Luke 2:
36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,​
37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying.​
38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

Describing Anna as a prophet is current status. Generally, someone gets accepted as a prophet, for whatever reason, and then what they say about the future is taken seriously. And therefore, the situation is forward looking.

And when Anna spoke about the child for those who were (somewhat vaguely) looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem, this is also forward looking.
 
There are several examples of events omitted in the various gospels. The gospels are not biographies of Jesus Christ. Each gospel was written to a specific audience for a specific purpose. In order to get a more clear picture of Jesus Christ, all four gospels must be studied.

Imagine if you will two cars collide at an intersection. There is an eyewitness standing on each corner of the intersection. One eyewitness may have noticed which vehicle had the green light; one eyewitness may have observed one driver texting while driving; Another witness may have seen one vehicle trying to speed through the intersection; finally the other eyewitness sees a dog running thru the intersection. The officer who responds to the accident will take statements from all witnesses to get a complete picture of what happened. Just because not all witnesses see the driver texting doesn't mean he wasn't. Just because all witnesses did not see the dog in the intersection does not mean it didn't happen. Just because not all the gospel writers did not mention what you believe to be essential does not mean their accounts are inaccurate.
 
There are several examples of events omitted in the various gospels. The gospels are not biographies of Jesus Christ. Each gospel was written to a specific audience for a specific purpose. In order to get a more clear picture of Jesus Christ, all four gospels must be studied.

Imagine if you will two cars collide at an intersection. There is an eyewitness standing on each corner . . .
Hi, I see you’re a new member, and welcome to the group! :) And I think you’ve done a fine job describing the complementary thesis.

Now, I’m an atheist, just to put that out there.

I was raised in an evangelical church, and had a crisis at age 15 about something a book said about being filled by the spirit.

About the gospels, in general I’m going to say urban legend is a big universe. And in the beginning of Luke, the author even says he (or she) is drawing from multiple sources.
 
Luke 1:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,​
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,​
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.​

————————————

It sounds like the author of Luke pulled every written source available. I’m sure he or she wanted to think they were based on eyewitnesses.

Eyewitnesses can be mistaken. There’s a whole science of when eyewitnesses tend to be more dependable and when they tend to be less. For example, if the criminal is in the 6 mug shots presented to the victim, the victim is pretty good at identifying the criminal. But if the criminal is not there at all, the victim can fixate on one of the other people.

From a speech at a local university, in Texas where I live, a police officer is supposed to say to a crime victim before showing mug photos, “ . . the criminal may or may not be in this set of photos. We will continue working on this case and trying to solve this crime whether the person is here or not . . , ” or something to that effect. I don’t know how much this helps, maybe some.

And from what little I’ve read about the study of urban legends, they seem to sometimes develop one step sooner than you’d think they would.
 
Last edited:
Luke 1:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,​
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,​
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.​

————————————

It sounds like the author of Luke pulled every written source available. I’m sure he or she wanted to think they were based on eyewitnesses.

Eyewitnesses can be mistaken. There’s a whole science of when eyewitnesses tend to be more dependable and when they tend to be less. For example, if the criminal is in the 6 mug shots presented to the victim, the victim is pretty good at identifying the criminal. But if the criminal is not there at all, the victim can fixate on one of the other people.

From a speech at a local university, in Texas where I live, a police officer is supposed to say to a crime victim before showing mug photos, “ . . the criminal may or may not be in this set of photos. We will continue working on this case and trying to solve this crime whether the person is here or not . . , ” or something to that effect. I don’t know how much this helps, maybe some.

And from what little I’ve read about the study of urban legends, they seem to sometimes develop one step sooner than you’d think they would.
I don't believe Luke pulled from any written sources since there probably weren't any when he wrote his Gospel or his letter we know as the Book of Acts of the Apostles. Luke was a travelling companion of the Apostle Paul. He talked at length to those who had seen and touched the risen Savior. It also appears he had personally met with Mary, the mother of Jesus, due to the fact that only Luke mentions the account of Jesus being separated from Mary and Joseph on the return from Jerusalem when He was 12 years old. Eyewitnesses can indeed make mistakes, but you will not find multiple eyewitnesses making the same mistakes. For instance, if the victim and 15 different eyewitnesses named "Sam" as the guilty person, there's not much need for the victim to look at mugshots. All of the Gospel accounts compliment each other. There is no contradiction in their accounts. In fact, the Apostle Paul mentions 500 people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

Here's a question I will put to you...There are multiple eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, but there is not a single witness to contradict the resurrection. Why not? Why isn't there a single shred of evidence to suggest Jesus did not rise? Surely, if the followers of Jesus were simply making up an outlandish story of Jesus being resurrected, someone would have discovered the falsehood and exposed His followers as fakes and frauds. Why didn't the religious leaders, who wanted Jesus killed, drag His dead, lifeless body out of the grave to prove He was still dead? It doesn't have to be the resurrection either. Give eyewitnesses that can refute the Gospel accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes; or Jesus calling Lazarus from the dead; or any other miracle recorded. Give me someone who was there that can dispute the claims of the Gospels. I have the Biblical account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to base my faith on. What do you base your nonbelief on?

BTW, thanks for the welcome!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, the Apostle Paul mentions 500 people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

This is an impressive number, but there’s no follow up.
1 Corinthians, chapter 15:


4 that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas [the apostle Peter], and then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also [meaning the writer Paul], as to one abnormally born.
There’s no city given. No name of a husband and wife. No name of two brothers. Or two sisters.

There’s nothing given that even the people at the time could follow up on.
 
if the followers of Jesus were simply making up an outlandish story

There are other possibilities besides this.

For example, grief hallucinations are relatively common. It’s been most studied in senior citizens, but anyone can experience this.

———————————————

Dr. Richard Carrier presents a case that there’s about a two-thirds chance there was no historical Jesus at all, and only about a one-third chance that there was a historical Jesus.

And since Paul did the earliest writings, with I think Galatians and/or 1 Corinthians being about 50 AD, and the earliest gospel Mark being written slightly after 70 AD (when the main temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans),

and Paul knowing of Christianity second-hand through a (brief) career of persecuting Christians (and the fact that he only briefly persecuted Christians may have meant he felt the guilt more acutely and remembered it more),

and since Christianity shared elements with Greek mystery religions,

I think a reasonable case can be made, and Carrier might be on to something.
 
Last edited:
And regarding Jesus’ birth . . .

For Luke to leave out the memorable part from Matthew of wise men (no number given) from the East bringing expensive gifts seems pretty unlikely if they were drawing from the same source.
 
This is an impressive number, but there’s no follow up.

There’s no city given. No name of a husband and wife. No name of two brothers. Or two sisters.

There’s nothing given that even the people at the time could follow up on.
I would invite you to provide any evidence from eyewitnesses, who were there at the time, that can refute the Bible. Offer someone who says Jesus did not feed the multitude. Name someone in the synagogue the day Jesus healed the man with the withered hand who claims He didn’t heal him. Please tell me of anyone who was present in Jerusalem or Galilee at the time of Jesus’ ministry who can refute the claims made in the Bible.

I have the testimony of the eyewitnesses found in the Bible to base my faith on. Upon what evidence do you support your nonbelief on?