Unable to reconcile the ending of Luke with John

[Nehemiah6]

... Luke was a doctor, he always goes out of his way to highlight women ... it looks as if most of his eye witness accounts were from women.

That would be really stretching it. Luke received his Gospel "from above" (Greek anothen) and that is how that word should have been translated.
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from [the very first = from above], to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus... (Luke 1:3)
ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν (anothen) πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
Strong's Concordance
anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then)
Definition: from above
Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Why? Because all the Evangelists received their Gospels "from above". They were not all eye-witnesses to everything in their Gospels. Neither were the women. But what rarely gets noticed is that none of the disciples (including the apostles) firmly expect Christ to rise again after three days and three nights (even though He had stated that plainly many times).

So all the female disciples went with spices to the tomb, expecting to embalm the dead Savior. Then they were shocked because He was not even there. So the angels had to tell them exactly what happened. Yet the apostles would not believe the women. Then Thomas refused to believe the apostles. Now the whole unbelieving world refuses to believe the written Word of God.

 

[Evmur]

That would be really stretching it. Luke received his Gospel "from above" (Greek anothen) and that is how that word should have been translated.
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from [the very first = from above], to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus... (Luke 1:3)
ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν (anothen) πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
Strong's Concordance
anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then)
Definition: from above
Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Why? Because all the Evangelists received their Gospels "from above". They were not all eye-witnesses to everything in their Gospels. Neither were the women. But what rarely gets noticed is that none of the disciples (including the apostles) firmly expect Christ to rise again after three days and three nights (even though He had stated that plainly many times).

So all the female disciples went with spices to the tomb, expecting to embalm the dead Savior. Then they were shocked because He was not even there. So the angels had to tell them exactly what happened. Yet the apostles would not believe the women. Then Thomas refused to believe the apostles. Now the whole unbelieving world refuses to believe the written Word of God.

Luke.1.1
Insomuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ....

Women figure prominently in many of Luke's accounts.

 

[Evmur]

Yes many of Jesus disciples were women

... and still are, I feel pretty sure women are the majority.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

This might have bothered me before, but it is now for sure. I might be missing something, but I can't seem to reconcile the ending of Luke with the ending of John. At the end of Luke there are women who go to Jesus' tomb then shortly after Jesus appears to two disciples walking and then shortly after that he appears to the eleven and then takes them out and he ascends to heaven. At the ending of John similar events happen (there are differences, but it's similar) but instead after this he appears again to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. The way Luke reads it makes no logical sense for John to end the way it does. I literally can't reconcile the two with how they read. Also Luke does not read like Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection. Does anyone have an explanation for these things, because I've read both endings and I can't make sense of it at all.

The four accounts of human and Angel interactions are all different. For example:

Mark 16:1-5 NIV - 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Matthew 28:1-2 NIV - 1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

It's also interesting that in one account, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wrapped and anointed Jesus with 75 pounds of spices and ointments. In another account two women are bringing more spices and ointments. Wasn't 75 lbs enough? Good grief. The man would have been an absolute sloppy mess. What were they going to do? Unwrap Jesus and offer more ointments? And what about communications? Were the Disciples, friends, and family members not talking to each other? They had to have been. Random people just can't go and administer dead bodies whenever they like; there had to be some kind of protocol, but according to the Gospel, they all seem radically different.

Here is my take on it: The Lord is probably wondering why we spend so much time mulling through these insignificant details, when we could be practicing how to share the Message of Jesus Christ. We are so busy trying to understand minutia, that the Gospel Saving Plan of Jesus Christ remains hidden and unavailable. I'm pretty sure that God wants all capable people to be mostly concerned with spreading His Word. "How can people believe if they don't hear?"

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Was Judas Iscariot prepaid for his dastardly deed, or was he to be paid upon completing his task? It looks like both, but how can that be?

Prepaid:
Matthew 26:14-16 NLT - 14 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the leading priests 15 and asked, "How much will you pay me to betray Jesus to you?" And they gave him thirty pieces of silver. 16 From that time on, Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus.

It is interesting that the Blue Letter Bible website doesn’t cross reference verse 15 (above) with any of the other Gospels. That seems sneaky and misleading (to me).

Upon Completion:
Mark 14:10-11 NLT - 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the leading priests to arrange to betray Jesus to them. 11 They were delighted when they heard why he had come, and they promised to give him money. So he began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus.

 

[LeeLoving]

Was Judas Iscariot prepaid for his dastardly deed, or was he to be paid upon completing his task? It looks like both, but how can that be?

Prepaid:
Matthew 26:14-16 NLT - 14 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the leading priests 15 and asked, "How much will you pay me to betray Jesus to you?" And they gave him thirty pieces of silver. 16 From that time on, Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus.

It is interesting that the Blue Letter Bible website doesn’t cross reference verse 15 (above) with any of the other Gospels. That seems sneaky and misleading (to me).

Upon Completion:
Mark 14:10-11 NLT - 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the leading priests to arrange to betray Jesus to them. 11 They were delighted when they heard why he had come, and they promised to give him money. So he began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus.

Hey, 2ndTimothyGroup,

The KJV reads differently than the NLT,

Matthew 26:15-16 (KJV)

15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

I was able to reconcile the two gospel endings as well if you missed my other post.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Hey, 2ndTimothyGroup,

The KJV reads differently than the NLT,

Matthew 26:15-16 (KJV)

15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

I was able to reconcile the two gospel endings as well if you missed my other post.

Hey there!

I love this post, thank you for pointing out the difference. I love that kind of thing. I actually keep track of all errors that I can find in a database, so this is a sweet catch. Thank you!

I use about 17 different translations and for the first time, the KJV and the NKJV say the opposite. That's amazing. Here's the NKJV:
Matthew 26:15-16 NKJV - ". . . and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him."

I cross-translate each day as I study and write, and I really do ask myself when I'm going to run into a contradiction between the KJV and its brother, NKJV. It finally happened! haha

The KJV, BBE, and WEB all support the idea of a covenanted or promised price. The BBE is more modern, the the WEB uses fairly old English as the KJV. When I try to formulate a message from the Bible, I weigh out the primary contexts of the entire Bible and apply them to the Scriptures. That's the first test . . . any principle has got to match with the primary contexts of the Bible, which are, in my opinion:

The Power of God
The Purpose of Christ
The Work of Christ
The Effect of Christ

Knowing those four points above back and forth in my head and in a database, this is the foundation I use to help determine what God would have all people understand. This is a challenge, and it is a risky thing to do: To interpret Scripture and share those ideas with others. One such example where I use this principle and catch flack for it every time is Galatians 3:13. The NLT translation is the only one that states that Jesus releases His Elect from the Curse of the Lord. All other translations use the concept of being released from the Curse of the Law. Though the NLT stands alone in this one passage, it fits . . . PERFECTLY with the entire vision and scope of God's Miraculous Bible. Curse of the Law makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Thou shalt not kill is not a Curse.

Because the KJV, BBE, and WEB all formulate a descent case, that would typically be enough for me to be swayed more toward the middle. HOWEVER d), because the KJV and NKJV disagree on that passage, it's kind of a wash.

So what is so funny is that I have just written summaries on all of these Gospel accounts, so all of this stuff is fresh in my mind. Another thing that I found to be interesting is that Jesus said (in one Gospel) that if He doesn't go away, He can't send the Holy Spirit. But in another account, He appears before them, and it is early after His Resurrection, and He gives them the Holy Spirit (and He hadn't ascended as of yet). I'm no expert and haven't spent a second looking into this to see if my memory is correct, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Great to hear from you.

 

[LeeLoving]

Hey there!

I love this post, thank you for pointing out the difference. I love that kind of thing. I actually keep track of all errors that I can find in a database, so this is a sweet catch. Thank you!

I use about 17 different translations and for the first time, the KJV and the NKJV say the opposite. That's amazing. Here's the NKJV:
Matthew 26:15-16 NKJV - ". . . and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him."

I cross-translate each day as I study and write, and I really do ask myself when I'm going to run into a contradiction between the KJV and its brother, NKJV. It finally happened! haha

The KJV, BBE, and WEB all support the idea of a covenanted or promised price. The BBE is more modern, the the WEB uses fairly old English as the KJV. When I try to formulate a message from the Bible, I weigh out the primary contexts of the entire Bible and apply them to the Scriptures. That's the first test . . . any principle has got to match with the primary contexts of the Bible, which are, in my opinion:

The Power of God
The Purpose of Christ
The Work of Christ
The Effect of Christ

Knowing those four points above back and forth in my head and in a database, this is the foundation I use to help determine what God would have all people understand. This is a challenge, and it is a risky thing to do: To interpret Scripture and share those ideas with others. One such example where I use this principle and catch flack for it every time is Galatians 3:13. The NLT translation is the only one that states that Jesus releases His Elect from the Curse of the Lord. All other translations use the concept of being released from the Curse of the Law. Though the NLT stands alone in this one passage, it fits . . . PERFECTLY with the entire vision and scope of God's Miraculous Bible. Curse of the Law makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Thou shalt not kill is not a Curse.

Because the KJV, BBE, and WEB all formulate a descent case, that would typically be enough for me to be swayed more toward the middle. HOWEVER d), because the KJV and NKJV disagree on that passage, it's kind of a wash.

So what is so funny is that I have just written summaries on all of these Gospel accounts, so all of this stuff is fresh in my mind. Another thing that I found to be interesting is that Jesus said (in one Gospel) that if He doesn't go away, He can't send the Holy Spirit. But in another account, He appears before them, and it is early after His Resurrection, and He gives them the Holy Spirit (and He hadn't ascended as of yet). I'm no expert and haven't spent a second looking into this to see if my memory is correct, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Great to hear from you.

I mainly read from the KJV, I guess because it seems like the most trustworthy. I don't know if there's anything wrong with making a more modern translation, but to actually go ahead and do it when there already exists a usable English translation might expose a bias someone has towards the "original" English translation (I think there is actually one older, which uses archaic English) and convey that they don't regard what is expressed in the original translation, one which presumably has no bias since it is the original. I'm not saying any of this is definitely the case, but unless I'm wrong I have noticed discrepancies more than once in the text and it might point to that.

 

[CS1]

This might have bothered me before, but it is now for sure. I might be missing something, but I can't seem to reconcile the ending of Luke with the ending of John. At the end of Luke there are women who go to Jesus' tomb then shortly after Jesus appears to two disciples walking and then shortly after that he appears to the eleven and then takes them out and he ascends to heaven. At the ending of John similar events happen (there are differences, but it's similar) but instead after this he appears again to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. The way Luke reads it makes no logical sense for John to end the way it does. I literally can't reconcile the two with how they read. Also Luke does not read like Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection. Does anyone have an explanation for these things, because I've read both endings and I can't make sense of it at all.

That is because they are two people who experienced snapshots of the same event. Luke got this information from Paul and Eyewitnesses. John was an eyewitness and yet has a different snapshot than Mark and Matthew.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

I mainly read from the KJV, I guess because it seems like the most trustworthy. I don't know if there's anything wrong with making a more modern translation, but to actually go ahead and do it when there already exists a usable English translation might expose a bias someone has towards the "original" English translation (I think there is actually one older, which uses archaic English) and convey that they don't regard what is expressed in the original translation, one which presumably has no bias since it is the original. I'm not saying any of this is definitely the case, but unless I'm wrong I have noticed discrepancies more than once in the text and it might point to that.

I hear you. We don't need to go down this vein of thought (sorry, I don't intend to hijack the thread), but I'm curious about your feelings on the passage I mentioned above:

Galatians 3:13 KJV - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree . . ."

The Law of Moses is absolutely not a curse. Do you feel that this passage from the KJV is wrong? To say that about the Law of Moses is extremely strong language. That doesn't make any sense et all. The Apostle Paul described it this way:

Romans 7:12 KJV - "Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

 

[LeeLoving]

I hear you. We don't need to go down this vein of thought (sorry, I don't intend to hijack the thread), but I'm curious about your feelings on the passage I mentioned above:

Galatians 3:13 KJV - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree . . ."

The Law of Moses is absolutely not a curse. Do you feel that this passage from the KJV is wrong? To say that about the Law of Moses is extremely strong language. That doesn't make any sense et all. The Apostle Paul described it this way:

Romans 7:12 KJV - "Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

I think it might be referring to difficulties someone might have in following the law, I would have to read the surrounding verses to try and actually understand what it means, I'll reply again if I do that (I'm kind of worn out right now, sorry).

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

I think it might be referring to difficulties someone might have in following the law, I would have to read the surrounding verses to try and actually understand what it means, I'll reply again if I do that (I'm kind of worn out right now, sorry).

Haha . . . I hear you. Enjoy the day!!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Luke got this information from Paul and Eyewitnesses.

How about "Luke got this information from the Holy Spirit directly"?

Are all the Gospels given "by inspiration of God? Is the whole Bible given "by inspiration of God"? That is what 2 Timothy 3:16 says: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
Literally "All Scripture is God-breathed"... [Genesis to Revelation]

Actually Luke did receive his Gospel "from above" ("from Heaven") as noted by Strong's Concordance in connection with Luke 1:3. ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν* πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
*Strong's Concordance
anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then)
Definition: from above
Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Yet somehow, none of the translations made the connection with 2 Timothy 3:16. Even Thayer's Greek Lexicon applied "from the first" to Luke 1:3, although their first explanation (a) is "from above", "from a higher place" or "from heaven".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 509: ἄνωθεν
ἄνωθεν (ἄνω), adverb;
a. from above, from a higher place: ἀπό ἄνωθεν (Winer's Grammar, § 50, 7 N. 1), Matthew 27:51 (Tdf. omits ἀπό); Mark 15:38; ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν from the upper part, from the top, John 19:23. Often (also in Greek writings) used of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven: John 3:31; John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15,

The very fact that none of the Gospels copy each other is sufficient to show that the Holy Spirit was giving each Evangelist exactly what should be recorded. Thus the Gospel of John is totally different from the other three (Synoptic Gospels).

 

[lovejoypeaceetc]

Well reading it some more I've realized at the beginning of Luke 24 it says "Now upon the first day of the week". It doesn't necessarily mean the next day after the preceding events. Women could have gone to the tomb numerous times and reported back to the men with the men not believing them and whatnot. Luke must have written what happened the last day Jesus was on earth. At an unstudied first glance they are seemingly contradictory but if you read carefully enough they can be harmonized with what I understand of it.

I've never noticed before this thing about Luke's account. From English translations it does seem like a lot happened in one day. (And that's not to say I'm about to reveal information about the original Greek - I don't know.)

Luke 24 v1-12 is one episode, and clearly from v1 it's the third day after Jesus' death (however we count it).
v13-32 is the next episode, and clearly from v13 it's still the same day.
v33-43 is the next episode, and clearly from v33 it's still the same day.
v44-49 and v50-51 are the next two episodes, and the natural reading seems to be that they are the same day - although that would mean it was probably dark by now (see v29) which is not how we tend to imagine Christ's Ascension.

To me, v44 onwards is the only section where it seems possible that the timeline could be more stretched out, as I see the writer has stopped emphasising that it was the same day as in earlier passages - it just says "Now" (v44) and the rest could be like the closing phase of the book, distinct from the narratives up to v43.

It's important to compare Acts 1 because there's little doubt (none in my mind) that it was written by the same person. The forty days is clearly mentioned there.

I wonder whether some of the appearances occurred after the Ascension at Bethany, rather than that event being the end of all the appearances of Jesus. After all, we know he appeared to Saul.

I've only just discovered through this that the Ascension wasn't from the Mount of Olives, which I'd thought up till now, so that shows how little I know! Ah, I see that place is mentioned in Acts 1.12. So perhaps the event in Luke 24:50-51 was a separate, earlier occasion than that in Acts 1:9. Or perhaps Luke 24:51 is the same event as Acts 1:9 and Luke 24:50 was a different event. Or....?

 

[LeeLoving]

I've never noticed before this thing about Luke's account. From English translations it does seem like a lot happened in one day. (And that's not to say I'm about to reveal information about the original Greek - I don't know.)

Luke 24 v1-12 is one episode, and clearly from v1 it's the third day after Jesus' death (however we count it).
v13-32 is the next episode, and clearly from v13 it's still the same day.
v33-43 is the next episode, and clearly from v33 it's still the same day.
v44-49 and v50-51 are the next two episodes, and the natural reading seems to be that they are the same day - although that would mean it was probably dark by now (see v29) which is not how we tend to imagine Christ's Ascension.

To me, v44 onwards is the only section where it seems possible that the timeline could be more stretched out, as I see the writer has stopped emphasising that it was the same day as in earlier passages - it just says "Now" (v44) and the rest could be like the closing phase of the book, distinct from the narratives up to v43.

It's important to compare Acts 1 because there's little doubt (none in my mind) that it was written by the same person. The forty days is clearly mentioned there.

I wonder whether some of the appearances occurred after the Ascension at Bethany, rather than that event being the end of all the appearances of Jesus. After all, we know he appeared to Saul.

I've only just discovered through this that the Ascension wasn't from the Mount of Olives, which I'd thought up till now, so that shows how little I know! Ah, I see that place is mentioned in Acts 1.12. So perhaps the event in Luke 24:50-51 was a separate, earlier occasion than that in Acts 1:9. Or perhaps Luke 24:51 is the same event as Acts 1:9 and Luke 24:50 was a different event. Or....?

Well it says "Now upon the first day of the week" which could be any week after Jesus' rising from the dead. This might seem strange to not mean the following week after the preceding events, but "Now upon the first day of the week" might have been commonly understood phrasing considering the last day of the week was the sabbath.

And from a Google search:

BETHANY - And the mount of Olives

Yahshua.net
https://www.yahshua.net › Bethany



This small village was indeed part of the area known as Mount of Olives, in which western slope was a special place known as Gethsemane, or orchard of olives.

 

[CS1]

How about "Luke got this information from the Holy Spirit directly"?

Are all the Gospels given "by inspiration of God? Is the whole Bible given "by inspiration of God"? That is what 2 Timothy 3:16 says: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
Literally "All Scripture is God-breathed"... [Genesis to Revelation]

Actually Luke did receive his Gospel "from above" ("from Heaven") as noted by Strong's Concordance in connection with Luke 1:3. ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν* πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
*Strong's Concordance
anóthen: from above
Original Word: ἄνωθεν
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: anóthen
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-o-then)
Definition: from above
Usage: (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew.

Yet somehow, none of the translations made the connection with 2 Timothy 3:16. Even Thayer's Greek Lexicon applied "from the first" to Luke 1:3, although their first explanation (a) is "from above", "from a higher place" or "from heaven".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 509: ἄνωθεν
ἄνωθεν (ἄνω), adverb;
a. from above, from a higher place: ἀπό ἄνωθεν (Winer's Grammar, § 50, 7 N. 1), Matthew 27:51 (Tdf. omits ἀπό); Mark 15:38; ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν from the upper part, from the top, John 19:23. Often (also in Greek writings) used of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven: John 3:31; John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15,

The very fact that none of the Gospels copy each other is sufficient to show that the Holy Spirit was giving each Evangelist exactly what should be recorded. Thus the Gospel of John is totally different from the other three (Synoptic Gospels).

FYI The Holy Spirit used Paul and other Eyewitnesses

 

[Nehemiah6]

FYI The Holy Spirit used Paul and other Eyewitnesses

Yes. Luke does mention "eyewitnesses" is Luke 1: 2. But he could only have had a "perfect understanding of ALL things" through divine inspiration. Thus he used the word "anothen" (from above) and that word was given to him by the Holy Spirit.

Paul was NOT an eyewitness to the events relating to the birth of Christ (for example). Neither were any of the apostles or disciples (including the women). That whole narrative came from the Holy Spirit. So did many other things in the Gospel of Luke. And we do have 2 Timothy 3:16 to support this. Even though Luke was not among the 12 apostles, he was given his Gospel as well as the book of Acts by God Himself.

 

[CS1]

Yes. Luke does mention "eyewitnesses" is Luke 1: 2. But he could only have had a "perfect understanding of ALL things" through divine inspiration. Thus he used the word "anothen" (from above) and that word was given to him by the Holy Spirit.

Paul was NOT an eyewitness to the events relating to the birth of Christ (for example). Neither were any of the apostles or disciples (including the women). That whole narrative came from the Holy Spirit. So did many other things in the Gospel of Luke. And we do have 2 Timothy 3:16 to support this. Even though Luke was not among the 12 apostles, he was given his Gospel as well as the book of Acts by God Himself.

Yes, but he received what was provided. Paul said he gave what was given to him. Out of the mouth of two witnesses, let your word be established.
1 John said we have spoken what we have seen and know.


"that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. "

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yes, but he received what was provided. Paul said he gave what was given to him. Out of the mouth of two witnesses, let your word be established.

People like you never honestly accept the truth. Now you are posting irrelevant verses (as quoted above) to support your stance. So I am done with this nonsense.

 

[CS1]

People like you never honestly accept the truth. Now you are posting irrelevant verses (as quoted above) to support your stance. So I am done with this nonsense.

Ok, you can get as personal as you want.

It just shows your inability to support your position Biblically. I guess one doesn't need to study the word of God because The Holy Spirit will give it to them. Jesus was wrong for quoting Deturmony In Luke chapter 4 when he answered the devil as he was tempted.