The author of Luke and the author of The Acts are the same person. This person was in the Ministry and went to Rome with Paul, ca 66 AD. He never met Jesus, apparently, but collated data and obviously read the accounts already written about Jesus. He was a true historian - one who doesn't write about himself. And Luke (or whatever his name was) used the "royal we."
Lets be serious Names have been retroactively attached to the gospels. Why? To lend credibility. You cannot then say that no names were required for credibility since CLEARLY the christian community attached names to these writings for precisely that reason.
I enjoyed your point about the pronouns "we" and "me." Thessalonians was written about twenty years after Jesus. Many of his readers would have been familiar with the Gospel account first hand. John's account could have been written as-it-happened. But even here it was about "what" happened, ie "and Jesus said" as opposed to "and is Jesus is now saying." So of necessity it's in the "past." It's good to challenge paradigms.
You admit that luke never knew jesus So what ever he means by “we”..... what he does NOT MEAN is “we the disciples gathered around listening to jesus”
That is said of Solomon. If you are going to write a book and want people to read/buy it you give it a good name. So adding Solomon's is a good move. No. Solomon wrote, in this order Song of Solomon, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. You can see the man becoming darker with age - Ecc' is full of woes and vanities etc.. Song is youthful and Proverbs (admittedly a collation of current sayings) feels middle aged. And this king never went through the struggles of his father or others - he was born into royalty and was not particularly humble. So yes, here you can "see" the man behind the writing. He fell from God's grace in the end. This applies also to John - the account of John in the Gospels (where he refused to use his name, ie "the disciple whom Jesus loved.") is clearly the man who wrote the Johannine letters.
By this you cannot possibly mean that they sat with jesus... can you? Friend I am just pointing out to you that first hand recollections are written in a different style than recollections collected long after the fact
No-one ever claimed that Luke was a disciple. He himself says as much. But he was reading scripture already written - now isn't that interesting? Back in the 1980's some people were complaining about the plethora of Jesus books emerging. These were becoming the first generation of new resources for bible students. As such they would be quoted by the next generation - and a lot of genuine source material would be lost. Just read Wikipedia and you can really see that. Someone says there were no camels in Abraham's day. This false statement gets repeated endlessly, and simply won't die.
The Gospel of John was written very late. Estimated Range of Dating: 90-120 A.D. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
This is all speculative But what is certainly true is that god inherently must have chosen how this story would be recorded, when it would be recorded, and by whom. And imo .... if there was a guiding hand behind the compilation of the NT.... is was a carless guiding hand
Abraham wouldn't have had camels.. Domestication of camels Image: dailymail.co.uk Domestication of Camels. The dromedary had been domesticated on the borders of Arabia by 1800 B.C., a fact confirmed by the finding of Middle Bronze Age remains of camels at ancient urban sites in Israel. Domestication of Camels - Camel Facts lovecamels.com/camel-facts/domestication-of-camels/
Camel Domestication History Challenges Biblical Narrative ... https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/camel-domestication-history-challenges... Camels play a major role in the Biblical narrative of the patriarchs; the animals are mentioned over 20 times in Genesis alone. However, a recent publication by Tel Aviv University (TAU) archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen suggests that camels were not domesticated in Israel until the end of the 10th century B.C.E. Excerpt: Camels in Israel Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen examined evidence from copper production sites in the southern Levant. Radiocarbon dates suggest that domesticated camel bones in the Aravah Valley—the oldest known domesticated camel bones in the region—date to the late 10th century B.C.E. or later, corresponding with changes in smelting practices. The researchers believe that Egyptians revised smelting operations while importing domesticated camels from the Arabian Peninsula.
Me? No What i believe is that jesus followers believed what jesus said.... which was that the end of the world was immanent... that people listening to jesus would see the end. And because they believed jesus... they saw no need to write stuff down. But then... after decades when the expected end did not come.... followers started to realize the end might not be coming so very soon.... and that therefore they needed to start writing stuff down. And so various people began compiling what became the gospels I believe these people had different doctrinal agendas which addressed their own beliefs. I do not think these varying agendas that are obvious in what they wrote... originated from the holy spirit
A committee of story tellers,writers, and artists wrote the books of the Bible in the 680s-690s AD. No one did any collating of data in 66 AD.
Quite, we are all "snowflakes" in comparison to our ancestry; yet strangely we would all find ourselves stronger and healthier than most everybody alive back then. We would still die quite quickly if we stayed there and didn't purify everything around us, particularly the water and toilet facilities, but we would start out stronger,healthier and actually bigger due to better healthcare and nutrition in our childhood and youth.
Better educated, even better trained in how to think, yes, but not smarter in the native sense. Our ancestors were far from stupid, as Carl Sagan liked to say.
You realize that even time won't exist in Jannah? It will be a different place. A place you cannot imagine. The assumption that the mentioned wine in the translation cannot be wine in Jannah because it doesn't intoxicate is absurd. It's like saying it can't be a real place because the dead are alive there. If you believe God can bring the dead back to life, you probably won't get hung up on whether wine intoxicates or not.
That doesn't answer my comment in the slightest. I already know you don't believe, but about the Koran not having been translated...
It is very simple. The Bible did not exist before that time. Sure, there were various manuscripts floating around but they were not in a single book. That did not happen until a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists got together in England in the 680s-690s and produced three master copies in Latin, each weighing 75 pounds. All Bibles since then are based on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus There are claims about earlier Bibles but they don't exist or else they are hoaxes. Remember history and human nature. People need to push the origin of the Bible far back as possible to make it seem legitimate. But remember what was happening during those early centuries. You can write the Old Testament stories based on the characters mentioned in the Hymn to the Ancestors found in Sirach chapters 44-50 (CEB) = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach44-50&version=CEB. If you know that you can write all kinds of stories about what they did and said, just like a screen writer does for a movie. And base the stories on one or more of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 34:11-28 and some miracles to illustrate Exodus 34:10 and you will have written the Old Testament.
Just remember, in the Islamic fairy tale the majority of people in hell are women. The others are members of some guy's private harem. Have fun.
Do you know who formatted the Koran into numbered chapters and verses like the Bible and when he did it?
