Did Paul write Luke?

by iamwhoiam 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  Where does Paul of all people say to continue animal sacrifices? Are we taking about Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. I don't recall about animal sacrifices. I recall a dispute with Peter about clean/unclean food. In the opinion of many people, Paul, not Jesus, founded Christianity. I always wondered what the apostles led by James actually believed in terms of a trinity and other things.

  Many things are strange to me. Was Stephen surprised when they stoned him? If Jesus overturned Temple worship, why were they worshipping in the Temple?

  Another item was who was this God fearing community that predated Abraham. What happened to them?

  Thinking about things like this shows that my brain is still distorted by the Witnesses.
• 

  AGuest

  What is interesting it the intro explaining that the narrative wasn't written chronological order but in an order he felt logical.

  The Greek word, kathexes, used in the introduction to denote "in order," means "one after another, successively, in order." Which does NOT mean in an order that the writer felt was logical... but chronological order. In the order they occurred. The statement that is was an order that the writer felt to be logical is false and one a main one pushed by the WTBTS (first, in the Aid to Bible Understanding book) to support their LIE that Judas was not present at my Lord's last evening meal with his disciples, but only 11 of the 12 were.

  I bid you peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  peacefulpete

  Well actually the word can mean in chronological order but also in any other order the author determined to be appropriate. It often simply means "ordered" or "orderly". Since the author most certainly did not follow the chronological order of Mark most commentators assume some other logical or chiastic ordering was intended.
• 

  cameo-d

  Band: "Where does Paul of all people say to continue animal sacrifices?"

  Paul had some dignitaries that came into town to visit him. Paul himself purchased the animal sacrifices for them.

  This was everything Jesus stood against. He overturned the money changers because of the false teachings of animal "scapegoat" sacrifices.

  The fact that Paul still participated in temple events and sacrifice also shows that he did not believe that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice or he would not have continued the practice of sacrificial animals.

  The whole thing about blood sacrifice is an abomination. Killing an animal or a human being does not, and never has, "taken away" anyones sins. It is a pagan ritual of believing that you can rub the goats head and transfer your sins (cooties) onto the goat. Kill the goat, and now you are not responsible for any of your wrong doings anymore. The goat did it!

  Paul compromised his principles and you can read this in Acts 21:18-24. He was persuaded to go along with what he knew was wrong. Or maybe he really had no conscience about it one way or another. To deliberately go against what you know is right illustrates what it means to "grieve the Holy Spirit" or to "have a double mind".

  Paul never knew Jesus and had never spent any time with him nor heard him speak. Since the apostles did not have anything to do with Paul he did not learn much about Jesus's teachings from them either.

  I think Paul's "religion" was under the influence and direction of the scribes and pharisees. And I think Paul made it into a lucrative business for himself, for his part in it.
• 

  AGuest

  the word can mean in chronological order but also in any other order the author determined to be appropriate.

  Can you point me to a source, dear PP (peace to you and my apologies for the omission earlier!)? Every lexicon I've checked (secular, as well as theological/biblical)... and there are quite a few... denotes it as "successive"... "subsequent"... "in order"... "chronological", etc.

  Thank you, and again, peace to you!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Leolaia

  IIRC the word for "in order" here is the same expression that occurs (in negative form?) in Papias in his description of the gospel of Mark. I'm away on travel and can't look this up but this is what I recall offhand.

  WB PP!!!
• 

  tec

  He overturned the money changers because of the false teachings of animal "scapegoat" sacrifices.

  I think he was angry because of the cheats using dishonest scales, or those people thinking they can making a profit off others' desperation to have an animal to offer as sacrifice. To make a profit off of his Father's mercy or forgiveness, so to speak.

  Tammy

  Edited to add the scripture: Matthew 21:13 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hello to you as well Leolaia, and you need to read your messages more.lol Merry Xmas!

  AGuest..A 30 second google search came up with this : http://bible.cc/luke/1-3.htm Note the footnote.
• 

  PSacramento

  The GOL was NOT written by Paul, there is no indication of that whatesoever.

  When writing the GOL, the writer (Luke) relied not only upon the traditions he had at the time, but also his own personal sources (both historical and personal).

  Of course the GOL was not a single "sit down and write" book but was complied over a long period of time and with more than a few edits one woudl think.

  There are many opinions on the sources from which Luke drew on and who Luke was, but there are no "facts" per say.

  It makes sense that he would draw on Mark and Matt as for the often quote and mentioned "Q"source, well, we don't even know if it even existsed, but if it did, there would be no reason NOT to use it.

  Going back to what Shelby said in regards to this showing that the Bible is NOT inspired.

  We sometimes forget that inspired to write about God ( and his Son and the works of his apostles) and inspired BY God ( via the HS) are not the same thing BUT that applying 21st century definitions to things that happened in the 1st century is probably not the way to go.
• 

  Chalam

  Welcome iamwhoiam!

  Acts and Luke are highly likely written by the same author.

  Luke 1:3 (English Standard Version)

  3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

  Acts 1:1 (English Standard Version)

  1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.

  Whilst both books share a literaty style, neither seem to be in the same style (nor have the same theological focus) as any of the writings of Paul.

  As to if Luke is the author and one and the same person as Paul is writing about here cannot be certain but many scholars assume they are Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11 , Philemon 1:24

  It is not really important who wrote Luke, save to say they wrote under the direction of the One who brings all things to mind concerning Christ John 15:26,John 14:26

  Blessings in Christ,

  Stephen