2 thoughts on “The Evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written before 51 A.D.”

  1. EXCELLENT refutation of the deceitful scholarship of the modernists. . In Acts, Luke’s use of “we” and “they” shows he was with Paul on his second missionary journey and then again at the end of the third journey. He was with Paul at his imprisonment at Caesarea (AD 58-60), where he likely put together his Gospel in its final form. In Rome (AD 60-61) he finished his Book of Acts. He then stayed in Rome until Paul’s martyrdom. Luke’s Gospel presents plenty of proof that Luke spent a great deal of time recording his interviews with many of the eyewitnesses of the miraculous ministry of Our Lord, just as he claims in his opening. This certainly included Matthew, who had kept extensive journals during his time with Our Lord, and especially Holy Mary and John, who never left her side until the day of her Assumption in AD 55. This research for his Gospel work was essentially done before he joined Paul on his 2nd missionary journey in AD 50, when he was actually commissioned to preach from his records (See note Acts 16:10.) Unger’s Bible Handbook lists 61 incidents and events found exclusively in Luke which make up 59% of his Gospel!
    Very clear evidence for the early composition of Matthew and/or Luke is found in 1 Timothy 5:18. Here, in AD 63-65, Paul quotes from what he calls the “Scriptures,” that which can only be found in Jesus’ instructions to His Apostles and found only in Matthew and Luke. This means that not only was at least one of these Gospels in existence, but it had been copied, circulated and recognized as authoritative in the Church by that time. (See Matt.10:10 & Luke10:7).
    Our Lord affirms in The Poem of the Man-God (IV,p.350) that Matthew was first to compile his Gospel 15 years after His Crucifixion, or in AD 49.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel much earlier than 49, since there would not be much point writing a Gospel in Hebrew, if all Catholics were not Jewish. And scholars have determined that the original of Matthew was in the Hebrew. Yet Matthew lacks a lot of references you would expect after large conversions from the priestly class, a thing which from Acts we know happened before Paul came out of his 10 year retirement at Tarsus (36-45 A. D..).

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Comment (See About Page for comment policy)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.