I have the fellow below the fold, but could not escape seeing the quotes of his views. This is a man who states he has taught Sunday School classes, which explains the dire state of instruction taking place in not a few churches. Sigh.
Sadly, he has swallowed the "
synoptic problem" view—along with Bart Ehrman's nonsense—completely and thinks no one is familiar with the issues and the errors of such a view. That he claims the label "
Christian" only speaks to a profession of something that he really cannot be certain about, given his many "
issues" with
contradictions in Scripture. Apparently, the superintendence if God the Holy Spirit could not overcome the errors of the writers of Scripture. His doctrine of inspiration is not orthodox so long as he does not consider the suppression of the penmen's errors to be an active part of it. He will simply never know what is absolute truth and what is mere accommodation. Like the liberal, the canon of
reason is required to distinguish where Scripture speaks truth and where it accommodates error.
Thus, we are all forced to be
mini-popes, interpreting God's special revelation riddled with inconsistencies.
Apostle in the "
traditional" sense, or perhaps better put, in the
strict sense, would be that this person was invested with the highest office in the church— Luke used many sources, who were eyewitnesses of what he wrote down. His version of events dovetails perfectly with the witness of men like Matthew and John, who were personally disciples. Mark from ancient times has been recognized as Peter's "interpreter," that Gospel being suffused with the memory especially of Peter; although I am persuaded that Mark (though he was but a young lad during Christ's ministry) most likely did know Jesus himself.
Thus, there were 13 men that we know of who had this office; possibly 14, if one assumes that Judas Iscariot's position as one of the original Twelve Disciples made him an Apostle as well. However, most feel as though the designation "
Apostle" belongs to the days of the Resurrection; thus, Paul identifies one mark of his authoritative apostolate as his having seen the risen Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1 and Acts 1:22; 2:32).
The 13 men are, the original Twelve less Judas (so 11); plus Matthias (12) who was appointed according to the Spirit and the word of prophecy, Acts 1:15-26; and Saul/Paul (13), whose special call we know from 3 times recorded in Acts, chs. 9, 22, & 26 (n.b. v. 26); and compare 1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:1,16-17; 2:6; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim.1:11.
Luke was, I suppose, a Gentile and convert from Asia—although some have suggested he was possibly one of the Seventy Jesus sent out, Lk. 10:1 and forward, but there are no comparable "
we" statements in his Gospel, as there are in his Acts, e.g Acts 16:10. Luke, therefore, would not have been a personal witness to the Resurrection.
Luke used many sources, who were eyewitnesses of what he wrote down. His version of events dovetails perfectly with the witness of men like Matthew and John, who were personally disciples. Mark from ancient times has been recognized as Peter's "
interpreter," that Gospel being suffused with the memory especially of Peter; although I am persuaded that Mark (though he was but a young man during Christ's ministry) most likely did know Jesus himself.
There's no reason to second-rate Luke—whose Gospel is probably the most "professionally accomplished" of the four—simply because his work relies mainly on primary sources, rather than being (from beginning to end of both volumes) the immediate product of a principal, disciple-source.
Why anyone takes the bait of this man escapes me. Ignore him and he will fade away once it is made clear that his hobby-horse is dead on arrival. :AMR:
AMR
lain: