Luke not written in 41 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Michael BG
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Michael BG » Sat May 06, 2017 5:54 am

Nearly a week ago I posted that Steven Avery had written:
Steven Avery wrote:Since we know that Luke completed Acts in 41 AD, ...
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3095)

He replied:
Steven Avery wrote:Thanks. My fingerfehler.

Luke 41 AD, when Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest.

….
Meaning that he meant to write that Luke’s gospel was written in 41 CE not Acts.

My response was:
Michael BG wrote:I think it is highly unlikely any Christian would write a gospel within 15 years of the death of Jesus. It is generally recognised that Luke was written after 70 CE and the fall of Jerusalem (Lk 21:20, 24).
I should have also included Lk 19:43-44.
[41] And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,
[42] saying, "…
[43] For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side,
[44] and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."
This saying is not in Mark or Matthew and is seen as a creation of Luke’s to reflect that Titus built banks round a surrounded Jerusalem.

Lk 21:20, 24
[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

[24] they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Verse 20 it is suggested reflects that Jerusalem was besieged by six legions and verse 24 that the Romans destroyed the city.

Therefore these verses are seen as evidence that Luke wrote after 70 CE. It is possible that the gospel of Luke was written after Josephus had written the Jewish War i.e. after 75 CE.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4982
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by MrMacSon » Sat May 06, 2017 5:55 pm

Michael BG wrote:
I should have also included Lk 19:43-44.

[41] And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,
[42] saying, "…
[43] For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side,
[44] and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."
This saying is not in Mark or Matthew, and is seen as a creation of Luke’s to reflect that Titus built banks round a surrounded Jerusalem.
  • It could also refer to Hadrian adding to the Temple Mount.
Michael BG wrote:
Lk 21:20, 24


[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
[24] they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Verse 20 it is suggested reflects that Jerusalem was besieged by six legions and verse 24 that the Romans destroyed the city.

Therefore these verses are seen as evidence that Luke wrote after 70 CE. It is possible that the gospel of Luke was written after Josephus had written the Jewish War i.e. after 75 CE.
  • and Luke could have been written after the 2nd Jewish-Roma War as Tyson, BeDuhn, Vinzent, and Klingardt are now arguing.

Steven Avery
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:19 pm

And Luke could have simply been recording the prophetic words of Jesus accurately.

"generally recognized" means recognized by those who do not accept that the Gospel accounts could have accurate prophetic statements, and thus all such sections are post-facto writings.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:51 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat May 06, 2017 5:55 pm
Michael BG wrote:
I should have also included Lk 19:43-44.

[41] And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,
[42] saying, "…
[43] For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side,
[44] and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."
This saying is not in Mark or Matthew, and is seen as a creation of Luke’s to reflect that Titus built banks round a surrounded Jerusalem.
  • It could also refer to Hadrian adding to the Temple Mount.
Michael BG wrote:
Lk 21:20, 24


[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
[24] they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Verse 20 it is suggested reflects that Jerusalem was besieged by six legions and verse 24 that the Romans destroyed the city.

Therefore these verses are seen as evidence that Luke wrote after 70 CE. It is possible that the gospel of Luke was written after Josephus had written the Jewish War i.e. after 75 CE.
  • and Luke could have been written after the 2nd Jewish-Roma War as Tyson, BeDuhn, Vinzent, and Klingardt are now arguing.
All the events about Jerusalem cited by Michael BG are evidenced to have happened in 70 CE.
None of them are evidenced to have happened in 135 CE.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:00 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:19 pm
And Luke could have simply been recording the prophetic words of Jesus accurately.

"generally recognized" means recognized by those who do not accept that the Gospel accounts could have accurate prophetic statements, and thus all such sections are post-facto writings.
Do you think "Luke" recorded Jesus' words accurately here:
Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
Note: "all" includes the advent of the Kingdom (21:25-28).

Lk 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

perseusomega9
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by perseusomega9 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:08 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:19 pm
And Luke could have simply been recording the prophetic words of Jesus accurately.

.
Yeah but only idiots would believe that.

Steven Avery
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Steven Avery » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:12 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Do you think "Luke" recorded Jesus' words accurately here:
Luke 9:27 (AV)
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Luke 21:32
Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Definitely. And this can lead into various echatology discussions. The preterists consider this as consistent with their covenantal approach, the dispensationalists like to make "this generation" a later one.

The Luke 9 verse is considered by some to refer to the transfiguration. Probably the preterist approach is covenantal there as well.

Steven

Charles Wilson
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:39 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Do you think "Luke" recorded Jesus' words accurately here:
Luke 9:27 (AV)
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Luke 21:32
Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
[/quote]

Hello Bernard --

Within the Realm of Editorial License, I do believe that the words are fairly, sorta' accurately recorded. If "Luke" is placed in quotes, however, "Jesus" should be as well. Existence is not a Predicate. These are 2 Transvalued Fragments. For those who see a "Jesus" uttering statements concerning the Kingdom of God, there will be no satisfaction in understanding. The words cannot be literally true, yet "Jesus" must have been misheard or Oral Tradition changed something of whatever.

The Law and the Prophets ended with John. After that the Romans took over, rewriting a Story that had no mention of a "Jesus".

Luke 9: 27 (RSV):

[27] But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

What was the "Kingdom of God"/"Realm of Heaven". If you view it as "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", you will not find satisfaction in explanations. If you can see it as the Reclaiming of the Temple and the Re-Installing of Rulers from the Chosen Families, you will find some relief.

Luke 21: 29 32 (RSV):

[29] And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees;
[30] as soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near.
[31] So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
[32] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place.

"Summer is already near..." is a Marker for the Passover. The Coup, sanctioned by God will find the Romans displaced. The Kingdom of God will be retaken:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Josephus, War..., 2, 1, 3:

"At this Archclaus [sic] was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief..."

So...Yes, the quotes are accurate, in a Transvalued sort of way. You know the Story from me, I'm not telling you anything I haven't Posted a hundred times before. It's just that as you look at this Site today, we are examining Eusebius ("Master Forger" as Jay Raskin would say) and Josephus (Who is also guilty of "Rewriting HIstory"). BTW, look again at Jay's consideration of Hegesippus in Eusebius. He concludes that Eusebius has forged Hegisippus to manufacture a "support Scholar" for his views, which he appears to have manufactured on the spot.

We have different Bases from which we reason, Bernard. That is All-OK. It's just that the strangest things happen when you posit a question about veridical experiences and accurate quotes. You don't always know where it will lead.

CW

Stuart
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Luke not written in 41 CE

Post by Stuart » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:12 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat May 06, 2017 5:55 pm
  • It could also refer to Hadrian adding to the Temple Mount.
This may seem like a nit, but there are several problems with the account of an Equestrian statute of Hadrian on what we call Temple Mount today.

This first and foremost is that it is generally thought by historians that the equestrian statues (we have no examples of Hadrian on horse, as we do with Trajan and Marcus Aurelius) and other glorification monuments to Hadrian were in fact erected by Antoninus in an effort to get his predecessor deified by the Roman Senate, and honer they declined for many years. His efforts were so great and continuous until the Senate yielded that he became known as Pius.

Here is an example of one Hadrian Statue from Tel Shalem commemorating the crushing of Bar Kokhba and reorganisation of Judaea into a new province named Syria-Palestina:

Image

Roman statues tended to be placed either in front of temples, or on top of arches. So Hadrian's statue logically would have been at the gate of Aelia Capitonlina or at the town's temples. In Aelia Capitolina the temples were not on "Temple Mount" but instead to the west. You can make it out the temples off the main straight road to the left (west) in the Madaba map

Image

The temple mount seems not to have been part of the city. This cannot be the abomination, even if 4th century Christian writers thought so. But they had so much wrong about the Bar Kokhba conflict, that to have another detail wrong is par for the course.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Charles Wilson, Jax, MrMacSon, Ulan and 82 guests