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!!
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!!
Great Response!
ReplyDelete