Of course I care whether it’s true. I wouldn’t believe in it if it’s not true. As I have explained over and over again, I think it is obviously true, but if someone doesn’t want to believe it’s true because it looks foolish to believe in a miracle, they’re not going to.
However, I don’t gain any merit with God by attempting to persuade you that it’s true. If you also believe it is true, I gain you as a brother.
My point is that it is not just Luke.
It is over a million Modern Christian websites (1.1 million Google hits for gospel + “eye witness”).
It is Christian apologists like J. Warner Wallace.
The author of the Gospel attributed to Luke may been have justified to use the word “autoptai”, because of what the word meant back then.
But that does not justify modern Christians, writing for modern audiences to use the phrase “eye witness” – because that is not the modern meaning of the phrase.
Back before the Norman conquest, the (Old English) word “apple” (or “æppel” to be more precise) meant fruit more generally. The Normans introduced the word “fruit” from Old French, and “apple” gained a narrower meaning. Would it be reasonable for somebody today to offer you “an apple” but instead give you a pear, just because centuries ago “apple” once meant fruit more generally? Of course not.
And for the same reason it is not today a fair representation to call the Gospels “eye witness”, because once a Greek word, which is translated as “eye witness”, meant something broader.
Much of scripture is about how people failed, it is not permission to do the same. I think Solomon makes clear in Ecclesiastes that he failed in this respect. David had an affair and killed for her, doesn’t make it right.
I would love to bring back the concept of the concubine 
, but I know it is not what God wants for me.
It’s hearsay, not eyewitness accounts.
Are you just trying to be contrary? So don’t believe it, I am not trying to sell you anything. Once again, this thread was to discuss spiritual experiences and the validity of those experiences, not to condemn the bible and ridicule Christians. There are many, many stories of atrocities in the bible, women eating each others babies and such, do you think that means that because I believe that the bible is the word of God that I think it’s ok to eat someone’s baby? C’mon.
Agreed, but John was eyewitness, he was there from the start of Jesus’ ministry being one of the first four called, and was there at all of the pertinent miraculous events to the end…Matthew is halfway as he came along later. Mark as Peter’s scribe is most likely primarily Peter’s recollection mixed with some of Mark’s, both of which were eyewitnesses, Peter also being one of the first four and present at all of the important events. Luke was a doctor and I don’t think it was a mistake that he used the word for autopsy, he was examining the evidence post-mortem and along with his eyewitness account of Acts had a solid understanding of what Jesus’ life was like from a more scientific approach, which I would think would resonate with you all.
I don’t see how court of law rules applies here at all. Most historians are aggravating information. Luke was known as a scholar and his historical accounts are well accepted. He is revered for his detail and accurate descriptions especially of the regional geography.
(Sigh)
I guess I have to quote this yet again:
The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (Jn 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus’ public ministry lasted for several years (see note on Jn 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (Jn 2:14–25; 5; 7–8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (Jn 18:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.
Historians do not consider supernatural magic when assessing the probability of things that occurred in the past. If you disagree, kindly cite an example…
Clearly.
I’m glad you agree.
This is where we would strongly disagree. We would need to pick a verse and discuss it. The God that I know is not a God of “fairness” but a God of love, and peace, and specifically wrath…Hermeneutics class starts for me this week, could be fun to post one to tear apart with you all…
How do you define “supernatural magic”?
That quote is not a “drop the mic” moment. I don’t disregard that it is an in depth look at authorship, but I do disagree with it. In my early walk I had a pastor try to declare to me that John the Baptist wrote revelation, but I knew he was wrong just by what I had read. (He was pretty mad that I challenged him on it, after all, who was I compared to him? But I was right.) I realize that everyone here likes to cite other people and that should be taken as truth, but I don’t. I also find Catholic doctrine lacking and potentially dangerous, so not a good reference for me.
I think the Catholic counsel is wrong. To claim that it couldn’t be John’s because of its “highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style” is a stretch…its too good, so it couldn’t be him is not an argument. Also the argument that it went through an editing process so it is not him is poor. Editing does not change authorship. If it did, all present day published authors would be unprotected from copyright infringement by a claim that it was no longer their work because it was edited.
Its not something I would argue too strongly, I believe John, the son of Zebedee wrote the 5 books that are attributed to him. If I’m wrong, that’s ok with me.
And that’s fine. But then one cannot argue that we know Jesus was resurrected because John witnessed it and we have his written account. Those are just further claims that are dubious.
ah, ok. Now I got you. Give me the skeptic website that says this 
Fair enough…but my statement (not an argument) would rather be:
Jesus was resurrected and John witnessed it and wrote about it…I know this because of my relationship with Jesus, which has brought me revelation of the truth through His Word (that John wrote).
In other words, I don’t know because of what John wrote, I know Jesus, so what I read (in the bible) is confirmed as truth. Similarly, when I read a translation that does not resonate as truth, I know to study other versions to find truth. (I usually stick with NKJV, but sometimes someone will read a “Message” or NIV verse and I say, huh?) That probably seems even more dubious, but that’s how I would explain my stance.
Believing you have a relationship with someone who died 2000 years ago is not grounds to determine the truth of any proposition. That’s just not how it works.
And that will always be our disconnect, because that is exactly how it works. I would reference Ephesians 2, Romans 4&12, John 1&3&10, 1 John 1, Mark 4&10, 1 Peter 1, Galatians 1&2, I guess I would just reference the new testament…
Galatians 1:10-12 - For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Except it is not written “in the Bible” that John (by which I presume you mean John the Apostle) wrote it. This is merely a church tradition. Does your relationship with Jesus also tell you which church traditions are true?