has anyone here read the apologetics study bible?

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

So the issue of wanting to break from Judaism would not be reason enough.

If what you are suggesting is true, that would give evidence to Marcion's claim of his Gospel being the source material for Luke

Luke is part of the Synoptic Gospels though. confused

It might just be rumors but I've been hearing that The Gospel of the Lord might have been the source material of Luke.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

So the issue of wanting to break from Judaism would not be reason enough.

If what you are suggesting is true, that would give evidence to Marcion's claim of his Gospel being the source material for Luke

Luke is part of the Synoptic Gospels though. confused

It might just be rumors but I've been hearing that The Gospel of the Lord might have been the source material of Luke.

I don't understand why someone would single out the Gospel of Luke, since it's a Synoptic Gospel, over say- the Gospel of John.  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

So the issue of wanting to break from Judaism would not be reason enough.

If what you are suggesting is true, that would give evidence to Marcion's claim of his Gospel being the source material for Luke

Luke is part of the Synoptic Gospels though. confused

It might just be rumors but I've been hearing that The Gospel of the Lord might have been the source material of Luke.

I don't understand why someone would single out the Gospel of Luke, since it's a Synoptic Gospel, over say- the Gospel of John.

Who knows? There's a lot of weird s**t, academically, that goes on in the Gnostic community.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

So the issue of wanting to break from Judaism would not be reason enough.

If what you are suggesting is true, that would give evidence to Marcion's claim of his Gospel being the source material for Luke

Luke is part of the Synoptic Gospels though. confused

It might just be rumors but I've been hearing that The Gospel of the Lord might have been the source material of Luke.

I don't understand why someone would single out the Gospel of Luke, since it's a Synoptic Gospel, over say- the Gospel of John.

Who knows? There's a lot of weird s**t, academically, that goes on in the Gnostic community.

I think I just need it explained.

What parts are they claiming independent from the Synoptic core?  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

So the issue of wanting to break from Judaism would not be reason enough.

If what you are suggesting is true, that would give evidence to Marcion's claim of his Gospel being the source material for Luke

Luke is part of the Synoptic Gospels though. confused

It might just be rumors but I've been hearing that The Gospel of the Lord might have been the source material of Luke.

I don't understand why someone would single out the Gospel of Luke, since it's a Synoptic Gospel, over say- the Gospel of John.

Who knows? There's a lot of weird s**t, academically, that goes on in the Gnostic community.

I think I just need it explained.

What parts are they claiming independent from the Synoptic core?

Recent book on this topic.

Basically its the reverse of the argument against the Gospel of the Lord, that Marcion cut stuff out of Luke, in that one of his opponents added verses to the Gospel of the Lord to counter Marcionism.  

[TeaDidikai]

But... Luke is dated around 80 AD, and Acts is around four decades later. Wait... let me recheck this stuff.

Luke is dated around 80 AD, but Marcion is what is around four decades later.  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

But... Luke is dated around 80 AD, and Acts is around four decades later. Wait... let me recheck this stuff.

Luke is dated around 80 AD, but Marcion is what is around four decades later.

That's debatable. Luke is ranged 80 CE to 130 CE

source  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

But... Luke is dated around 80 AD, and Acts is around four decades later. Wait... let me recheck this stuff.

Luke is dated around 80 AD, but Marcion is what is around four decades later.

That's debatable. Luke is ranged 80 CE to 130 CE

source

I'm not sure why I should take that source above Meier. neutral  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

But... Luke is dated around 80 AD, and Acts is around four decades later. Wait... let me recheck this stuff.

Luke is dated around 80 AD, but Marcion is what is around four decades later.

That's debatable. Luke is ranged 80 CE to 130 CE

source

I'm not sure why I should take that source above Meier. neutral

The biggest leg that I've seen so far for the late dating of Luke is that the earliest papyrus we have of Luke, Papyrus 4 and 75, is dated around 2nd Century/3rd Century and that we don't see Luke cited until the early 2nd century. I'm not saying that the late dating is conclusive since there's still not enough evidence to conclude a late dating but that the late dating of Luke argument is not complete bullshit.  

[TeaDidikai]

If I am reading this correctly, the argument boils down to oldest reference and copies date to X.

This would be a lot stronger if linguistics didn't point earlier and the argument itself relied on a lack of evidence to counter it being it's best support.  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

If I am reading this correctly, the argument boils down to oldest reference and copies date to X.

This would be a lot stronger if linguistics didn't point earlier and the argument itself relied on a lack of evidence to counter it being it's best support.

Yeah it's a debatable thing and yes like you said, the lack of evidence to discount this theory is one of the other strong points going for it too. But I will say that there is more evidence supporting that Luke came first in terms of tradition and linguistics like you pointed out.

On an unrelated note I have now learned that a car lock in the shade in -9 F weather freezes shut.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

But I will say that there is more evidence supporting that Luke came first in terms of tradition and linguistics like you pointed out.

mrgreen Eh... You know me.

But then, I've always been a big fan of the Gospel of John myself.

I kinda see the Synoptic Gospels as the primers- "If you don't know how to follow, this is what you can do. Hopefully you'll get it eventually."  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

mrgreen Eh... You know me.

biggrin

Quote:

But then, I've always been a big fan of the Gospel of John myself.

It's very deep to say the least.

Quote:

I kinda see the Synoptic Gospels as the primers- "If you don't know how to follow, this is what you can do. Hopefully you'll get it eventually."

That's pretty clever. They are good starting points I will say that and builds up to John.  

[TeaDidikai]

Would you say the Gospel of John has a more Mystic bent to it?  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

Would you say the Gospel of John has a more Mystic bent to it?

Yes I would.