Bible Discussion - Gospel according to St Luke

We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
…
31

Bible Discussion - Gospel according to St Luke
Topic Started: Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:32 (4,451 Views)
KatyA	Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:32 Post #1
Administrator Posts: 5,413 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	For this study, we are using the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. http://www.geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/103luke.html Useful Scripture Commentaries and Meditations: HAYDOCK BIBLE COMMENTARY RCnet Daily Scripture meditations with commentaries



KatyA	Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:34 Post #2
Administrator Posts: 5,413 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	Quote: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE Chapter 1 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2* just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3* it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely * for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4* that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.



KatyA	Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:42 Post #3
Administrator Posts: 5,413 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	It is generally accepted that Luke wrote both this gospel and Acts. Both are addressed to "Theophilus" who may have been an individual, or Luke may have used the word "lover of God" to address all readers.



OsullivanB	Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:48 Post #4
Posts: 2,203 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	I'm not sure I have ever read these opening verses before. It certainly had never registered with me that Luke might be writing for one man's private reading, rather than an account to give the world.



Rose of York	Tuesday, 19. August 2008, 22:55 Post #5
Administrator Posts: 14,558 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	OSullivanB your post led me to ask "Who was Theophilus?" Luke writes to him "it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed." That gives me the impression that Theophilus has been given erroneous information about Jesus, and Luke feels compelled to tell him the TRUTH, after doing his research and talking to eye witnesses. He calls him 'most excellent Theophilus". I wonder if that means Theophilus was a man in a high position? Luke says many have undertaken to compile a narrative. How many?
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Bob Crowley	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 21:02 Post #6
Posts: 535 Group: Members Member #127 Joined: December 21, 2007	We don't know how many, nor will we find out this side of glory. Most of their efforts have been lost, and we only have the Gospels and historic documents that are available. I get the impression Luke was writing with a wider audience in mind, regardless of his greeting "Theophilus" and the seemingly personal way he addressed the letter. Just who he had in mind is a mystery, although I get the impression he was writing to a church or churches.



OsullivanB	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 22:08 Post #7
Posts: 2,203 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	Bob Crowley Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 21:02 We don't know how many, nor will we find out this side of glory. Most of their efforts have been lost, and we only have the Gospels and historic documents that are available. I get the impression Luke was writing with a wider audience in mind, regardless of his greeting "Theophilus" and the seemingly personal way he addressed the letter. Just who he had in mind is a mystery, although I get the impression he was writing to a church or churches. As KatyA has said, some suggest that "Theophilus" may be generic rather than personal, given that it means either "lover of God" or "beloved of God", though this seems to me contrived, especially when combined with the adjective "cratistos", which elsewhere is reserved for real people of elevated status. Edited by OsullivanB, Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 22:10.



KatyA	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 22:41 Post #8
Administrator Posts: 5,413 Group: Admin Member #6 Joined: September 26, 2006	I think that there is one suggestion that Theophilus was possibly a high ranking Roman, and another that he was a high priest. It's also been noted that here, he is addressed as "most excellent Theophilus and in Acts, the "most excellent" is omitted. I share Bob's impression that, whether Theo was an individual or not, Luke's writings were intended for wider circulation. Perhaps he was asking questions on behalf of a group of converts (or potential converts) The gospel of Mark was already in existence and Luke seems to have drawn heavily on that, but Quote: just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word clearly implies he had other sources who provided first hand information. Tradition has it that Luke knew Our Lady ( even painted her portrait!) and that she was one of those sources. KatyA



Rose of York	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 23:01 Post #9
Administrator Posts: 14,558 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	KatyA Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 22:41 Tradition has it that Luke knew Our Lady ( even painted her portrait!) and that she was one of those sources. I learnt about that at school when we spent a year learning about St Lukes Gospel. The nun who taught us was of the opinion that, unlike the other three evangelists, Luke had spoken to Our Lady, and that is why he was able to relate the story of the Annunciation - a private event in Mary's life.
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


OsullivanB	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 23:20 Post #10
Posts: 2,203 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	"KatyA The gospel of Mark was already in existence and Luke seems to have drawn heavily on that Haydock says:"It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that [St Luke] had ever read the gospels of St Matthew and St Mark..." Which seems a surprising assertion to me.



Rose of York	Wednesday, 20. August 2008, 23:51 Post #11
Administrator Posts: 14,558 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	For this study, we are using the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. http://www.geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/103luke.html Useful Scripture Commentaries and Meditations: HAYDOCK BIBLE COMMENTARY RCnet Daily Scripture meditations with commentaries The Gospel According to Saint Luke Verses 5 to 14 5* In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, * of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. 8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9* according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11* And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13* But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Rose of York	Thursday, 21. August 2008, 00:05 Post #12
Administrator Posts: 14,558 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	It seems that angels, appearing to people, invariably start with "Do not be afraid". Jesus is the noteworthy exception, no doubt He was very much "at home" with angels. The obvious reaction, for the reader, is to think the presence of an angel is frightening, but I wonder - is the angel reassuring the person visited, that there is no need to be afraid of the situation in which they find themselves? Zechariah might well have felt afraid at the prospect of his wife bearing a child in her old age. The angel said "Do not be afraid."
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


OsullivanB	Thursday, 21. August 2008, 00:51 Post #13
Posts: 2,203 Group: Moderator Member #205 Joined: August 14, 2008	Haydock: "The cause of this fear was the general sentiment that obtained with the Jews that they would die immediately on seeing an angel. (Bible de Vence)" Which seems odd as angels had appeared before in the scriptures and left survivors..



Rose of York	Thursday, 21. August 2008, 16:59 Post #14
Administrator Posts: 14,558 Group: Admin Member #2 Joined: September 25, 2006	"and you shall call his name John" Does the name have any significance?
	$Posted Image$ Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards


Deacon Robert	Thursday, 21. August 2008, 17:48 Post #15
Posts: 831 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: September 26, 2006	OsullivanB The New Jerome commentary agrees with you. It states almost 60% of Luke is adopted from Mark. Is Haydock a Catholic commentary? I see it is. Thank God we have progressed in biblical studies since 1859. It is a shame that there is not a more recent commentary online. We have learned a great deal in the last 150 years.[redit][/redit] Edited by Deacon Robert, Thursday, 21. August 2008, 20:12.
	Dcn Robert


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Bible - Questions, Answers, Discussions · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
31