Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 5

In Part Five (5) of our examination of the "no-formula" doctrine as taught by Don McClain of the "church of Christ" denomination, we look at another scholar that Don has appealed to, to try to substantiate his position.

Don quotes from Marvin Vincent, Word Studies, on the phrase "in the name of" (eis to onoma) as used in Matthew 28:19. This actually a very lengthy quote and Don broke it down over two different charts, but the very intersting thing here is Don's use of "elipses" (...). Notice careful Don's use of elipses (...) between the word "Lord" and "The name." An elipses (...) indicates to the reader that something has been skipped in the quote. Sometimes the elipses (...) isn't realtive to the discussion, but then there are times that elipses (...) are used simply because the person doesn't want that particular information to be made available to the audience. This way the quote is seen as validating the preacher's (in this case Don's) position.

BEWARE OF DON'S USE OF ELIPSES!!!

When the careful student goes back and verfies the quotes used by Don McClain, you will find that some very important information and comments have been skipped!!

When we look at the comments that Don McClain skipped, we see (once again) that the scholars DO NOT agree with Don's "no-formula" doctrine. Dr. Marvin Vincent very much believed in a "baptismal formula" and Don McClain SKIPPED this information in his presentation to the W. 65th Street "church of Christ"!! Notice that Dr. Vincent DID NOT say that the "name" isn't a "designation," rather he said "The name is not the MERE designation..." meaning that the "name" is a "designation," but not a designation only. Thus, Marvin Vincent did believe in a "baptismal formula" and again, the scholars that Don McClain attempts to use to prove his position have actually proven his position to be false!

I ask the question, "Why did Don skip these important comments of Marvin Vincent, seeing as how he HAD to have know they were there?" The answer is because Don knew that the comments did not support his false view, and in order to make Dr. Vincent look as if he supported the "no-formula" doctrine, Don had to misrepresent Dr. Vincent's comments, and take him out of context.

It is a sure sign of a false doctrine, when they skip such important information as this!!

Jason L. Weatherly

Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 4

Speaking of misrepresenting the "scholars," I want to show another scholar that Don McClain misrepresents in his teaching of the "no-formula" doctrine.

Don quotes and makes references to Dr. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Dr. Robertson, was held as the greatest American scholar of Biblical Greek in his day. Don quotes Dr. Robertson as if A.T. Robertson believed in the "no-formula" doctrine, when in fact he DID NOT!!! Dr. Robertson was a staunch Trinitarian, and fully believed that the words of Matthew 28:19 were the "baptismal formula"!! The very reference Don quoted shows that Dr. Robertson believed that Matthew 28:19 was the baptismal formula. Dr. Robertson stated, "... the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used."

Dr. Robertson DID NOT teach the "no-formula" doctrine that there is no "baptismal formula." Rather, he (along with Adam Clarke, Marvin Vincent, Carl Brumback, & Jimmy Swaggart) taught the inconsistent view that "in the name of" only refers to a baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. It is extremely inconsistent and biased to say that "in the name of" (eis to onoma) in Matthew 28:19 refers to the verbally spoken words of a baptismal formula, but the same phrase (eis to onoma) in the same context of water baptism in Acts 8:16 & 19:5 does not.

So, once again we find that the scholar Don McClain quotes to try to validate his "no-formula" doctrine, does not agree with his position at all.

Jason L. Weatherly

Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 4

Next we look at a chart presented by Don McClain, where Don appeals to the lexical definition of "in the name of" as found in Joseph Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. One of the main problems here, is that Don is about one hundred years behind in knowledge of Koine Greek. Thayer's lexicon was obsolete the day it rolled off the printing press. This is acknowledged by Moulton-Milligan, the foreword of Bauer's lexicon, and Dr. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

But there's an even greater problem here with Don's appeal to Thayer's lexicon, and that is that Don (and his other "no-formula" preachers) are VERY SELECTIVE on what they quote from Thayer!!

Don likes to quote Thayer's comments on "in the name of" referring to authority, as if this means "no verbal pronouncement." Just because Thayer defined "in the name of" as "by the authority" this doesn't mean that Thayer was saying "no verbal pronouncement. Actually, Thayer very much believed that "in the name of" referred to verbal pronouncement of the name!!

Thayer qualified his definition of "in the name of" by first saying, "... the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the mind by MENTIONING, HEARING, remembering the name..." But Don doesn't like to quote this part of Thayer's lexicon!! He wants it to appear that Thayer meant "no verbal pronouncement" when that is absolutely FALSE!! Notice what else Thayer said about "in the name of"

Thayer went on to say that "The phrase 'in the name of Christ' is used in various senses: a by the command and authority of Christ b. in the USE of the name of Christ i.e. the power of his name being INVOKED for assistance..." There are about twice as many references to oral invocation in Thayer's definition of "in the name of" than references to "authority," but again, Don chooses not to mention these in his sermons!! It's not like Don doesn't know that Thayer's lexicon says these things, it is simply Don's choice to misrepresent the lexicons!!

Joseph Thayer very much believed that "in the name of" in relationship to water baptism referred to an oral invocation or verbal profession of the name!!

So, as we can see already, the "no-formula" teaching of Don McClain is built upon a false premise. From there Don misrepresents the Greek lexicons in order to validate his doctrine. But we see upon further examination that scholar Don appealed to in fact DOES NOT agree with his position. Thayer's lexicon mentions time and time again that "in the name of" means a verbal profession of the name, and specifically defined "in the name of" as a verbal profession in relationship to water baptism.

Thus when we speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" this means baptizing while verbally professing the name of Jesus Christ!

Jason L. Weatherly

Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 3

In responding to the "no-formula" teaching of Don McClain of the "church of Christ" denomination, we look at Don's next chart in trying to circumvent the idea of verbally pronouncing the name of Jesus in baptism.

Don claims that in order for there to be a verbal formula, then the prepositions MUST mean pronouncement. Now, I'd just like to ask, "Where in the world did Don get any such idea?" There is absolutely NO rule in Greek grammar (or English grammar for that matter) that says that the prepositions MUST mean pronouncement. This is simply a "straw-man" argument that Don has made up. It is a "paper tiger" that he has created in order to look like a mighty hunter. The truth of the matter is that verbal pronouncement is dependent upon the prepositions (epi, en, eis) being used with "name" (onoma).

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, Greek - English Lexicon, p. 288 in defining the preposition "epi" (upon) states, "of persons, over which something is done SPEAK THE NAME OF JESUS OVER someone..." Bauer, et al. Lexicon (BAGD) is the most authoritative lexicon on the market today. It is the standard lexicon of Bible colleges and universities. Notice that Bauer's lexicon very much includes the idea of "verbal pronouncement" with the use of the prepositions.

However, we don't have to rely simply on Greek lexicons to understand this. The Bible let's us know that the preposition "epi" when used with "onoma" as in the phrase "in the name of" refers to a verbal pronouncement! Notice the following verse:

Lu 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

This passage is talking about the circumcision of John the baptist. If you remember the account of John's conception, the angel of the LORD appeared to Zacharias and commanded him to name his son "John." Because of Zacharias' unbelief, the angel caused Zacharias not to be able to speak. So at the circumcision of John (he was not yet named), because Zacharias couldn't speak, those that were present at the circumcision named the child "Zacharias, after the name of his father." The phrase "after the name of" in Greek is "epi to onomati" or "(upon) in the name of." Obviously, "in the name of" his father DOES NOT and CANNOT refer to the "authority" of Zacharias, because no one there had Zacharias' authority to name the child "Zacharias" (cf. Luke 1:60f). Thus "in the name of" his father, MUST refer to the "verbally pronounced" name of "Zacharias" which is obvious from the context.

This phrase "epi to onomati" (in the name of) is the exact same phrase used in Acts 2:38 in reference to water baptism: "... be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." Thus, the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" in Acts 2:38 ALSO has reference to the verbally pronounced name of Jesus Christ in baptism!! In fact the Anchor Bible translates Acts 2:38 as "be baptized CALLING ON the name of Jesus..."!!

Jason L. Weatherly

 

Re-Examing Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 2

This blog continues my examination of the “no-formula” doctrine as taught recently by Don McClain, evangelist for the "church of Christ" denomination in Little Rock, AR. As mentioned in the previous blog, Don has consistently taught follow-up lessons on the Godhead and Baptismal Formula issues after public debates in the last three years. Apparently Don feels there is some “patching up” that needs to be done after the debates.

Don began his teaching of the “no-formula” doctrine by presenting a chart that has been used in three debates now. The chart breaks down the definition of the word “name” into four (4) uses: (1) Designation, (2) Reputation, (3) Authority, and (4) Person. From this, Don then gets to play word games, and decides which definition of “name” best fits a particular passage of Scripture. All of this is done in an attempt to circumvent orally invoking the name of Jesus in water baptism. It is amazing (as will be seen in further blogs) that in Matthew 28:19, in relation to baptism, Don says “name” refers to a “relationship” or “union,” but when you get to Acts 2:38 “name” refers to “authority.” It seems that Don can make “name” mean anything he wants to in any particular passage – EXCEPT NAME!! These "no-formula" preachers make up ever excuse for orally invoking something during baptism, except calling it a "baptismal formula" or "invocation." This is the faulty premise of the “no-formula” doctrine.

In looking at Don’s chart, first and foremost, the word “name” in Colossians 3:17 DOES NOT refer to “authority” (this will be dealt with thoroughly in a later blog). Secondly, you cannot dissect the “Person” from their “Designation.” Their “designation” is who the “person” is!! You cannot refer to the “PERSON” of Jason Weatherly without also giving reference to my “NAME” or “DESIGNATION.” Neither can you make reference to the “NAME” of someone without including their “PERSON.” So, to try to apply the meaning of “PERSON” to the word “name” without including their “DESIGNATION” is absolutely false.

The same is true with “REPUTATION.” You cannot separate a “reputation” from either the “PERSON” or their “NAME” (“designation”). With a “reputation,” someone may not know you “PERSONally” but they know your “NAME” (designation), because the reputation depends on both the “person” and their “name” (designation).

To illustrate the faulty reasoning behind dissecting the meaning of “name,” notice that Don say that “name” in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” refers to “PERSON” as if “DESIGNATION” doesn’t have relevance in the passage. However, simply a quick examination of the context of Acts chapter 4 shows “name” refers to both the “designation” and the “person.” You CANNOT separate one from the other!

The entire discourse of Peter in Acts chapter four is built upon the foundation of events found in Acts chapter 3

Acts 3: 1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

2  And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

3  Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.

4  And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.

5  And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.

6  Then Peter SAID, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

The miracle in Acts chapter 3 took place by means of the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus! Peter SAID, “In the name of Jesus Christ…” Every statement made concerning this event must be prefaced upon the fact that Peter orally invoked the name of Jesus! Thus when Peter said, “And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:16); this has reference to the oral invocation of the name in performing the miracle.

Then in Acts chapter 4, the Jewish leaders of the temple arrested Peter and John, and asked them “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” (Acts 4:7). Jews were familiar with an oral invocation of a “name” in performing miracles. Jewish exorcists were known for casting out demons by orally invoking the name “Solomon.” cf. Matthew 12:27.

This question, “By what power or name, have you done this?” is based upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in healing the lame man. Peter then stood up and declared to the Jewish council, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in (en) the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole” (Acts 4:10). Again, the phrase “by” or “in the name of Jesus Christ” points back to the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6, but not “just” to the invocation of the name because it was the “person” of Jesus (“by him”) who was the source of the miracle. So Acts 4:12, “no other name” is the answer to the question of “by what name, have you done this?” and refers to BOTH the “person” and the “name” (designation) of Jesus! You CANNOT separate one from the other as Don McClain has tried to do.

The statement that there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved is built upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6.

Jason L. Weatherly

Re-Examining "Baptism in the Name of Jesus"

I was baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" on February 3, 1991. That is truly a day that I will never forget!! Since that time baptism in the name of Jesus has been a very important subject for me to study and teach. Over the last twenty (20) years, I have written several tracts, studies, etc. on the subject of baptism in the name of Jesus. In fact, in the past year I have taken the labor of my study and compiled it into a book entitled Calling on the Name of Jesus.

My book, Calling on the Name of Jesus, deals specifically with the teaching of orally invoking the Name of Jesus during baptism. It has been understood for over 1900 years, by both Trinitarians and Oneness believers, that the phrase "baptized in the name of" refers to an oral invocation of the Name over the person baptized.

It was not until the 1950s with preacher name G. K. Wallace from the church of Christ denomination that anyone taught a "no-formula" doctrine for baptism. I have debated ministers from the church of Christ denomination several times on the issue of "baptism in the name of Jesus." At my first debate on this subject, I actually converted a young Trinitarian girl who was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins as a result of my debate! Today, she is married to an Apostolic Oneness pastor.

In 2008, I debated a local church of Christ minister named Bruce Reeves, from the Hwy 65 church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas. After the first night of our debate on the baptismal formula, I had no less than eight (8) church of Christ ministers approach me and tell me that they fully understood our position on the subject of the baptismal formula, and did not agree with their own church of Christ brother. One of those minister's first name was Adonis, who actually performed the opening prayer for the last night of the debates.

Mr. Reeves, my church of Christ opponent, was joined at his table by Don McClain, the minister for the West 65th Street church of Christ in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. McClain is very talented in producing Powerpoint charts for his Bible lessons, and public debates. Typically, Mr. McClain makes these Powerpoint presentations available on their church's website http://www.w65stchurchofchrist.org/.

What is interesting is that in 2008, just after my debates with Bruce Reeves on the subjects of the Godhead and the Baptismal Formula; Don McClain felt it necessary to teach lessons to his congregation on "The Incarnation" and "The Great Commission," in which he used the same charts that were used during our debates. Apparently, Mr. McClain felt the need to do a little "patching up" after the debate.

In 2011, Roger Perkins also debated Bruce Reeves on the subjects of the Godhead and the Baptismal Formula in Lufkin, Texas. Mp3s of the debate are available from the W. 65th church of Christ website. Again, Don McClain served as "chart man" for Mr. Reeves during the debate. What is very interesting, is that Don McClain, just after the Perkins-Reeves debate, felt it necessary again to teach lessons to his congregation on "Understaning God" and "Baptism in the Name of Jesus," again using the same charts used during the debates. Apparently, Mr. McClain felt the need again to do some more "patching up" after the debate. Not sure how much more "patching up" Mr. McClain thinks his boat can take, and I'm not even going to begin to get into the childish letter Jeff Asher (Mr. Reeves' moderator) sent to Bro. Roger Perkins after the debate.

Since, Mr. McClain has felt it necessary to do a follow-up to the debates through these two lessons, I have decided to examine his lessons, and post my responses here (including visual aids). Keep checking into The Weatherly Report over the next week for my responses to Mr. McClain's lessons and charts.

By the way, I have challenged Mr. McClain to a couple of debates on the issues of Instrumental Music in the Church and the duration of the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit. Mr. McClain informed me that he would check with the elders of his local assembly to see if we could schedule a debate for next year. Already there are people on both sides of the issues interested in hearing these debates. To date, I haven't heard any other response from Mr. McClain.

As a "gospel preacher" Mr. McClain is obligated to give an answer to those who challenge his teaching.

1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I am hoping that we can come to an agreement to schedule debates on these important subjects.

Again, stay tuned to The Weatherly Report over the next week for my responses to Mr. McClain's teaching on the Godhead and the Baptismal Formula.

Jason L. Weatherly

 

Who wrote the books of Luke and Acts?

Some time ago I read a blog that suggested that the books of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were not written by Luke (as has been commonly held for 2000 years), but was actually written by the Apostle Paul. I posted a response to the "blogger's" comments at the time. I have decided to post that response here for all to read. The "black text" are quotes from the "blogger." The bold RED text below indicates my response. Enjoy

Ok, let's check these so-called "Facts"

1.) There is nothing internal in the books of Luke or Acts that Luke wrote them;

Scholars have recognized a definite writing style in Luke and Acts that is different than any other books in the New Testament with the exception to the book of Hebrews. All three books are written in well educated use of Koine Greek. Both Luke and Acts also seem to take note of several medical statements suggesting that a physician wrote both text

2.) The external witnesses are only those whom the Catholic church has allowed to survive;

Pure conjecture! Already we have the conspiracy theory that Catholic killed everyone. And the use of "Catholic" in this statement is meant to imply that those that believe Luke wrote Luke and Acts have been manipulated by Catholics.

3.) Paul never mentions Luke as a writer;

The point is moot. Paul never mentioned Peter, James, John, Matthew or Jude as writers either. So, what is next we start questioning whether any of these guys actually wrote the books attributed to them? Keep it up and we'll have Paul writing the entire New Testament.

4.) Luke is mentioned only three times in the Scriptures: Col 4:14, 2Tim 4:1, Philemon 1:24;

Again a moot point. What difference does it make how many times a person is mentioned in the Scriptures.

5.) Col 4:14–Luke, the beloved Physician, and Demas, greet you.”

Again, this is not even a fact or a point. This statement is moot to the entire discussion.

6.) Written when Paul was in bonds after his arrest in Jerusalem (see Col 4:18) Paul was before King Agrippa in 59AD;

As we will see in a minute these historical dates don't add any relevance to prove that Luke did not write the book of Acts

7.) Paul arrived in Rome 60-61AD. The book of Acts reports he was in his own house two years before his death; bringing it to around 63AD. Some scholars think 64-65AD;

Again these historical dates haven't proven anything as to whether or not Luke wrote the book of Acts. If one would study the works of Jackson & Lake or A.T. Robertson you will see from these dates quoted that it is very likely that Luke was in fact the author of Acts.

8.) Some scholars think Luke was a traveling companion of Paul to Jerusalem and also to Rome. But Paul makes no mention of Luke in all of the journey, ship wreck, or arrival in Rome. We know someone was with him with the plural “us, we, our” found in the book of Acts;

Paul makes no mention of Luke where? In the book of Acts? You are assuming the point that you are trying to make. This statement totally contradicts what has already been said that Luke is mentioned FOUR times by Paul! Did Paul mention him or not? Obviously the "blogger" is confused by his own confusing doctrine.

9.) Paul writes to Timothy from Rome (2Tim 4:11) and claims only Luke of the Asia Churches is with him. It appears Luke comes to Rome and did not travel with him to Jerusalem and then to Rome;

What exactly does this statement prove towards the idea that Luke did not write Acts or Luke? There is absolutely NOTHING in the statement that is meant to prove against a Lucian authorship. Also notice the interpolation of "Asia Churches". Nothing in the text even implies that Luke is from an Asian Church. This is totally conjecture, which is bad habit of the "blogger".

10.) Paul mentions Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, all from Rome;

Again, a point wasted. What does this have to do with Luke writing Acts? NOTHING!! You see people make lists to try to prove their points and then they fill that list up with information that has nothing to do with the point they are trying to make. The only thing it does is add to the numbers in the list. So instead of 5 points you now have 8? Except that 3 of the 8 facts really have nothing to do with what you are talking about. This is sloppy research. I would expect more from a man who claims to be a "doctor".

11.) Luke appears to have been a convert of Paul’s prior to the Colossian mention, about 59AD. Luke could not have been a convert much earlier than 55AD as he is not mentioned among all the men during the time period up to 55AD;

What, pray tell, would give any indication that Luke was a convert of Paul's prior to the Colossian?? There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that implies WHEN Luke was converted. There are actually some historians that claim Luke was one of the "Seventy"

12.) The books of Luke and Acts were written to Theophilus;

Again, this particular point really does nothing to prove who the author of Luke or Acts was. This is just another example of "filler points" and shows poor research skills and bad writing.

13.) Most scholars agree that Theophius was the Jewish High Priest between 37-41AD. He died in 41AD;

This statement is absolutely not true!! BEWARE OF FALSE WRITERS WHEN THEY CLAIM "Most scholars agree..." Actually there is a wide variety of views as to who Theophilus was! Some claim that he was a wealthy Greek who paid to have Luke's writing's published. Others suggest that he was a wealthy Greek that paid for Luke's education. And then there are those who suggest that Theophilus was Paul's attorney while in Rome. Now, if Theophilus was a Jewish High Priest what would it matter? Also, the "blogger" needs to check his sources. I'm sure all he did was a quick wikipedia search and found some info on Theophilus. NOTHING says he DIED in 41 A.D., ONLY that he served in the Temple from 37-41 A.D. If you assume that this statement means he died in 41 A.D. then by the same token you should assume that it means that he was born in 37 A.D.!! The "blogger's" research is more hysterical than it is historical!

14.) The third Gospel was then written before 41AD.

Again a moot point, and filler material just to make his blog look authoritative ("oh my look at how many points he made!! Oh wait, most of the points are moot - big waste!")

15.) At least the first part of Acts up to where the narrative takes over with Paul was before 41AD.

Ok, again, the "blogger" keeps making these points leading up to somewhere when in reality any credible researcher would have grouped all these points together. But the "blogger's" intention is make his work look scholarly because of how many "points" he makes. Bad research!

16.) Is it likely a Greek physician had a purpose to write to the Jewish high priest between 37-41AD? Or is it more likely someone who was Jewish had a reason to give the HP a true record;

What's more likely is that ANYONE who was a Christian would write a letter to a non-Christian. Whether the author or the recipient is Jewish or Gentile really makes no difference!! This statement would imply that non-Jewish believers really have no business trying to convert Jews!! This is just ridiculous!!

17.) If Luke is not converted until around 55AD how could he be the writer to the HP between 37-41AD who died in 41AD?

Again, this statement is based upon your conjecture that Luke was converted around 55 A.D. This statement is made without any PROOF!! And this is what the "blogger's" research really lacks is PROOF!!

18.) A very remarkable fact is that an ancient MSS document P75 dated around 200AD the Gospel contains the words: “according to Luke.”

Yes, that is quite remarkable indeed!! That points to the fact that Luke has been held as the writer of both the Gospel and Acts since 200 A.D. The Catholic Church wasn't around for another 125 years!!! So that brings us to the next point!!

19.) But an older document P4, does not contain any mention of “according to Luke.”

Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. There are several textual variants to the codecs of Luke. What does the "blogger" want us to do with the textual differences, throw them all away and just pick one? Well, that would be sloppy research, but then again that's all the "blogger" has given us!

20.) It would appear that all the Catholic witnesses said to mention the Gospel according to Luke, lived 200AD and after. Those prior to 200AD would have been witnessing a MSS much later than the P4 MSS.

Here we go with the Catholic conspiracy theories again. There was NO CATHOLIC CHURCH in 200 A.D.!! The Catholic Church wasn't around until about 325 A.D. So, we have textual proof that Luke wrote the Gospel 125 years BEFORE the formation of the Catholic Church!

Conclusion: there is no evidence Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke or the Book of Acts.

A conclusion based upon conjecture, conspiracy theories, biased criticism, and sloppy historical research. All from a man who claims to have some sort of doctorate

The book of Acts appears to be divided between a history of Peter and Paul. Peter is the center of the history through chapter 12. Then in chapter 13 Saul comes into the narrative as if the writer is explaining how Saul-Paul came among the early Church and his Apostleship to the Gentiles. It indicates a possible writing by more than one person. One wrote to the High Priest about the events of the Church up to chapter 12. Then another took over and wrote the rest of the book. Is this farfetched? No, a lot of scholars have literary evidence of two possible writers.

Again, friends beware of the words "a lot of scholars"!! I promise you the "blogger's" research goes no further than wikipedia and then he claims to write as some great scholar on the subject. For a more scholarly approach check out Jackson & Lake the Beginnings of Christianity where they show both sides of the issue.

Who is the “us, we, our” who is writing in company with Paul, we do not know. It certainly is someone with Paul on his travels. Someone who stayed by his side all the way to Rome and to his death.

Does it matter if Luke wrote the books of Luke and Acts?

Yes, I believe so. It would mean two books were written by a Gentile. The Gospels were supposed to be a testimony to eye-witness accounts. Nothing in Luke suggests this Gospel was compiled by interviewing eye-witnesses. Rather, it appears what was believed about Jesus as confessed, was what Jews believed with no intent Gentiles at the time of the writing was even added to the Church. The book of Acts will document this. Luke appears to have a Jewish hand.

I want you to notice carefully what the "blogger" says, "The Gospels were suppose to be a testimony to EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS. NOTHING in Luke suggests this Gospel was compiled by interviewing eye-witnesses." Friends read for yourself in the pages of God's Holy Word Luke 1:1-4:

1 Forasmuch as MANY have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as THEY DELIVERED THEM UNTO US, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

The writer of Luke clearly shows that "THEY," that is those who "from the beginning were eyewitnesses" DELIVERED UNTO US "all things from the very first"!! The writer of the Gospel of Luke wasn't an eyewitness himself! He emphatically declared that he WAS NOT an eyewitness but the information he was writing was DELIVERED unto him from the eyewitnesses!!

How can anyone claim to be a "doctor" of Bible doctrine and have missed this obvious point from the very pages of God's Holy Writ? The "blogger" flies in the face of the very Word of God!!

Is it possible Paul is the writer of Luke?

Well if it is, then this totally destroys your view just above that the writer was an "eye witness"!! Now the "blogger" is talking out of both sides of his mouth!

And is it possible Luke may have been given this recognition in error. I say in error because it appears Luke is presented in the book of Acts as the one writing “us, we, our” when this is pure conjecture. But, once it is accepted Luke wrote the book of Acts, it is no great manipulation to say who ever wrote to Throphilus in the book of Acts also wrote the book of Luke. Bingo, it is Luke! Backward association based upon an erroneous assumption is not a factual determination.

"Erroneous assumption"? Let's see, the writer of Acts clearly states that he was the author of the "former writing" that had already been written to Theophilus, and the only other writing we have attributed as being delivered to Theophilus is one of the Gospel accounts. We also have the account in the Gospel written to Theophilus that the author WAS NOT an eye witness but the information was delivered unto him. And then finally we have the testimony of early church writers and an actual text circa 200 A.D. that attributes the Gospel as being written by Luke, and you have the audacity to say "erroneous assumption"?? The "blogger" is definitely familiar with "erroneous assumptions" because that is what is research paper is full of!

I believe a Jewish hand wrote both of the books of Luke and Acts.

Well, if it was a Jewish hand, then that Jewish hand wrote in some of the most educated Greek writing possible. But I will help you out with your conspiracy theories - there are those that suggest that Luke was a Jew!! So, there you go, run wild with that conspiracy theory and claim it as your new revelation!!

Now, what if you disagree? What if you are a novice who wants to just be anti-(blogger's name) because you have always been anti-(blogger's name)? Will that change a single fact I have presented? No.

Here again the "blogger" goes off on his conspiracy theory and "WOE is me" attitude. Age doesn't make a person an "expert" Mr. Blogger. It is apparent from your sloppy historical research and your mishandling of the Scriptures that in your old age YOU are still a novice of the Word!! You have this "everybody in the world is against me" attitude and your broken record blogging is getting old. Get you some new strings for your one string fiddle. Better yet, realize that the entire world doesn't revolve around you. Grow up and realize that if a person doesn't agree with what you say its not because they are simply "anti-Blogger" it might just because YOU ARE WRONG!! You think just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you means that they are "anti-you" well, I hate to bust your bubble; but you're not even that well known in Pentecost for people to be against you.

As for me, I cannot accept that the book of Luke was written by a Gentile to a man who was dead about 15 years before he was in the Church.

There in lies the root of your biased criticism. You cannot accept that at Gentile wrote the majority of the New Testament. Your statement about Theophilus being dead 15 years before Luke was in Church is unfounded. You have no proof to back the statement up. The real issue is that you have a problem believing that a Gentile wrote any (let alone the majority) of the New Testament. You promote the Jewishness of the Church too heavily. Not everything associated with the Church is Jewish. You have seemed to forgotten Galatians 3:28 that there is neither Jew nor Gentile for we are all ONE in Christ. You keep stressing the Jewishness of the Church and before long you will reject that the New Testament was even written in Greek!! Once you've rejected that the New Testament was written in Greek, you will claim that our Lord Jesus never spoke a word of Greek. Finally, you will join in hands with your Yahwist friends singing "Kumbaya my Lord" and claim that baptism must be administered speaking the name of "Yeshua".

In Acts 20:4 we have the record:

Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonia, Gaius and Timothy from Derbe, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia.

These continue in the text as being with Paul and were already there when he summoned Elders to come from Ephesus.

Of all these men, only Timothy would have direct knowledge of Luke. And Paul wrote to him from Rome about Luke being now with him. But in writing to Philemon he mentions Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas with him. Luke is given no special mention above the others.

I am not sure in your statement that "Luke is given no special mention above the others" means that you don't think that Luke is mentioned in the text or whether you mean that Paul did not place Luke in any special position or listing ahead of the others mentioned? Your statements are sporadic and not well thought out. Surely you understand that "Lucas" is another spelling of "Luke" just as much as "Marcus" is another spelling of "Mark." Now, if you understand that, then your statement of "special mention above the others" really doesn't mean anything. Where did Paul ever give Matthew, John, or Peter special mention over others? You see, you just run with these statements as if they have some sort of validity behind them - and they don't.

Now, if you want to believe Luke and Acts were written by Luke, a Gentile, its ok with me. But do not use this conjecture as a means to say there can now be Gentile Apostles.

And now we get to the real root of the "blogger's" problem. I promise you that the "blogger" only believes in 12 Apostles and that regardless of what the Bible says, Matthias was not one of the 12 Apostles, rather Paul was the 12th Apostle. Friends the truth is, there are more than 12 people called "Apostles" in the New Testament. Acts 14:14 clearly calls BARNABAS and Paul "apostles." Also when you compare 1 Thess. 1:1 with 1 Thess. 2:6 you will see that Paul referred to both SILAS and TIMOTHY as "Apostles of Christ;" and remember Timothy's daddy was a GREEK!!All biased criticism against a Gentile writer is based upon this notion that everything in the Church is Jewish. Paul said in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ. So why does the "blogger" keep making these distinctions?

And do not use this theory to claim Gentiles wrote more of the New Testament than Jews. Such false claims are the reason there is so much babel today among the Laodicaeans and the fall-away liberals.

God forbid that a non-Jew wrote any, let alone the majority of the New Testament. Your statements against non-Jewish Christians is almost like reverse anti-Semitism! You can scream "Laodicaean" and "fall-away liberals" all day long Ishmael, but the fact still remains that your mother Hagar was "CAST AWAY"!! Acts chapter 15 established a long time ago that the Church wasn't preaching Jewish doctrine. So, take off your yarmulke and quit trying to make everything Jewish!

Luke & Acts, two very powerful books of the Bible that we should not play games with.

Amen!! And both books were written by a well educated Greek without the slightest hint of Jewish idioms in them!!