Bible Study Thread: Luke

[paradox3]

It is my understanding that many biblical scholars believe the first 2 chapters of Lukes book were later additions and that Chapter 3.1 was the original starting point. That would discount the infancy narrative if true.

Given that virtually none of the material in Luke 1 or 2 appears in any other gospel, this seems like a creditable hypothesis. There is more coming up later in Luke which is unique to this gospel.

But I agree with @Mendalla. Since the gospels are faith testimonies rather than biographies (or so I believe), I am not sure how important the details of authorship really are.

 

[paradox3]

The latest in a long line of final straws.

The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

 

[Waterfall]

Would it? It discounts as being part of the original narrative, but does it discount from being a part of the tradition? Perhaps it was added because someone saw it as important to the overall story. I wouldn't be so dismissive. This is a religious tradition, not a scientific discipline. Traditions and their stories evolve and change. In the end, what matters is whether it tells us something meaningful about the story of the faith.

Not being dismissive....people can do with it what they like.....Mathew and Luke both agree he was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth but after that they differ Mathew has him going to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents after being visited by wise men 2 years after his birth while Luke has his family being visited by shepherds and going to Jerusalem then returning to Nazareth.
Does it matter? Should it?

 

[Mendalla]

Not being dismissive....people can do with it what they like.....Mathew and Luke both agree he was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth but after that they differ Mathew has him going to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents after being visited by wise men while Luke has his family being visited by shepherds and going to Jerusalem then returning to Nazareth.
Does it matter? Should it?

The differences don't matter to me because they are myths to me. Beyond perhaps place, it is really meaningful fiction that tells more about the faith of the writer(s) than about Jesus. It matters when you are dealing with literalists, though.

 

[Waterfall]

Given that virtually none of the material in Luke 1 or 2 appears in any other gospel, this seems like a creditable hypothesis. There is more coming up later in Luke which is unique to this gospel.

But I agree with @Mendalla. Since the gospels are faith testimonies rather than biographies (or so I believe), I am not sure how important the details of authorship really are.

Well its "Marks" story thats all.....and someone else adding to it changes the original focus of the book....but anyway just thought Id mention it.

 

[paradox3]

....Mathew and Luke both agree he was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth but after that they differ

There are a few other details the birth narratives have in common. They agree that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and Mary was his mother, betrothed to Joseph. They agree that Jesus was a descendant of David.

Angels play a significant role in both gospels.

It is also interesting to contemplate that Mark and John have no birth narratives at all.

 

[Waterfall]

There are a few other details the birth narratives have in common. They agree that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and Mary was his mother, betrothed to Joseph. They agree that Jesus was a descendant of David.

Angels play a significant role in both gospels.

It is also interesting to contemplate that Mark and John have no birth narratives at all.

Mary does play a significant role in the first two chapters but not so much later....but Im jumping ahead.

 

[paradox3]

Well its "Marks" story thats all.....and someone else adding to it changes the original focus of the book....but anyway just thought Id mention it.

Definitely worth mentioning.

 

[Redbaron]

Not being dismissive....people can do with it what they like.....Mathew and Luke both agree he was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth but after that they differ Mathew has him going to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents after being visited by wise men 2 years after his birth while Luke has his family being visited by shepherds and going to Jerusalem then returning to Nazareth.
Does it matter? Should it?

The differences may be each gospel writer's way of describing how they have seen/ experienced Jesus. Differences are not a bad thing, unless you're trying to insist that everything in the Bible must be literally true. Then you got problems.

 

[Waterfall]

The differences may be each gospel writer's way of describing how they have seen/ experienced Jesus. Differences are not a bad thing, unless you're trying to insist that everything in the Bible must be literally true. Then you got problems.

But if it was added then this wasnt Lukes experience and possibly felt other things were more important to focus on. Does this mean we could even change the Bible now do you suppose? Or is it given a pass because it was changed within a couple of centuries of Jesus?
In the first chapters he mentions Mary ALOT...not so much afterwards....did he originally intend that we should not focus on worshipping Mary?
And chapers 1 and 2 show John and Jesus knowing each other...and later in Luke at the baptism John doesnt seem to know who Jesus is.

 

[Redbaron]

But if it was added then this wasnt Lukes experience and possibly felt other things were more important to focus on. Does this mean we could even change the Bible now do you suppose? Or is it given a pass because it was changed within a couple of centuries of Jesus?
In the first chapters he mentions Mary ALOT...not so much afterwards....did he originally intend that we should not focus on worshipping Mary?
And chapers 1 and 2 show John and Jesus knowing each other...and later in Luke at the baptism John doesnt seem to know who Jesus is.

a) We would be talking decades, rather than centuries. Though they may have grown and developed, these are still the most ancient and closest-to-the-time witnesses we have to Jesus' person and life.
b) No, we can't change the Bible now. Well, we could, but we'd lose more than we gain. Think of the stories of the Bible as the foundation of all our stories in Christ-- if the foundation is changed, the whole thing may topple.
c) Elisabeth and Many knew each other... Mary left about the time John was born; no indication that Jesus and John ever met before the baptism.

 

[Waterfall]

a) We would be talking decades, rather than centuries. Though they may have grown and developed, these are still the most ancient and closest-to-the-time witnesses we have to Jesus' person and life.
b) No, we can't change the Bible now. Well, we could, but we'd lose more than we gain. Think of the stories of the Bible as the foundation of all our stories in Christ-- if the foundation is changed, the whole thing may topple.
c) Elisabeth and Many knew each other... Mary left about the time John was born; no indication that Jesus and John ever met before the baptism.

How do you know Elisabeth and Mary knew each other from Luke....is it only from the added first 2 chapters?
I was reading that the 1st 2 chapters were possibly added 150 years after Lukes original book.....is that wrong?

 

[paradox3]

How do you know Elisabeth and Mary knew each other from Luke....is it only from the added first 2 chapters?

We encounter Elizabeth in Luke 1. That seems to be it for the whole New Testament.

 

[Waterfall]

We encounter Elizabeth in Luke 1. That seems to be it for the whole New Testament.

So Im wondering....these birth narratives seem to imply Jesus divinity right from the get go but without them being added years later would we then end up with the Holy spirit descending on him during his baptism as the original story and not at birth? Would this then play more into Jesus being a mortal that was chosen by God rather than being God?
Im also remembering the opening of Mark being tampered with for Jesus to be seen as Son of God.

 

[paradox3]

The birth stories in Matthew and Luke both have Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit so they are doing more than "implying" His divinity. They are stating it quite clearly. I think the most likely explanation for these narratives is that they were written to support what early Christians already believed, i.e. that Jesus was the Son of God.

The four gospels have plenty of other arguments for the divinity of Jesus. John opens with Jesus being the Word from the beginning of time. All the gospels relate stories of miraculous healing, casting out demons, walking on water and so on. The resurrection appearances lend further support to the idea that Jesus was an incarnation of God.

 

[paradox3]

The Holy Spirit gets a lot of airtime in Luke 1. It is the agent of conception, of course, and fills John even before his birth. Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit during her pregnancy. The same is said of Zechariah after the circumcision and naming of John.

Looking ahead to the baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit is going to descend in bodily form like a dove.

Let's watch for more appearances or mention of the Holy Spirit as we work our way through Luke. I believe we heard of it a few times in Matthew and Mark but I didn't give it a lot of notice.

 

[paradox3]

So Im wondering....these birth narratives seem to imply Jesus divinity right from the get go but without them being added years later would we then end up with the Holy spirit descending on him during his baptism as the original story and not at birth? Would this then play more into Jesus being a mortal that was chosen by God rather than being God?
Im also remembering the opening of Mark being tampered with for Jesus to be seen as Son of God.

Sounds like you might be wondering if the faith tradition would have developed differently without the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. I guess I see plenty of other arguments for the divinity of Jesus but you pose an intriguing question.

 

[Waterfall]

The birth stories in Matthew and Luke both have Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit so they are doing more than "implying" His divinity. They are stating it quite clearly. I think the most likely explanation for these narratives is that they were written to support what early Christians already believed, i.e. that Jesus was the Son of God.

The four gospels have plenty of other arguments for the divinity of Jesus. John opens with Jesus being the Word from the beginning of time. All the gospels relate stories of miraculous healing, casting out demons, walking on water and so on. The resurrection appearances lend further support to the idea that Jesus was an incarnation of God.

Well all I will say so as not to derail Luke....is that many early Christians followed Arianism up until 381CE...afterwhich it was deemed heretical.....
Cannot Jesus be divine without actually being God?
Thus how Arianism would translate those passages would have been different....but enough about that.

 

[paradox3]

Well all I will say so as not to derail Luke....is that many early Christians followed Arianism up until 381CE...afterwhich it was deemed heretical.....
Cannot Jesus be divine without actually being God?
Thus how Arianism would translate those passages would have been different....but enough about that.

Ah yes. I had to look this up but it seems Arianism has Jesus being the Son of God but it holds a unitarian understanding of God. So in other words, no triune God and no Jesus actually being God.

How did we get the theology of the trinity? God in three persons? That would make an interesting thread sometime.

 

[unsafe]

So getting into the spiritual side -----John was born so the Prophecy was fulfilled ------God Always keeps his promises and that goes for us today all who are believers -----

unsafe says -----We see that God gives Zacharias a second chance at showing his faith in God -----by what He wrote -----

62 Then they made signsC)'> to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” 64 Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue set free, and he began to speak, praising God.

unsafe says ----And let us be aware that God has given His Creation a second chance to show their Faith in God's Promise of having eternal Life by sending His only Son to die On the Cross and by the Shedding of His Precious Blood to free His Children of sin and death ---

Thanks be to God for that -----

unsafe says -----Notice in verse ---67 it says Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and He Prophesied -----

So we know that Zacharias had the Holy Spirit in Him and it is the Holy Spirit who gives him the Prophecy cause the Prophecy is about the coming of Jesus Christ and Zacharias didn't know Jesus yet -----



AMP Bible

68
“Blessed (praised, glorified) be the Lord, the God of Israel,
Because He has visited us and brought redemption to His people,
69
And He has raised up horn of salvation [a mighty and valiant Savior] for us
In the house of David His servant—
70
Just as He promised by the mouth of His holy prophets from the most ancient times—

Jesus is the Horn of Salvation here ------


unsafe says -----And we see in verse 80 that John spent time in the wilderness ------the wilderness id important to God --it is where training takes place God's way ----unsafe posting here from Deuteronomy ----

Deuteronomy 8:2-16(AMP)

2 And you shall remember [always] all the ways which the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, so that He might humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart (mind), whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 He humbled you and allowed you to be hungry and fed you with manna, [a substance] which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, so that He might make you understand [by personal experience] that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. 4 Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your feet swell these forty years. 5 Therefore, know in your heart (be fully cognizant) that the Lord your God disciplines and instructs you just as a man disciplines and instructs his son.


unsafe says ---it seems to me in my view -----we are more interested in debating what scripture is valid and what isn't and what Scholars say instead of trying to figure out the meaning of what the scripture that is there actually means and how it applies to us today -----OH Well --to each their own ----

The truth of all Speculation is ---that is just what it is Speculation ---the real truth is We Don't Know and neither do the Scholars -----God says His Word is truth and it is God Inspired ------So who are we or who are the Scholars to say otherwise ----- Satan is loose in this world and his job is to put fear and doubt in peoples minds about God and His Word --So we all need to be careful who and what we entertain cause it shapes the way we think ------just saying ----