Was Luke a Woman? 

Luke wasn't a hebrew person, so other cultures had their own standards of sexuality and acceptance

Religion is fake

That's what people think, but it's really not true. And most people back then told stories and exchanged info by word of mouth. That's how family traditions and cultures work.

“St Luke” pfft! The author of the gospel Is unknown!

​@@HistoryandReviewsfriend, you are projecting your own self onto your comment. I didn't argue who the author was

Maybe you don't believe in the God of religion. But instead a Divine source of everything. -Ex-Christian

Dorothy, Like you… I don’t believe in gods either. And no, no divine beings of any kind. The Natural world is so much more beautiful without them. I like these lectures cus they seem unbiased and no “preachy”… great tools for hitting the Reset button!

Funny

Yeah, I know bruh...everybody knows there are 116 genders, duh?

It's just a you tube video. His reasoning seems a bit weak to me too.

Yep, women always need a strong noble man to rescue them and look after them. Thats the whole point of Christian teaching - women need good strong men😊

​@clareryan3843 at certain times it was assumed that women led a Jane austen or pride and prejudice life.

In hebrew culture, women are not supposed to treated subservient.

"Luke" being ascribed as the author is a later tradition

While osteoporosis can afflict both men and women, it is a far more prevalent disease in menopausal women than it is in men in general. It is actually known as a female favoriting plight.

@@clairebeane3455 I don't think we should gender diseases like I know that kidney stones are more prominent in men But I don't think we should refer it as only a male disease same with prostate cancer.

@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 I am not gendering the disease, but as kidney stones tend to favor men, osteoporosis tends to favor women. It’s pretty simple. While it does affect both genders, the ones primarily afflicted with said diseases are the ones most prominently associated with the disease.

@clairebeane3455 Yeah, but if you isolate a disease as just merely a gender thinking, it helps to diminish people who actually suffirst the disease in question. Like a man suffering breast cancer may be fee a feminized. Or a woman suffering prostate cancer maybe feel like she's a masculine.

@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 Again, no one is gendering illnesses. Literally no one. The only diseases I can think of off the top of my head that one gender suffers from exclusively and not another gender are testicular and ovarian cancer. But there is quite literally nothing wrong with stating the facts that one gender by rule tends to suffer more predominantly from particular diseases than do the opposite gender. I believe you are overthinking this and reading too much into it. No one is denying one gender something over another gender based on an illnesses that tends to target one gender more predominantly than it does another. I have to go now. Have a lovely day.

Borrowing? No! They ALL stole from Mark who stole from Homer!

@@HistoryandReviews Dennis MacDonald makes a compelling case for just that in _Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew_ AND _The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark_

@@joecaner I like Dennis but he still thinks it’s historical and believes in “Q” which is a joke

​@@HistoryandReviews He does. Everybody believes something. W.C. Fields believes that he'll have another drink...which is decidedly more grounded in observable reality than some speculative document based entirely on inductive reasoning that no one has ever seen or even alluded to in some critical bit of apologetics. So yeah. I appreciate Dennis based upon his scholarship and not his prejudices. No one is perfect, and if one is in the habit of throwing away babies because their bathwater is dirty, there would be precious few babies to raise.

I am of the opinion that the Book of Thomas is the Q document. It is consistent in its quotations but they have extra phrases. They’re also what looks like later statements of another time which are categorically in conflict with the earlier statements. So people kept adding to Thomas. The original document is held to have been in Aramaic but we only have Greek copies. The lengthier more consistent statements sound like Jesus made them. A different political climate altered them. In the usual Christian fashion that dominated after the Fourth Century AD/CE, and actually before the Fourth Century ended, the Book of Thomas was not only banned but actively destroyed. We can thank people who decided not to destroy but just store elsewhere for the existing Greek copies of the Gospel of Thomas. It is mostly an enlightening work. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is definitely not by the Apostle, it’s very Greek and of a different writing style. It has a certain popularity among atheists & Christian extremists and is very, very available on RU-vid as is the collected sayings of Jesus known as the Gospel of Thomas. If Infancy Gospel is in the title, you are looking at the wrong book. I do not think Christians are even capable of the thought that the Gospel of Thomas is the famous Q document. The fact that it is Gnostic will eventually have them reaching for matches. Expecting no intellectual debate on the subject ever.

Not necessarily but it's just part of the effort to try and find out who wrote the gospels

Also, if it were shown conclusively that Luke had female authorship the patriarchal climate changes for many faith communities .

Luke is just a physician and a writer...not a messiah or a prophet. Goodness

Rare educated woman is a lie and misnomer. If you read your Bible you'd know that

Maybe. Because Luke was the only writer in any ancient hebrrw manuscript, that was a gentile (non hebrew)

Thank you for supporting the channel!

The show about Paul being gay was persuasive also

@@nosuchthing8 Yes, I agree as well.

Women are barely mentioned

@@HistoryandReviews This is the only gospel that gives Mary a backstory.

@@stevenv6463 the first two chapters of Luke are utter forgeries except for the intro about “other accounts being written “. That Mary speech was 100% a Catholic insertion seeing as how Mary utterly disappeared from The story afterward. John and Jesus being relatives is utter BS as well

Yep, far more plausible that the document was written by a gay man than a member of 50% of the population

Homosexuality is against the torah

@@whidoineedthis So much is! Abominations and death sentences figure widely in the Law. But then Iron Age is Iron Age. And Christ is Christ.

The reason why people dismiss Irenaeus is precisely BECAUSE he should have known very early Christians and could have used their first-hand accounts, but he didn't. If you read what Irenaeus himself wrote he actually didn't know for sure. The attributions were already traditions in his time and that's how he described them. If he knew for sure he would have written something like, "So, I asked Polycarp and he told me, oh, yeah, this one's written by my old pal Luke the physician."

@@andrewsuryali8540 I think to a certain extent you are right, but this doesn't open change the overall thrust of what I was saying - there are multiple lines of evidence. If not Luke, then.... well it could be absolutely anyone, but does it change the text or the intent of the author? If we have good reason to suppose that the traditional author is wrong, then what is it. Surely it can't just be that the gospel doesn't say who it is from?

@@wayneburchell6346 there is NO evidence that a Luke wrote anything because the gospel itself never names its author!!

@@HistoryandReviews That is not strictly true. Though s/he does not name themselves, there is plenty of evidence. E.g. Nobody else ever was attributed to the work; The similarity with Acts which includes the They/We passages; The choice of Luke instead of a disciple, etc. Whether there is enough evidence is the issue, not that there is no evidence.

@@wayneburchell6346 your evidence “nobody else was attributed to the work” “the we passages in Acts” That’s not evidence! SHOW ME “I, LUKE, am writing these works!” Show me a name mentioned period!!

Except Women weren’t equal according to Paul, the 12, and Jesus

Seriously? You do know Paul wrote that the “Promise” was given just to men in Romans. Also the H in Catholic altar cloth is Homo not Humani making Jesus the Savior of Men not Women & Men. I can list other cute remarks by Paul exposing his misogyny, homophobia, & racism if you need help. I’ll give the citations. Christ is not the Savior of Women in Christian ✝️ belief. For centuries, Christ has been the exclusive savior of men. Women are still waiting for a Savior.

The author of Acts, is Luke

You mean you have the Original source..????!! WoW!

@@botmfedr1m291 American boasters are reinventing everything having been invented Long ago .sry😉. Even the bible🙈

Jesus healed the woman with the 12 years nonstop period blood flow.

Not if she dressed as a man

The Greeks are extremely feminine culture.

Cat fight

@whidoineedthis So you think Luke met? Mary, and decided to drop that petty info as a Diss.

Q wasn't compiled while jesus was living 😢

Silly jews, Paul is for kids

That's funny, cus in the description in revelation, it says, he had hair like wool, and skin like burnt brass.... so idk what's going on here

The lecture explains the scholarly consensus on ancient history and the alternative theories. The bible is not considered a primary source because it was writen after the events described. That is taken for certain. There's a method to determine the likelihood of a charecter or story to be regarded as fictional or historical. It involves literary criticism, archeological findings, comparative mithology, etc. Not everything is known by scholars, though. There are many gaps.

Abraão Ferraz the people who say those things though probably don’t see Jesus as god and more as a prophet or preacher with good views what would make him any different than today’s preachers or Jewish rabbi’s if he never rose from the dead or performed the miracles he did? I say either you believe in the Jesus from the bible or you don’t really

@@Dreammaster695 NightmareEntity there's no such dichotomy. Otherwise you would have to believe EVERYTHING that has been written about Jesus in non cannonical gospels. Don't be so naive. What you call new testament is a 3rd century compilation of heavily edited texts that fit the predominant orthodox agenda of early Christianity. Academic scrutiny combining archeology, linguistics and literary criticism is essential in reconstructing the past. Even primary ancient text must be read critically because they could say something false or misleading, or fantastic (magical/supernatural), let alone a secondary source like the bible.

@@Dreammaster695Shut up you illiterate fool.

Joe Exotic says the guy who think Luke is a woman lol

Thanks for supporting the channel!