written to provide a Christian liturgy that follows the Jewish calendar. Let's consider the Gospel of Luke as an example:

According to this theory, Luke ordered the events in his Gospel based on the Torah readings in the synagogue which are assigned to specific Sabbaths on the Jewish calendar. By doing so, Luke is telling us that Jesus is the new Torah or the new Law.

The Torah readings begin with Genisis, of course. The word genesis means "origins.". So Luke begins his Gospel by explaining the origins of both Jesus and John the Baptist.

We are introduced to Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist. They are quite overtly patterned after Abraham and Sarah in the book of Genesis:

1. Both sets of parents are called righteous (Gen. 26:5, Luke 1:6)

2. Both Sarah and Elizabeth are barren (Gen. 11:30, Luke 1:7)

3. Both were advanced in age (Gen. 18:11, Luke 1:7)

4. Both fathers receive an angelic annunciation and are disbelieving (Gen. 18:11, Luke 1:11)

5. Both fathers are told that nothing is impossible with God (Gen. 18:14, Luke 1:37)

************

Genesis then moves on to stories of Jewish origins. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, and his wife Rebekah are expecting twins. Rebekah feels the twins "leap" in her womb. So she prays about it and is told the elder Essau will serve the younger Jacob.

In Luke the newly pregnant Mary visits the very pregnant Elizabeth. This time we have cousins rather than twins. The older fetus John " leaps" in his mother's womb. It is their destiny that the older will serve the younger.

In Genesis Jacob's favorite wife Rachel is barren. When Rachel finally becomes pregnant, she declares in Genesis 30:23: "God has taken away my reproach." In Luke 1:25, Elizabeth declares: "This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people."

When Isaac's other wife Leah was blessed with children. she proclaims that God has seen her lowliness and she would be called "blessed" (Gen. 29:30,
30:13). These words are placed in the mouth of Mary in Luke 1:48: "for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed."

Luke then moves on to the birth of Jesus. In Genesis 35:16-21, Jacob is on the road with the pregnant Rachel, who stops in Bethlehem to give birth to Benjamin. In Luke 2, Joseph is also on the road with the pregnant Mary, who then gives birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.

When Jacob left his father-in-law Laban, he is guarded by a host of angels (Gen. 32:1). He sends a peace offering of sheep and cattle to his brother Essau (Gen. 32:22). The birth of Jesus is also attended by angels and shepherds.

Luke 2 continues with the circumcision of Jesus. In Genesis 32 Jacob wrestles an angel at a place called Penial and declares: "I have seen God and lived" (v. 22). At the circumcision of Jesus, a priest named Simeon who had been told by God that he would see the Messiah before he died, sees the infant Jesus and declares: "...for my eyes have seen your salvation..." (v. 30). A prophetess named Anna also sees the infant and praises God. She is said to be the daughter of Phanuel, an alternate spelling of Penial.

Luke 2 ends with the story of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem, echoing the separation of Joseph from his family when he is sold into slavery in Egypt. Earlier when Joseph tells his father about his prophetic dreams, Jacob is said to have kept all these things and pondered them just as Mary does after being reunited with the young Jesus who declares his purpose to her (Gen. 37:11, Luke 2:51).

At this point on the Jewish calandar, we reach the Jewish Festival of Pentacost. This is a problem for Luke because it interrupts the flow of his retelling of Genesis in the life of Jesus. Luke would later in Acts associate Pentacost with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So Luke inserts here the introduction of the adult John the Baptist who announces that one will follow him who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Next Luke moves on to the baptism of Jesus when the Holy Spirit descends on him and declares him to be the Son of God. The synagogue reading on this particular Sabbath would have been the Pharoah declaring Joseph to be second in command over the entire realm. Pharoah declares: "Can we find such a man as this in whom is the Spirit of God?" ( Gen. 41:38). For Luke this was the first Christian Pentacost. The second would occur after the death of Jesus when the Holy Spirit would be given to all people.

After the story of Joseph, Genesis provides a genealogy of Jacob's descendants. Luke follows suit with the genealogy of Jesus' ancestors.

Genesis ends with the dying Jacob blessing his children. The famine is in full swing in Egypt, and the hungry of the world come clamoring to Joseph for
bread. In Luke we have Jesus fasting in the wilderness where he is tempted to turn stones into bread. He resists this temptation by saying that man cannot live by bread alone. In Genesis Joseph is said to be clothed in human glory because of his willingness to serve the pharaoh. Jesus is tempted to do the same by bowing to Satan but resists saying that only God is to be served.

**********

The Torah moves on to Exodus. In Luke we find a Jesus who will be rejected by his own people just as Moses was. In Luke 4 Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazereth and gets run out of town. In Exodus Moses flees to the wilderness of Midian just after being told by the Israelites: "Who made you ruler and judge over us?"

It is also interesting to note that Jesus' sojourn in the wilderness lasted 40 days just as Moses and the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. In Luke 4 we find that Jesus has power over nature just as Moses did. As it was with Moses, his gifts were often unappreciated.

**********

The Torah moves on to Leviticus, which was read in the synagogue over the course of 8 Sabbaths. This would have posed a difficulty for Luke since this book of prohibitions would have had little meaning for his community. So Jesus chooses twelve disciples (just as Moses led 12 tribes) and he begins his teaching ministry that would supplant the teachings of Moses.

On the Jewish calendar, we then come upon three celebrations proscribed by Leviticus: Rosh Hashanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the feast of Tabernacles (harvest festival).

In Luke Jesus is approached by the disciples of the imprisoned John the Baptist to inquire if he actually is the Messiah. Jesus replies by quoting Isaiah 35, which is the traditional lesson appointed for Rosh Hashanah.

Yom Kippur is a somber time of repentance and confession for Jews. A lamb was sacrificed, and the community's sins were placed on the back of a scapegoat, which was driven into the wilderness.

In Luke an unnamed woman anoints the feet of Jesus. When the disciples protest, Jesus tells them that she is preparing him for his burial, foreshadowing his role as both sacrificial lamb and scapegoat.

Tabernacles is a harvest celebration. In Luke we have the parable of the sower. Light was a minor theme of Tabernacles. In Luke Jesus teaches the meaning of light.

**********

The Torah now moves on to Numbers. Starting in chapter 5, Numbers discusses various things that are considered unclean. In Luke Jesus arrives in Gerasenes, home to unclean Gentiles. There we find a demon-possessed man living among the tombs (the dead are unclean). Jesus sends the demons into unclean swine, whom he sends to their deaths by drowning. So Jesus is seen to have overcome the ritually unclean.

Then in Luke we have the story of the woman with a menstral abnormality, which would have been considered unclean. She is healed by simply touching the hem of Jesus' garment.

This is followed by the raising of Jairus' daughter (contact with the unclean dead).

Then in Numbers 13-15, we have Moses sending 12 spies into Canaan.

In Luke Jesus sends out his 12 disciples to preach and heal.

The next festival on the Jewish calendar was Hanukkah (Dedication). It is not mentioned in the Torah. It comes from the Maccabees when the light of God was believed to have been restored to the Temple.

In Luke we have the story of the Transfiguration. But Luke relates it to Numbers in which the glory of the Lord is said to have appeared upon the meeting place.

Then in Luke, Jesus is said to have "set his face" to go to Jerusalem. In Numbers 24:1, Balaam is said to have "set his face."

Numbers ends with Moses near the banks of the Jordan, ready to leave the wilderness. In Luke Jesus is headed to Jerusalem, leaving Galilee forever.

**********

The Torah then moves on to Deuteronomy. In the first chapter the 12 spies return with fruit and declare the land to be good.

In Luke, Jesus sends out the 70, who return with joy and Jesus declares: "the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Luke 10:2).

In Deuteronomy Moses sends messengers into an alien nation to buy food and water, but they are rejected and this nation is thusly destroyed. In Luke, Jesus tells the 70 to eat and drink whatever they are given. If rejected, that town would be destroyed by God.

In Deuteronomy Moses prays to the Lord but is still denied entry into the Promised Land. Only those born in the wilderness could go in. In Luke, Jesus thanks God for concealing things from the wise and revealing them to babes who would inherit the kingdom.

In Deuteronomy 5 and 6, the Ten Commandments are discussed. In Luke, Jesus has his discussion with the lawyer about the Law.

In Deuteronomy Moses tells the people they must destroy foreigners with no mercy. In Luke, Jesus reverses this by having the foreigner (Good Samaritan) saving the injured Jew.

In Deuteronomy 8:1-3, Moses says that man cannot live by bread alone but by the words that proceed from God's mouth. In Luke, Martha is rebuked for complaining that Mary is not helping with the food preparation. Jesus says that Mary has chosen "the good portion" by listening to his teachings (Luke 10:38-42).

In Deuteronomy God is said to deal with Israel as a father does a son. In Luke we have the Lord's Prayer (Our Father).

In Deuteronomy there is a discussion of the clean and the unclean. In Luke, Jesus has dinner with a Pharisee who does not know the difference between inner cleanness and outer cleanness.

In Deuteronomy every seventh year the debts of the Jewish people were to be forgiven and slaves set free. In Luke Jesus releases a woman from bondage and is rebuked for doing it on the Sabbath (seventh day).

In Deuteronomy 20:1-7, we are told that the scribes could excuse someone from battle for having a house that had not yet been dedicated, planted a vineyard, or had recently become betrothed. In Luke we have the parable of the great feast in which the invited guests excuse themselves with excuses: had just bought a field, or purchased new oxen, or recently married. The host then opens his table to the poor and handicapped (Luke 15:11-32).

In Deuteronomy crimes that call for the death penalty are listed: rebellious sons and drunkards. In Luke we have the story of the Prodical Son, who wasted his inheritance on riotous living yet was welcomed home by his loving father.

In Deuteronomy injunctions are given against oppression of the poor. In Luke we have the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man ends up with eternal punishment for ignoring Lazarus' plight.

In Deuteronomy Moses said that when one enters the Lord's sanctuary, he was to declare that he had paid his tithes, cared for widows and orphans, obeyed the commandments, and avoided the unclean and, therefore, deserved to be blessed by God (Deut. 26:1-15). In Luke we have the story of the Pharisee and the Publican in which just such a prayer is criticized.

At this point in Luke, now that Deuteronomy has ended, Jesus reaches Jerusalem just as the liturgical year for the Jews begins anew with the month of Nisan. To partake of the Passover and fulfill his destiny. Deuteronomy, of course, is followed by Joshua (Yeshua=Jesus). It is he who will replace Moses and lead his people into the Promised Land.

**********

Does this not prove that the Gospel writers knew they were not writing literal biographies of Jesus?

[Goose]

Interesting question. I applaud you for exercising your critical thinking skills here. The answer lies in the historical chronology of the appearance of the gospel accounts. Mark appears first. Think of Mark's account as a rough draft. Then we have Matthew and Luke's accounts which add information e.g. birth narratives, genealogies, etc.. Later we have John's account which is within a flourishing church that has had time the most time to develop.

This is entirely ad hoc and it doesn’t jive with the facts. You said Mark is the first half of the liturgical calendar. Okay so Mark screwed up his “rough draft� because he didn’t make it quite long enough to cover a full year at 11,304 words long. That’s the first oops.

So Matthew came along later and made a longer version which, according to you, fits a one year liturgical cycle. But Matthew is 18, 345 words long. So Matthew doesn’t cover a full year then either if Mark was half a year. Matthew would need to be around 22,600 words long using your logic. So Matthew is roughly 4,250 words too short. Or put another way, using a 52 week calendar Matthew is 9-10 weeks too short (11,304 words divided by 26 weeks=434 words per Sabbath. 4,250 divided by 434=9.8 weeks). So Matthew screwed it up too then. Double oops.

Then there’s the longest Gospel, Luke, which is 19,482 words long. Getting closer but alas still too short for a full year cycle by about 3,100 words (or about 7 weeks) if Mark was half a year. Triple oops.

Then there’s John’s Gospel, at 15,635 words long, which is shorter than both Luke and Matthew by quite a margin. But somehow John, according to you, is supposed to be a three year liturgical calendar! John royally screwed it up then! Quadruple oops.

Your argument is so problematic it virtually refutes itself.

False equivalence. Just because Luke writes a liturgical account doesn't mean that everything he writes must be a liturgical account.

How on earth is this false equivalence? And why wouldn’t Acts be a liturgical account if Luke’s Gospel and every other Gospel were? The book of Acts is the second volume addressed to the same person as the Gospel. It takes the same historiographical approach. It mentions many of the same people and places. It uses many of the same words. It’s virtually the same length (18, 452 words). So go ahead and show me how Acts fits in a liturgical calendar. Or concede it doesn’t.

Luke was also a physician, we wouldn't then conclude that he does nothing but medical procedures.

If he wrote a two volume text on medicine addressed to the same person why would you think the first volume was one genre and the second was a different one if they both appeared to be the same genre?

Paul is describing what happens within the Jewish liturgy as well as pointing out that there's some fighting going on, and that they need to be more concerned with edification.

Paul is affirming that they use the Psalms as liturgy. Paul is providing instruction on what to do when they assemble. That’s why he says, “When you assemble, each has a psalm...�

And you are missing the point. The point is that they were assembling for worship and in need of liturgy, if there was even was a need, well before the Gospels were written. What did they do for liturgy for the twenty some odd years between say the 50’s to the 70’s until the first Gospel, Mark, came along? And then what did they do for liturgy during the last half of the year for the next ten or so years until Matthew/Luke came along?

You're making my point for me. Yes, the structures that fit so perfectly over the liturgy were well in place at least a decade prior to Paul's meeting with Christ.

Perfect. There’s no need to see the Gospels as a creation to fill a liturgical void then. Glad we agree here.

What they are doing is right in line with the liturgy. In fact, as has already been pointed out, these narratives fit perfectly over the liturgy like a glove.

Uh, you mean it’s been asserted to fit perfectly. It hasn’t been shown to fit perfectly nor have the objections been adequately answered. Big difference.

They are a decoration, an adornment, yet also an amendment as well which is what eventually led to their expulsion.

What evidence do you have that the Gospels were the reason for expulsion?

The liturgy consists of Torah readings hymns of praise and expansions on the texts.

Yes that would be liturgy. How do you go from there to ancient biographies? It’s more likely they would have kept using the liturgy they had and just used the Gospels as liturgy as they became available.

When those expansions began to become formalized by that sect known as "the Way", this was looked at by those outside of that view as not only false, but impossible to carry out.

But how does this get us to four ancient biographies?

Matthew spotlights the controversy, as well as the distinction within the liturgy:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat(i.e. Torah readings): 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,...etc.

I don’t see the distinction within the liturgy made here.

Those in the Way are taking a different course than the status quo, and it should come as no surprise to see a schism is created when this passage from Matthew is recited. It's inflammatory to say the least.

Jesus created the schism. Lots of things in the NT are inflammatory.


---

Not at all, but then once again you're making my point for me. Luke is writing to cosmopolitan Jews who by now are beginning to assimilate into the Greek culture. Luke is a Greek himself and is pointing out that while slipping away from one's Jewish roots isn't recommended, it doesn't mean we can't still be friends; "Friends of God" which is what Theophilus means. They are friends of the same God.

How am I making your point for you? Theophilus is a thoroughly Greek name. It’s a Greek compound word of θεο�ς (god) and φι�λος (friend). It’s not a Greek rendering of a Jewish name like Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) for example. It’s used in conjunction with “most excellent.� A descriptor Luke uses only with other gentiles. You left that part out.

Surely if Luke were writing to Hellenized Jews he would have used a Jewish word rendered in Greek and dropped the “most excellent� descriptor. For example, he could have addressed his Jewish audience as αβ�ααμ σπε�μα (Abraham’s descendants) since Abraham was called the friend of God, by God.

�But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend� – Isaiah 41:8

Because they are slipping away from their Jewish roots. They are forgetting Torah as well as their own liturgies, and falling into the heresy of literalism.

Once again entirely ad hoc. They would have had to have slipped away almost entirely from their Jewish roots to need to be reminded about the basic Jewish traditions for a new born (traditions found right in the LXX). Slipped so far that one has to wonder if they were really ever Jews at all.

Good point, and one that can't be overstated. Jesus is explicitly shown to be preaching an exclusive gospel to Israel alone; i.e. he is calling Israel alone to repentance so that they may be born again and spread the gospel to the nations. It doesn't work out that way though, does it? They reject this message, and the parables show this rejection being repeated in the growing church as well. They also show how despite this the message does take root, and each iteration produces more growth.

But you aren’t addressing the fact Luke has the message intended for all people and specifically identifies Jesus as “a light of revelation to the gentiles� even though he is, according to you, writing to Jews.

Yes, Matthew is writing to a more Jewish congregation. His account is a much more Torah observant crowd while Luke's audience are people of the world

Like I said, Luke’s audience is so much of the world they seem indistinguishable from gentiles. They don’t sound like Jews at all and it’s certainly not self evident that they are. It seems to me one has to make up the part they were Jews.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 41 by Goose]

Interesting question. I applaud you for exercising your critical thinking skills here. The answer lies in the historical chronology of the appearance of the gospel accounts. Mark appears first. Think of Mark's account as a rough draft. Then we have Matthew and Luke's accounts which add information e.g. birth narratives, genealogies, etc.. Later we have John's account which is within a flourishing church that has had time the most time to develop.

This is entirely ad hoc and it doesn’t jive with the facts. You said Mark is the first half of the liturgical calendar. Okay, so Mark screwed up his “rough draft� because he didn’t make it quite long enough to cover a full year at 11,304 words long. That's the first oops.

You don't have to accept it. You claim that this is all just a coincidence, and ignore it as some ad hoc fallacy and instead assume that a culture which is well known for communicating timeless truths through narrative stories suddenly shifts gears to become historians journaling the events of a Jewish preacher who intentionally patterned those events after the Jewish calendar, but just how was he able to get the rest of the population of Israel to join in with that program?

So Matthew came along later and made a longer version which, according to you, fits a one year liturgical cycle. But Matthew is 18,345 words long. So Matthew doesn’t cover a full year then either if Mark was half a year. Matthew would need to be around 22,600 words long using your logic.

Not necessarily. You've presented quite a lengthy post without saying much of anything so the length of the narrative, especially in relation to other narratives isn't much of a criteria of measurement. We've all seen how this line e.g.------- can be made longer or shorter simply by comparing it to lines that are longer or shorter. Those other lines do not remove or add length to the line. Matthew's account matches a one year cycle. Just because Mark's account might be a bit wordy doesn't remove anything from Matthew's account.

Your argument is so problematic is virtually refutes itself.

It's not mine, and it's not even really an argument. These are observations any observant Jew would have no problem admitting.

The book of Acts is the second volume addressed to the same person as the Gospel.

So essentially you're assuming that even though Luke has already provided a narrative for the liturgy, he should provide another one? Why would they need more?

show me how Acts fits in a liturgical calendar. Or concede it doesn’t.

I never claimed it did.

Luke was also a physician, we wouldn't then conclude that he does nothing but medical procedures.

If he wrote a two volume text on medicine addressed to the same person why would you think the first volume was one genre and the second was a different one if they both appeared to be the same genre?[/quote]

I'm not claiming they're of a different genre. One is a blatant pattern of the Jewish liturgical calendar while the other one is a blatant picture of the gospel going out to the world. A world that isn't Jewish, but of the gentile persuasion. Luke could write his first book on medicine dealing with examining and diagnosing and then follow that one up with curative measures; no sense going over the problem again when the cure is what we're all looking for. In case you didn't notice the gospel narratives all point out a rejection of the gospel. To simply repeat it would be to provide a pointless palliative.

Paul is describing what happens within the Jewish liturgy as well as pointing out that there's some fighting going on, and that they need to be more concerned with edification.

Paul is affirming that they use the Psalms as liturgy. Paul is providing instruction on what to do when they assemble. That’s why he says, “When you assemble, each has a psalm...�

And you are missing the point. The point is that they were assembling for worship and in need of liturgy,

You'll have to connect the dots. I don't see what you're talking about here.

if there was even was a need, well before the Gospels were written. What did they do for liturgy for the twenty some odd years between say the 50’s to the 70’s until the first Gospel, Mark, came along?

The gospels were transmitted orally. That's a big part of the culture. They grew out of these communities and were eventually written down as the schism widened and they were booted out.

And then what did they do for liturgy during the last half of the year for the next ten or so years until Matthew/Luke came along?

Oh, I see what's going on here. You think that all of these narratives are being used consecutively. This isn't what's going on at all. Each of the gospel narratives represent different communities, e.g. Matthew's is a very Jewish community while Luke's is a more cosmopolitan one etc.

You're making my point for me. Yes, the structures that fit so perfectly over the liturgy were well in place at least a decade prior to Paul's meeting with Christ.

Perfect. There’s no need to see the Gospels as a creation to fill a liturgical void then. Glad we agree here.[/quote]

Again, I never claimed that they were for the purpose of filling a liturgical void. This is a straw man argument. They're distinctly different than their fellow Jews in that they believe in Jesus' teachings and his identity as messiah. So when it comes time to participate in the liturgy they naturally present their position which for a while isn't met with all that much resistance; at least not until they begin to grow into a formidable group.

What they are doing is right in line with the liturgy. In fact, as has already been pointed out, these narratives fit perfectly over the liturgy like a glove.

Uh, you mean it’s been asserted to fit perfectly. It hasn’t been shown to fit perfectly nor have the objections been adequately answered. Big difference.[/quote]

Actually the OP presented them quite well. Check it out. If one simply takes the Jewish liturgical calendar and looks at how the gospel narratives progress it is quite easy to see the parallels, and how strikingly they match. It's really quite beautiful.

They are a decoration, an adornment, yet also an amendment as well which is what eventually led to their expulsion.

What evidence do you have that the Gospels were the reason for expulsion? [/quote]

The Jewish hierarchy didn't believe that Christ was the messiah. The Jewish narratives all present him as the messiah. The narratives are the evidence; that an the historical evolution of the gospels themselves.

The liturgy consists of Torah readings hymns of praise and expansions on the texts.

Yes that would be liturgy. How do you go from there to ancient biographies?[/quote]

What are you talking about?

It’s more likely they would have kept using the liturgy they had and just used the Gospels as liturgy as they became available.

They were in the synagogues on the Sabbath reading from the Torah, and when it came time to throw their two cents in they popped off with Jesus' "Way" of living out the liturgy in their lives. There was no waiting for the gospels to become available. They were living it, including while they were in the synagogues on the Sabbaths. The book of Acts points this out a few times.

When those expansions began to become formalized by that sect known as "the Way", this was looked at by those outside of that view as not only false, but impossible to carry out.

But how does this get us to four ancient biographies?[/quote]

Still not sure what you're talking about. I know the accounts refer to Jesus, but the accounts themselves indicate that the first thing one needs to do in order to join "The Way" is to "deny yourself". The "biographies" are really telling us that they aren't biographies at all. They're revealing that it isn't about the person, but about what that person represents. Jesus is saying to stop looking at his finger and instead look at what it's pointing to. They become biographies only after enough time has transpired away from its Jewish roots. Gentiles had no idea about the Jewish culture and how they transmitted truth.

Matthew spotlights the controversy, as well as the distinction within the liturgy:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat(i.e. Torah readings): 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,...etc.

I don’t see the distinction within the liturgy made here.

Those in the Way are taking a different course than the status quo, and it should come as no surprise to see a schism is created when this passage from Matthew is recited. It's inflammatory to say the least.

Jesus created the schism. Lots of things in the NT are inflammatory.


---

Not at all, but then once again you're making my point for me. Luke is writing to cosmopolitan Jews who by now are beginning to assimilate into the Greek culture. Luke is a Greek himself and is pointing out that while slipping away from one's Jewish roots isn't recommended, it doesn't mean we can't still be friends; "Friends of God" which is what Theophilus means. They are friends of the same God.

How am I making your point for you? Theophilus is a thoroughly Greek name. It’s a Greek compound word of θεο�ς (god) and φι�λος (friend). It’s not a Greek rendering of a Jewish name like Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) for example. It’s used in conjunction with “most excellent.� A descriptor Luke uses only with other gentiles. You left that part out. [/quote]

I'm not leaving anything out. You're introducing the fact that Theophilus is a thoroughly Greek name and assuming that this is somehow relevant. Cosmopolitan Jews will naturally give their children names that fit within the cultural context they're living in. Look to the book of Daniel as a prime example of Jewish youths with Persian names, e.g. Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo.

Surely if Luke were writing to Hellenized Jews he would have used a Jewish word rendered in Greek and dropped the “most excellent� descriptor.

No, he surely wouldn't have if he were a Hellenized Jew.


For example, he could have addressed his Jewish audience as αβ�ααμ σπε�μα (Abraham’s descendants) since Abraham was called the friend of God, by God.

�But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend� – Isaiah 41:8

Because they are slipping away from their Jewish roots. They are forgetting Torah as well as their own liturgies, and falling into the heresy of literalism.

Once again entirely ad hoc. They would have had to have slipped away almost entirely from their Jewish roots to need to be reminded about the basic Jewish traditions for a new born (traditions found right in the LXX). Slipped so far that one has to wonder if they were really ever Jews at all.[/quote]

Perhaps. You make a good point. Jesus' words are pretty harsh, and his words would have been a harsh reminder to return to their roots.

Good point, and one that can't be overstated. Jesus is explicitly shown to be preaching an exclusive gospel to Israel alone; i.e. he is calling Israel alone to repentance so that they may be born again and spread the gospel to the nations. It doesn't work out that way though, does it? They reject this message, and the parables show this rejection being repeated in the growing church as well. They also show how despite this the message does take root, and each iteration produces more growth.

But you aren’t addressing the fact Luke has the message intended for all people and specifically identifies Jesus as “a light of revelation to the gentiles� even though he is, according to you, writing to Jews. [/quote]

I pointed out that he is writing for cosmopolitan Jews. There is nothing to suggest that any of these groups weren't allowing gentile converts into the fold. The texts themselves are a potent reminder of that fact. I'm not denying what the texts say. I'm pointing out what they say. You seem to see it as well, but for some reason don't want to accept it.

Yes, Matthew is writing to a more Jewish congregation. His account is a much more Torah observant crowd while Luke's audience are people of the world

Like I said, Luke’s audience is so much of the world they seem indistinguishable from gentiles.[/quote]

Which is why he pionts out that they need to get back to the Torah, or their belief in Christ is worthless. Sorry my post may be confusing. The more I tried to fix it, the worse it got.

[Goose]

You don't have to accept it. You claim that this is all just a coincidence, and ignore it as some ad hoc fallacy and instead assume that a culture which is well known for communicating timeless truths through narrative stories suddenly shifts gears to become historians journaling the events of a Jewish preacher who intentionally patterned those events after the Jewish calendar, but just how was he able to get the rest of the population of Israel to join in with that program?
...

Not necessarily. You've presented quite a lengthy post without saying much of anything so the length of the narrative, especially in relation to other narratives isn't much of a criteria of measurement. We've all seen how this line e.g.------- can be made longer or shorter simply by comparing it to lines that are longer or shorter. Those other lines do not remove or add length to the line. Matthew's account matches a one year cycle.

You are simply asserting the things I’ve highlighted over and over without any justification whatsoever. What’s worse is you continue to simply assert these things even though I’ve offered a cogent counter argument that demolishes these assertions. I’ve shown mathematically using your logic how Matthew doesn’t match a one year cycle if Mark is half a year. I showed how John couldn’t possibly be a three year cycle if Mark was a half a year. You ignore these arguments and just continue to make the same assertion without properly addressing my counter arguments.

Just because Mark's account might be a bit wordy doesn't remove anything from Matthew's account.

Don’t you mean Matthew’s account is wordy? The point you are missing is that I’ve shown neither Matthew or Mark fit a yearly liturgical calendar. And you’ve given absolutely no reason to think they do aside from merely asserting that Matthew does.

It's not mine, and it's not even really an argument.

I agree what you’ve written isn’t really an argument. I’m being very generous when using the word “argument� to describe what you have written. You’ve mostly just strung together a series of disconnected bald faced unsupported assertions.

So essentially you're assuming that even though Luke has already provided a narrative for the liturgy, he should provide another one? Why would they need more?

No, you are the one assuming the first volume was written as a liturgy. I’ve shown you how the second volume is virtually the same as the first with the exception of the time frame it covers.

I never claimed it did.

And why not? The book of Acts has all the same characteristics as the Gospel account. I noticed you ignored that part of my argument too. Acts destroys your whole theory that Jews “intentionally patterned those events after the Jewish calendar.� Unless of course you can show how Acts fits the Jewish liturgical calendar.

I'm not claiming they're of a different genre.

But you are implying that it is. You are claiming the Gospel of Luke is liturgy whereas the book of Acts is something else. Your argument entails that. Or do you concede that Acts is historiographical in genre? And if it is, why isn’t the Gospel of Luke? Oh wait, because it’s liturgy. Round and around we go.

One is a blatant pattern of the Jewish liturgical calendar while the other one is a blatant picture of the gospel going out to the world.

See? Here you argue the Gospel of Luke is liturgy whereas the book of Acts is something else. The only difference between the two volumes is the period in which they cover and the main character(s). The Gospel covers the life of Jesus, the book of Acts the events of the early church.

A world that isn't Jewish, but of the gentile persuasion. Luke could write his first book on medicine dealing with examining and diagnosing and then follow that one up with curative measures; no sense going over the problem again when the cure is what we're all looking for.

Still the same genre and intention, just different topics and subject matter.

In case you didn't notice the gospel narratives all point out a rejection of the gospel.

Of course some rejected it. Some accepted it as well. Even some Jews.

The gospels were transmitted orally. That's a big part of the culture. They grew out of these communities and were eventually written down as the schism widened and they were booted out.

That’s fine so long as you aren’t arguing the Gospels were written as liturgy.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You think that all of these narratives are being used consecutively.

That’s what your argument entails. Mark was first written c. 70 AD and it was only half a year liturgy according to you. Matthew wasn’t written for another 10-15 years. So what did Mark’s “community� do for the other half year until Matthew was written? And what did Matthew's community do for liturgy until Matthew was written?

Again, I never claimed that they were for the purpose of filling a liturgical void. This is a straw man argument.

I know you didn’t claim that but your argument entails it. You have claimed it was written as liturgy patterned after the Jewish calendar. The question arises, then, why did they write the Gospels as liturgy if there was no need or void?

Actually the OP presented them quite well. Check it out. If one simply takes the Jewish liturgical calendar and looks at how the gospel narratives progress it is quite easy to see the parallels, and how strikingly they match. It's really quite beautiful.

I have checked them out. In post 22 I took the first five and demolished the argument they were deliberately patterned. Kayky merely dismissed my counter arguments with nothing more than accusing me of denial. Maybe you can do better?

The Jewish hierarchy didn't believe that Christ was the messiah. The Jewish narratives all present him as the messiah. The narratives are the evidence; that an the historical evolution of the gospels themselves.

That’s not evidence the reason they were kicked out was because of the Gospel accounts.

They were in the synagogues on the Sabbath reading from the Torah, and when it came time to throw their two cents in they popped off with Jesus' "Way" of living out the liturgy in their lives. There was no waiting for the gospels to become available. They were living it, including while they were in the synagogues on the Sabbaths. The book of Acts points this out a few times.

So they were kicked out of the synagogues and meeting on their own well before the Gospels were written.

Still not sure what you're talking about. I know the accounts refer to Jesus, but the accounts themselves indicate that the first thing one needs to do in order to join "The Way" is to "deny yourself".

What I’m asking is how do you go from oral traditions surrounding the life of Jesus to four liturgies disguised as ancient biographies?

The "biographies" are really telling us that they aren't biographies at all. They're revealing that it isn't about the person, but about what that person represents.

Ancient biographies revealed the character of the subject by narrating events that the subject had been involved in. Events which, in the eyes of the author, displayed the true virtues and vices of the subject. As opposed to a history which recorded events at what we might call a macro level over a longer period of time. That’s not to say that an ancient bio didn’t record historical events. It’s just that the genre of bio wasn’t intended to be a complete history of all events. Plutarch gave his idea of a bio in the opening chapter of his biography of Alexander the Great:

• â€�1 It is the life of Alexander the king, and of Caesar, who overthrew Pompey, that I am writing in this book, and the multitude of the deeds to be treated is so great that I shall make no other preface than to entreat my readers, in case I do not tell of all the famous actions of these men, nor even speak exhaustively at all in each particular case, but in epitome for the most part, not to complain. 2 For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles when thousands fall, or the greatest armaments, or sieges of cities. 3 Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but make very little account of the other parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul in men, and by means of these to portray the life of each, leaving to others the description of their great contests.â€�

In fact, we could say that a bio was more intimate and a truer depiction of the subject than a history which painted with broader strokes.

Jesus is saying to stop looking at his finger and instead look at what it's pointing to.

And that finger was pointing at himself.

They become biographies only after enough time has transpired away from its Jewish roots.

So you concede the Gospels were biographies then. Okay good, glad we’ve got that out of the way.

Gentiles had no idea about the Jewish culture and how they transmitted truth.

Well feel free to enlighten me.

---

I'm not leaving anything out. You're introducing the fact that Theophilus is a thoroughly Greek name and assuming that this is somehow relevant.

It is relevant for the reasons I gave which you did not address.

Cosmopolitan Jews will naturally give their children names that fit within the cultural context they're living in. Look to the book of Daniel as a prime example of Jewish youths with Persian names, e.g. Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo.

Nice try. The names given by their parents, hence their Jewish names, were Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Later, in their adulthood and not of their choosing, it was the palace master (by extension King Nebuchadnezzar) who gave them Chaldean names.

�Among them were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, from the tribe of Judah. The palace master gave them other names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.� – Daniel 1:6-7

And that was your prime example?

No, he surely wouldn't have if he were a Hellenized Jew.

Luke uses the descriptor “most excellent� with only three individuals in Luke/Acts (Theophilus, Felix, and Festus). Two of them we can ascertain from the text were gentiles (Felix and Festus). Luke never uses that descriptor when he addresses a Jew. Therefore, we have a strong inductive argument that Theophilus was a gentile.

Perhaps. You make a good point. Jesus' words are pretty harsh, and his words would have been a harsh reminder to return to their roots.

These aren’t Jesus’ words in Luke 2:22-24. These are Luke’s commentary on events. On the view Luke was writing to Jews we have to understand 2:22-24 as Luke explaining to Jews the Jewish customs for the first born. And further explaining to Jews that these customs are found in the Torah. It makes these Jews sound like they weren’t Jews. If we came across a letter that explained the ritual of communion and that the ritual of communion is found in the New Testament we would naturally assume the letter was directed to a non-Christian since communion is a well known ritual in the Christian faith. If the letter had also been addressed to someone named Muhammad that would be further confirmation that the audience was not Christian and we would assume it was written to a Muslim. We could be wrong of course, but that would be the strongest inference.

I pointed out that he is writing for cosmopolitan Jews. There is nothing to suggest that any of these groups weren't allowing gentile converts into the fold. The texts themselves are a potent reminder of that fact. I'm not denying what the texts say. I'm pointing out what they say. You seem to see it as well, but for some reason don't want to accept it.

If Luke were writing to Jews with the purpose of calling them back to their Jewish roots, as you have asserted, there’s no reason to expect Luke to go out of his way to identify Jesus as the “light of revelation to the gentiles.� This insertion is better explained by Luke writing to a gentile audience.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Goose]

I’ve shown mathematically using your logic how Matthew doesn’t match a one year cycle if Mark is half a year. I showed how John couldn’t possibly be a three year cycle if Mark was a half a year. You ignore these arguments and just continue to make the same assertion without properly addressing my counter arguments.

All you've done is count words. This isn't much of an argument, especially when one considers that Mark's gospel accounts for half of the litugical year while Matthews accounts for a whole year. Matthew just does it with fewer words. It's called editing. Cliffs Notes on the bible has a word count that doesn't come close to a word count for the actual bible so how could they possibly even get to the New Testament? Same logic.

Quote:
Just because Mark's account might be a bit wordy doesn't remove anything from Matthew's account.
Don’t you mean Matthew’s account is wordy? The point you are missing is that I’ve shown neither Matthew or Mark fit a yearly liturgical calendar. And you’ve given absolutely no reason to think they do aside from merely asserting that Matthew does.

Quote:
It's not mine, and it's not even really an argument.
I agree what you’ve written isn’t really an argument. I’m being very generous when using the word “argument� to describe what you have written. You’ve mostly just strung together a series of disconnected bald faced unsupported assertions.

Quote:
No, you are the one assuming the first volume was written as a liturgy. [/quote]

Not really. I'm suggesting that because the first volume matches up with the liturgical calender its origin is within the liturgical celebrations. It grew out of the liturgical calender. Whether it was written down as part of the liturgy or not isn't that clear to me. What is clear is that as these Jews grew farther away from their roots, and gentiles became a bigger part of the church, they began to see the narratives as more biographical of Jesus rather than the early church.

Acts destroys your whole theory that Jews “intentionally patterned those events after the Jewish calendar.

Not really, especially because it doesn't have to in the first place. There is no rule that states one must pattern a liturgy for a church that is populated with gentiles after a Jewish liturgy. Luke patterns his gospel account after a Jewish liturgy because that's what he has to work with. This is what he's being told from Jewish Christians who have been celebrating their Jewish liturgy in the synagogues. The gospel account comes before the Acts of the Apostles, and the church isn't static. It isn't remaining a Jewish phenomenon, and Gentiles don't know the origin of these accounts so they just assume they're biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Assuming what one wants to prove seems to still work for some...I'm not buying it.

� Unless of course you can show how Acts fits the Jewish liturgical calendar.

You are claiming the Gospel of Luke is liturgy whereas the book of Acts is something else.

I'm claiming that the gospel accounts originated within the Jewish liturgy. At some point later they were written down, perhaps to connect them to their origins. The book of Acts was composed afterwards while the church was moving away from those Jewish roots. Therefore it is presenting us with a picture of the church as it does precisely that. There's no reason why they shouldn't reflect that in their liturgy. Perhaps an argument could be made that it was part of their Jewish liturgy. I don't know. I haven't studied it that much, but it does appear to be more about Gentiles which indicates to me that it is a reflection of the demographic of the church.

do you concede that Acts is historiographical in genre? And if it is, why isn’t the Gospel of Luke?

I'm not saying that the gospel of Luke isn't historical. I'm pointing out that it isn't the history of Jesus, but the history of the early church manifesting Christ WITHIN the Jewish liturgy. This is a historical fact. They were Jews who had accepted Christ. They saw no need to stop being observant Jews so they continued to live as observant Jews, but their contribution to the liturgy had to change, which it did and this was eventually written down. Historians have pointed out that there are anachronistic elements to the gospel accounts which suggest that they are more a reflection of the church than Jesus himself. When the church is booted from the synagogues, there is no point in writing a document that will follow the Jewish liturgy; plus they've already got one of those anyways...as I"ve already pointed out.


Quote:
One is a blatant pattern of the Jewish liturgical calendar while the other one is a blatant picture of the gospel going out to the world.
See? Here you argue the Gospel of Luke is liturgy whereas the book of Acts is something else. The only difference between the two volumes is the period in which they cover and the main character(s). The Gospel covers the life of Jesus, the book of Acts the events of the early church. [/quote]

No, the common denominator in both cases, i.e. "the genre" is that they are both dealing with the church. Luke's is within the synagogue while Acts is after they've left.



Quote:
The gospels were transmitted orally. That's a big part of the culture. They grew out of these communities and were eventually written down as the schism widened and they were booted out.
That’s fine so long as you aren’t arguing the Gospels were written as liturgy. [/quote]

I'm not really sure that's what I am arguing. I just see the parallels so I see that as the origin of the gospels. They grew out of the Jewish liturgy and were eventually written down. There's really no reason to write them down while they're reciting them in the synagogues from memory, but when they stop attending and are booted out, then they need to write it down.

Quote:
Oh, I see what's going on here. You think that all of these narratives are being used consecutively.
That’s what your argument entails. Mark was first written c. 70 AD and it was only half a year liturgy according to you.[/quote]

Only half was written down. This doesn't mean that the rest wasn't oral. It could also be that that was all they had come up with at that point. The fact that we see this liturgy growing progressively from the oldest narrative to the newest one should be the first clue that this has to be growing within the Jewish liturgy itself.

Matthew wasn’t written for another 10-15 years. So what did Mark’s “community� do for the other half year until Matthew was written? And what did Matthew's community do for liturgy until Matthew was written?

They continued to celebrate the liturgy they already had in place in the Jewish liturgy in the synagogues, and presumably after they were booted out as well; at least until it became populated with more gentiles.


Quote:
The Jewish hierarchy didn't believe that Christ was the messiah. The Jewish narratives all present him as the messiah. The narratives are the evidence; that an the historical evolution of the gospels themselves.
That’s not evidence the reason they were kicked out was because of the Gospel accounts.

Exactly! The gospel accounts are developing within these Jewish communities. When it comes time for them to read from the book of Moses they read and then proclaim the fulfillment in Christ. This is tolerated for a while until they're booted out.

So they were kicked out of the synagogues and meeting on their own well before the Gospels were written.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. The point is that their origin is within the liturgical celebration and follows that calendar. A calendar which grows as time goes on. The fact that we can see it growing as later written accounts are discovered only proves the point. Especially when one considers that Matthew's account is shorter than Mark's. For Matthew to cram a whole year into an account that is shorter than a longer account that is only half the liturgical calendar should be proof positive of what's really going on. It's the history of the church which is the history of Christ. It's the WAY.

how do you go from oral traditions surrounding the life of Jesus to four liturgies disguised as ancient biographies?

1. Jesus lives and dies.
2.His followers continue to follow his example within the Jewish communities
3.Their numbers grow and their contribution to the liturgy grow as well, and becomes a problem; they're taking over
4.They're thrown out, and continue to celebrate the liturgy outside the synagogues.
5.As gentiles join they see the celebration as being more about Jesus the person than eternal life in Christ. This is due to their ignorance of the Jewish culture. They see it through gentile eyes. They don't realize that there is no Jew or Greek in Christ. They don't realize that it isn't about Jesus the person, but about the ultimate reality of Christ in the corporate body. The "mystery of iniquity" had already begun to infiltrate and corrupt the church as Paul pointed out.

Quote:
Jesus is saying to stop looking at his finger and instead look at what it's pointing to.
And that finger was pointing at himself.

No, Christ doesn't preach like so many preachers do today by claiming that he's not the type of person he's preaching to. He came as a servant, not a self absorbed hypcrite. He says, "deny yourself" and he took his own advice. He's pointing to the fact that you can't keep YOUR life if eternl life is an option. Eternal life requires complete and total surrender of the self. The church cannot live for itself if Christ lives through it.

Quote:
They become biographies only after enough time has transpired away from its Jewish roots.
So you concede the Gospels were biographies then. Okay good, glad we’ve got that out of the way.

Yes, I never denied that they were viewed as biographies, especially biographies of the church as it grew within the synagogues, and that growth patterned the liturgy. As the pattern of the liturgy grew(not to be conflated with a word count)so did the impact it had on their relationship with the more obervant Jews who didn't agree with their interpretations.

Quote:
Gentiles had no idea about the Jewish culture and how they transmitted truth.
Well feel free to enlighten me.[/quote]

The best place to start would be the Old Testament. The Talmud, and apocrypha would also be a good start as well. They love to tell stories with a moral, and in many instances the moral is quite difficult to see. In numerous examples the teachings seem to be too many to count. They operate on many levels. Even today we can see this in modern Jewish literature and even in movies. Coen brothers movies come to mind, especially something like A Serious Man. Stone's Chumash will pay fantastic dividends, and go a long way to a deeper understanding of how these stories convey truth, not just to Jews, but to the world. But only if the world is prepared to read them without their own preconceived ideas.

---

Quote:
I'm not leaving anything out. You're introducing the fact that Theophilus is a thoroughly Greek name and assuming that this is somehow relevant.
It is relevant for the reasons I gave which you did not address.

Quote:
Cosmopolitan Jews will naturally give their children names that fit within the cultural context they're living in. Look to the book of Daniel as a prime example of Jewish youths with Persian names, e.g. Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo.
Nice try. The names given by their parents, hence their Jewish names, were Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Later, in their adulthood and not of their choosing, it was the palace master (by extension King Nebuchadnezzar) who gave them Chaldean names.

�Among them were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, from the tribe of Judah. The palace master gave them other names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.� – Daniel 1:6-7

And that was your prime example?

Yep, and it still stands as it spotlights the fact that we're not dealing with an exclusively Jewish community anymore. Theophilus is clearly a fabricated name to show that they're all a friend of God.

Therefore, we have a strong inductive argument that Theophilus was a gentile.

Whatever. It's a Greek writing a Greek document to a Greek audience. Maybe Luke finally got the memo that there is no Jew or Greek in the kingdom. He's still got to communicate to them in the language they're speaking so he does. It's not much of a point if it is at all.

Quote:
Perhaps. You make a good point. Jesus' words are pretty harsh, and his words would have been a harsh reminder to return to their roots.
These aren’t Jesus’ words in Luke 2:22-24. These are Luke’s commentary on events.[/quote]

Exactly!!! He's commenting on what is going on within the church in relation to their Jewish roots. The rich man is the Jewish hierarchy, and Lazarus represents the gentiles who are on the outside, but can't get into the synagogues. They're the one's that need the help, but are being kept out. Lazurus means "whom God helps", and that's just what the gospel accounts are all about, especially when it comes to Acts with the gospel message going out to the gentile world.

On the view Luke was writing to Jews we have to understand 2:22-24 as Luke explaining to Jews the Jewish customs for the first born. And further explaining to Jews that these customs are found in the Torah. It makes these Jews sound like they weren’t Jews. If we came across a letter that explained the ritual of communion and that the ritual of communion is found in the New Testament we would naturally assume the letter was directed to a non-Christian since communion is a well known ritual in the Christian faith.[/quote]

You're making my point for me. There are more Christians that have no clue what any of their customs, rituals mean than those who do. The vast majority of professing Christians go to church on Christmas, Easter,to be baptized, and when they die.

If the letter had also been addressed to someone named Muhammad that would be further confirmation that the audience was not Christian[/quote]

Now you're just offending Christians with different sounding names than you. Zenophobia is alive and well, but hey don't let that stop you from digging yourself deeper into that pit you call Christianity. Just because we can see it's your own grave doesn't mean we don't like seeing other people work...And people wonder why Christianity is dwindling in first world countries...

and we would assume it was written to a Muslim. We could be wrong of course, but that would be the strongest inference.

The strongest inference from a Zenophobic antisemitic bigot. I suppose you could safely assume someone named Christopher or Stephen must be a Christian, right? Yet you would be just as wrong as Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Hawking would point out.

Quote:
I pointed out that he is writing for cosmopolitan Jews. There is nothing to suggest that any of these groups weren't allowing gentile converts into the fold. The texts themselves are a potent reminder of that fact. I'm not denying what the texts say. I'm pointing out what they say. You seem to see it as well, but for some reason don't want to accept it.
If Luke were writing to Jews with the purpose of calling them back to their Jewish roots, as you have asserted, there’s no reason to expect Luke to go out of his way to identify Jesus as the “light of revelation to the gentiles.� This insertion is better explained by Luke writing to a gentile audience.[/quote]

It's just as likely a reflection of their recent history and a potent reminder not to make the same mistakes in the future; not to treat the gentiles the way they were just treated.

[Bust Nak]

The strongest inference from a Zenophobic antisemitic bigot.

Moderator Warning

That is inflammatory.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.