Luke: Why Knowingly Write Positive About...

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 4
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
......Something He Must Have Known Was A Failure?

It is Generally accepted that Luke's Gospel was written AD 80–110.  But whichever date is acceptable it stands to reason that Luke wrote his account after the crucifixion of Jesus. So why did he leave out the parts where none of the predictions concerning Jesus' came to fruition?

Luke 1:32-33 New International Version
  
The angel Gabriel appears to Mary telling her:

" He [Jesus the Jew ] will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

So with this in mind we have here a gospel writer, writing decades after the fact choosing to ignore the fact that non of the above ever came to fruition, why?

 It all appears on the face of it that these predictions fit the expectations of a Messiah to the Jews of the time. i.e. A warrior that will reinstate the greatness of Israel.  Rule over the "house of Jacob" referring to the 12 tribes that he come to reunite.

But as we see by the time Luke scrambled his gospel together two thing simply leap from it pages. 1st: he completely and utterly failed to fulfil the messianic role as per Gabriel's predictions.  2nd: early Christians such as Paul attempt to redefine the role of and expected messiah.

So it should be obvious to anyone that claims to have studied and had memorised the  the  gospel  that Luke (writing decades after the fact)  simply couldn't have invented the words spoken by the angel Gabriel. So  why make up a prediction that had already failed!?


 


#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,113
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
From Wikipedia:
In modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, depending upon one's a priori view of the supernatural. Since post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism, such historians would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. Mark Powell claims that "it is doubtful whether the writing of history was ever Luke's intent. Luke wrote to proclaim, to persuade, and to interpret; he did not write to preserve records for posterity. An awareness of this, has been, for many, the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin."
Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Well when we look at Luke's comment Luke 1:32-33

" He [Jesus the Jew ] will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

The expectation fits the narrative of Jewish expectation - only the characterisation doesn't fit  a "turn the other cheek/render unto Caesar "Jesus at all, but appears to fit the nature of  the firebrand John the Baptist who had actually fought wars and battles.... according to historian Flavius Josephus. Who incidentally, dedicates more time & words to the Baptist than the few words he dedicates to a claimed "son of god" Jesus.
#4
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
From Wikipedia:
In modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, depending upon one's a priori view of the supernatural. Since post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism, such historians would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. Mark Powell claims that "it is doubtful whether the writing of history was ever Luke's intent. Luke wrote to proclaim, to persuade, and to interpret; he did not write to preserve records for posterity. An awareness of this, has been, for many, the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin."
I don't think this really addresses Stephen's question, which seems to be more about the motive of the author rather than the historicity of the text.