Difference between revisions of "Talk:Luke"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(unsigned and reply) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This article claims that the author of the Gospel of John witnessed Jesus. So either the author of Luke or John is a liar re: Passover. I prefer to believe that Luke is true and John is 100 years after the fact with a vivid imagination. | + | This article claims that the author of the Gospel of John witnessed Jesus. So either the author of Luke or John is a liar re: Passover. I prefer to believe that Luke is true and John is 100 years after the fact with a vivid imagination. {{unsigned|Jerome}} March 2007 |
| + | : This comment makes no sense, or at the very least doesn't explain things very well. Yes, John knew Jesus. So how does that make one a liar? I see that the comment did result in a change to the article, but I don't know why. However, I think I'm correct in saying that Mark didn't know Jesus, so was not have been totally accurate. I'll reinstate a modified version. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 16 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 07:00, January 16, 2008
This article claims that the author of the Gospel of John witnessed Jesus. So either the author of Luke or John is a liar re: Passover. I prefer to believe that Luke is true and John is 100 years after the fact with a vivid imagination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerome (talk) March 2007
- This comment makes no sense, or at the very least doesn't explain things very well. Yes, John knew Jesus. So how does that make one a liar? I see that the comment did result in a change to the article, but I don't know why. However, I think I'm correct in saying that Mark didn't know Jesus, so was not have been totally accurate. I'll reinstate a modified version. Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)