Authorship
[QUOTE=JoeWallack;5232784][url=http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Ao2DbpdYk4H1QMqMIIZ2cxQJGbgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhNTdnczZhBHNlYwN0cmFja3M-/SIG=13100rhpg/**http%3A//hurl.samples.dmpcontent.com/scripts/hurl.exe%3Fclipid=002069301010006900%26cid=600109] Hammer Time![/url]
[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]:
[I][amazon=9004079262]THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS[/amazon][/I]
Translated by Frank Williams
Page 53
[quote] It was Paul who found St. Luke, one of the seventy-two who had been scattered, brought him to repentance, and <made him> his own follower, both a co-worker in the Gospel and an apostle. [/quote]
[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: eHP probably wrote this around the middle of the 4th century. An apparent source based on extant (written early 3rd century):
[url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm[/url]
[I]On the End of the World[/I]
[B]Hippolytus[/B]
[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: And the apparent scriptural reference:
[url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31[/url]
[B]John 6[/B]
[COLOR="Blue"]JW[/COLOR]: Note the key Assertians eHP makes regarding "Luke":
1) "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus.
2) "Luke" gave up the Faith.
3) Paul (re)converted "Luke" and made him a follower of Paul.
Oviously this is [B][SIZE="3"]Contradicted[/SIZE][/B] by the orthodox orthodox description of "Luke":
[url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm[/url]
Church History (Book III)
[B]Eusebius[/B]
[quote] Chapter 4. The First Successors of the Apostles. ... 7. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. Luke 1:2-3 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel." ...
Chapter 24. The Order of the Gospels. ... 15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. [/quote]
Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:
1) "Luke" was [B]not[/B] an original Disciple of Jesus.
2) "Luke" [B]never[/B] gave up the Faith.
3) Paul apparently did [B]not[/B] convert "Luke".
And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).
Regarding "Luke" than who only wrote the most important Gospel for the non-Jews and the only supposed link from the supposed Disciples to the subsequent Church we have the following related issues:
1) Was "Luke" a Disciple of Jesus?
2) Did "Luke" give up the Faith?
3) Did Paul convert "Luke"?
4) Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus)? Pete?
5) eHP and Hippo create doubt as to the originality of the prologue to "Luke". Not the type of thing a Disciple of Jesus would write. How does this change your statistic remez? Uh, remez?
6) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!
7) Going PJ for lucky #7, the earlier/original Tradition has "Luke" leaving the Faith and being rehabilitated by Paul. A reference/clue to Marcion having the original "Luke" and its rehabilitation to Paulian orthodoxy?
8) We have Internet police like Holding and Pearse who spend most of their available time tracking down authentic inauthentic quotes of Pope Leo yet make no effort to investigate why virtually every amateur on the subject Faithfully reports Eusebius' tradition above to support Christian Assertian but omits eHP's:
[url]http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/11/external-evidence.html[/url]
Whaddya think Ben?
[COLOR="Blue"]Joseph[/COLOR]
"Why buy into speculative bullshit when milking Christian Assertians is free." - JoeWallack
[url]http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page[/url][/QUOTE]
