Christianity and the End Times

Oh it certainly is controversial. He did original research and contributed a lot of information that was not previously written about.

If Luke's information came from other written accounts, unknown to believers, why didn't6 he just put those accounts into circulation? Why didn't he just recommend them to Theophilus or have a copy made for him? No, he had his own information about these things that he thought it worth reporting. "Q" is a myth, made up by the "scholars" who obviously don't know how to read.

Have you ever written a paper Faith? I find your question quite astounding.Apparently, none of the sources included the complete story that Luke wanted to tell, and did not describe Jesus from the perspective that Luke undertook to document. His Gospel serves that purpose regardless of what his actual sources were.Luke almost certainly drew on many sources. I don't think there is any controversy about that whatsoever.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith, this statement does not contradict what I said in the least. Original research means consulting sources and accounts. At least some of those sources appear to be in common with the other Gospel authors.Again, this is not controversial.

From the context in which I wrote it I obviously excluded his using written sources. They would have to have been unknown to believers because he refers to those that are well known and he had no need to repeat those, and if he consulted unknown sources he would have named them and recommended them, not written his own. There is no "Q" source, it's all imaginary.Luke had opportunity to be with the apostles and hear their stories. He traveled with Paul. He knew about the political situation of the day and may have done some reading on that but it also may not have been necessary. Since he includes information about John the Baptist's birth it does seem likely that he got to interview Mary and others connected with that. HE WAS THERE, among the people most involved, not during Jesus' life but soon after. THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN IMAGINARY DOCUMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE WROTE./I trust the traiditional attributions

Lujke was THERE, NN, he spent time among the apostles. And if there were documents written that covered what interested him WHY WEREN'T THEY ALREADY WELL KNOWN as the ones he mentions were? THERE WAS NO NEED FOR OTHER WRITTEN SOURCES, HE WAS THERE.

Your statement is baseless and idiotic. If there were written sources, they were written by believers and accordingly, they could not have been unknown to all believers.

Oh think for a change. He had no reason to write what was already known to believers, all the wriotings he starts out saying were well known./ The only source therefore that he COULD have used would have been UNKNOWN to believers. Sheesh. Grow a brain.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. He couldn't repeat what had already been said? Why not? He couldn't bring different sources together in one place? Why not?

As he SAYS, he is writing because he feels he has a good understanding of these things, he has no reason to repeat what believers already know, which he starts out mentioning. He wants to ADD to their knowledge from his own experience. He was writing to someone named Theophilis whom he knew personally. He says he knows he believes the same things he Luke also believes because of the writings of the eyewitnesses they are both familiar with, but he wants to give him MORE information from his OWN knowledge. Sheesh.

Yes, bringing different sources together in one place adds them together. He doesn't say that. He says that he understands the events, not that he experienced them. Nope. He doesn't say that.

I'm so sorry to learn of your mental handicaps that prevent you from reading and understanding and making correct inferencesfrom simple information. My condolences.

The ad hominem just illustrates the fact that there is no substance to your position.

Yet Luke includes multiple mutually exclusive versions of several stories. If one is correct then the others are false.Luke is simply an early apologist.

Your supposition is not correct. There are four Gospels and much overlap in the material and Luke's Gospel was not the first one written. The idea that Luke would only write about what was unknown is demonstrably beyond ridiculous.Secondly, the fact that there were other writings does not mean that those writings were widely spread or well known. Your argument is not logical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.