Unless I’ve misunderstood, you’ve got things backwards. The main problem for your position is that 1 Cor. was written 5-10 years before Luke’s gospel. Another problem is that Luke’s gospel contains eyewitness testimony, the vast majority of which is from sources other than Paul (if Paul was even a source). If Luke wrote down what Paul taught the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:23-25, it would only have been those few verses and then it would most likely have been corroborated with eyewitness testimony from the apostles.
Nice speculation but there is plenty of speculation coming from all corners: the fact of the matter is that if your speculation isn't that, and can rather actually be proven from the writings, only then is it worthy commentary. How about the following speculation, is it indeed just speculation?
Luke is called "the Physician", that's Raphael the Healer of El, and that is not even a man but an angel.
I've studied this out and there is evidence for this, yes, even in the writings.
You seem to be conflating the use of "gospel" in reference to the four specific books with the use of gospel to refer generally to the good news. Paul certainly taught the good news but certainly didn't read from or deliver Luke’s gospel as it had not even been written yet.
In your mind you have negated the possibility that Paul speaks of a written account wherever he says "my Gospel". Moreover you've no doubt done the samje where he states the following:
Galatians 1:11-12 KJV (T/R)
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by
the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:12 T/R
12 ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι
αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου
Revelation 1:1 T/R
1
αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη
Do you really expect everyone to believe that Paul went out into the desert of Arabia, and Jesus appeared to him in a physical form, and sat down with him, and taught him everything he knew concerning the Gospel? If so, that's fantasy doctrine and likewise heretical:
Matthew 24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you,
Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
In verses 3 and 4, “the scriptures” is a reference to the OT, as that is how it is used exclusively in the NT.
More speculation: where is your evidence for your double assertion?
From a babe Timothy knew the sacred writings:
14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of,
knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15
and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
First of all no one knows the sacred writings upon coming out of the womb as physical babe: this no doubt speaks of spiritual birth, being born from above, and the sacred writings spoken of here are what taught Timothy what he had learned at this point, (not Paul), and therefore one of the sacred writings is most likely the Gospel we now know as Luke, and therefore Paul says, "knowing of whom thou hast learned them", and therefore his Teacher from the time of his spiritual birth was the Master by his Testimony in that Gospel account. Are you so foolish that you cannot discern that all of those things Paul mentions in 1Cor 15:3-7 are contained in first century apostolic writings? They were not necessarily called "scripture" yet so the better understanding in that case is writings, (because the word employed obviously means both, as already explained at the beginning of this thread).
Not to mention, once again, that the gospel of Luke had not been written yet.
No evidence, nothing but speculation, and a sad reliance on modern scholars over and above what Paul clearly states.
Interestingly, Luke alone records this:
Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Also interestingly, Luke alone also records what is highlighted below:
Luke 8:11-15 ASV
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.
13 And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14 And that which fell among the thorns, these are they that have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 And that in the good ground,
these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, [G2722 κατέχω] and bring forth fruit with patience.
Did Paul also give his Gospel account to the Thessalonians? Is that why he sees no need to go into the full details once again? Did he preach and expound to them the parable of the Sower from what we now know as the Gospel of Luke? And if so, why would he not leave that account with them since he did so at Corinth and Galatia?
2 Thessalonians 2:5-6 ASV
5 Remember ye not, that,
when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6
And now ye know that which restraineth, [G2722 κατέχω] to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.
G2722 κατέχω
Semantic Range in Scripture
The verb encompasses two chief actions: positive retention of what is good and active restraint of what is harmful. In the Gospels it may describe a crowd “trying to keep Him from leaving them” (Luke 4:42), while in Romans it depicts the ungodly “suppressing the truth” (Romans 1:18). Context therefore determines whether the holding is commendable or culpable.
This is going too far into trying to prove something for no apparent reason.
If there is no apparent reason then why are these things disturbing you so?
I think most here know what a problem this information is for dispensationist dogma.
Ananias laid his hands on Saul. Nothing more.
Wrong, the Greek text does not say that: it says he laid
the hands on Paul, not
his hands.
It’s notable that you not only argue to the Hebrew-biblical thought of the word hand referring to power without warrant for doing so in this context and, considering that cheir is translated as "hand" or "hands" 170 times out of the approximately 174 times it is used, you absolutely wouldn’t do that consistently, but you also change the plural “hands” to the singular “Power.” According to your position, it should be “Powers.” Such inconsistencies often happen when one goes about needlessly changing things.
Your highly esteemed scholars appear not to be cognizant of the fact that, because of the Septuagint, the Greek language is nothing more than a language on loan being employed to explain the Hebrew writings in the Greek language. The thoughts, meanings of words, etc., retain the Hebrew meanings of those thoughts and definitions of the words now employed in Greek. Go and see how many times the Septuagint proves this point with just this one word alone.
2Kngs 19:26, Job 1:12, Psa 22:20, Psa 49:15, Prov 18:21, Isa 37:27, Dan 12:7, Hos 13:14.
As for two hands, I just showed you the other Power: but you will surely not believe it.
