This question is for those of you out there who believe that being "inspired" or "God-breathed" is the functional equivalent of God telling the author what to write: What is the point of carefully investigating the facts, as Luke 1:3 declares the author did? Colossal waste of time? Trying to gain credibility with "Theophilus" (be he real or fictional)? Something else?
Luke the Investigator
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Well... They say, "God ordains the means as well as the ends".
One of my pastors was leading a small group Bible study, and he made a remark that has stuck with me for 30 years: The "inspiration" is also in the editing and selection of material. Who tasked Luke with researching the facts of Jesus's life? Who directed Luke to his sources, like Mark and Matthew and Q and maybe Mary (or someone close to her) and the source of the Lukan-unique parables like the Prodigal Son? Who directed Luke to use the Sermon on the Plain instead of the Sermon on the Mount? Who directed Luke to change the wording of Matthew 23:26 in Luke 11:41, which doesn't make sense anyway?
How does this "inspiration" thing REALLY work? It might not be the way we think it should work.
I don't have any reason to think Luke was "directed" in his investigative journalism by anything more than a sincere desire to tell the gospel story in a new way. He says "many" attempted this before him (Luke 1:1) -- and no doubt Mark and Q would be on that list (but likely not Matthew) along with a few long lost writings and some oral tradition. He didn't tell "all" that happened (although he gives himself credit for doing so in Acts 1:1). He told what he wanted us to know based on his research, expanding on what had come before.
Inspired? I suppose, in some sense. But I think the works of Herodotus and Homer are inspired writings too.
Even Josephus, and to me these were merely non born again worldly witnesses and journalism.
But Luke is a born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, Kingdom of Heaven witness and journalist.
Surely GOD through the Holy Ghost inspired or breathed out these Gospel accounts in thorough to witnessing journalist Luke.
There's no similarity like other historian who witness for themselves and write it down.
That's why the things of Christ we find in them are random accounts, here and there stories, and not like Luke's
Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ
Why do you say "Surely" here? Is it incomprehensible to you that Luke did what all historians and investigative journalists do, nothing more?
I don't see what his being born again adds to the mix. There are lots of born again historians and writers (I know a few personally); would you give their writings the same credit as Luke's writings?
And what do you mean by "witnessing journalist" here? Luke did not personally witness a single thing reported in his gospel.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Ahh, but who knows what God is doing behind the scenes? (He said with a little sparkle in his eyes and a mischievous smile on his lips.)
Remember he also wrote the Acts of the Apostles its even written in the first person in some parts giving you a actual eyewitness account of what was happening by Luke.If the Gospel of Luke is not good enough then you would also have to throw out the Acts of the Apostles if Luke can't be trusted.He was there with Peter and Paul and other disciples who related what happened and was a part of the Acts including writing it.
That's according to your carnal interpretation and representation, so let GOD be the truth and man a liar.
Your saying Luke did all the work on his own effort and strength, and authored the Gospel according to Luke?
i disagree, period.
Because those who are not born again or truly born again, the god of this world the devil, have blinded their minds.
They will 'see' and 'see' but they cannot 'see', they will 'hear' and 'hear' and they cannot 'hear'.
The way non believers and believers witness things pertaining to the Kingdom of GOD, differ entirely.
Do a comparison between Luke and the other non believer historians' work in regarding Jesus alone.
The similarity you may find are what seen only on the surface about Jesus.
But in regards 'insight' to what is deep about Jesus and Kingdom of GOD, Luke excel way 'spiritual' than them 'carnal'.
Since he's born again of water and of the the Holy Ghost, able to 'see' and 'enter' the Kingdom of GOD.
Same credit of what?
Tell your believed writers equal to Luke, not to refer to the Holy Bible and accounts.
Therefore, tell them to research on their own and have a Gospel written on their own.
Apparently, your writers only know to take, copy and paste, the writings of others, whether one's spiritual or carnal.
Thus interpret their own version and claim it as theirs for the money.
Sadly you're 'shortsighted', surely journalist witness the accounts of others or things, before they report it in the news.
Luke personally witnessed the testimonies' of the Apostles and church in regards the Gospel.
And compiled them as his witnessed Gospel based on the testimonies of saints during Christ and after Christ.
Luke was a believer himself and have close fellowship to the time and ministry of Paul and believers.
Nevertheless, he was also close in likewise witnessing the testimonies of the Apostles and believers during Christ, who are still alive.
You think that Luke was not inspired by GOD through the Holy Ghost, even to sequentially compile these accounts?
Folly!
For Jesus said, "Abide in Me and My words, for without Me you can do 'nothing'."
Peace be with you in Jesus name
Last edited:
I don't question the veracity of his eyewitness accounts in the latter parts of Acts. What has that got to do with his hearsay accounts of Luke's gospel and the rest of Acts? He says he investigated the rest. OK, and perhaps he got 100% of it right, perhaps not -- but if God was affecting him the same way He affected the writing of Matthew, or Mark, or fill-in-the-blank, what would be the point of Luke "investigating" anything? Why bother? Those who meet your criteria of "inspired" status have no need to do so, right? Right? RIGHT????
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Why assume that God's "inspiration" works the same way for all people?
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
It's an interesting question.
For me it centers around the definition of "God-breathed".
And more importantly, to what did it apply. And conversely, to what DIDN'T it apply.
What is included in the term "All Scripture"?
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
In this verse, "All scripture" is defined as:
- God-breathed
- useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
What writings fit that description? (to qualify as scripture)
[
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
The term "God-breathed" defined as "inspired by God" seems to fall short of the term somehow.
Reminds me of the forming of Adam. A lump of clay until God breathed life into him.
[
Lambano
Well-Known Member
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
St. SteVen said:
What writings fit that description? (to qualify as scripture)
And is every section of the Bible "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"?
We have an Old Testament and a New Testament.
Are both "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"?
What about the sections of the OT?
- Law
- History
- Poetry
- Prophets
What about the sections of the NT?
- Gospels
- History
- Letters
- Prophecy
And then there is the Catholic canon. God-breathed as well?
Protestants rejected the Apocrypha. The inspired word? Rejected?
[
What writings fit that description? (to qualify as scripture)
So, the fiat process needs to be God-breathed as well.
And is every section of the Bible "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"?
We have an Old Testament and a New Testament.
Are both "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"?
What about the sections of the OT?
- Law
- History
- Poetry
- Prophets
What about the sections of the NT?
- Gospels
- History
- Letters
- Prophecy
And then there is the Catholic canon. God-breathed as well?
Protestants rejected the Apocrypha. The inspired word? Rejected?
[
Last edited:
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
In a sense, God can use anything to speak to us.
I have questioned whether we even need a Bible.
God walked with Adam in the Garden. (orchard)
We prefer a book instead. (to our own loss)
Jesus said his sheep would hear his voice and follow.
Who does that today? We would rather argue about doctrine.
[
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Let's look at the context of our key verse. Paul is writing to instruct young Timothy.
The common evangelical apologetic is to claim that the whole Bible is God-breathed.
That every word is inspired, infallible and inerrant. Is that what this says?
2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of,
because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures,
which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[
The common evangelical apologetic is to claim that the whole Bible is God-breathed.
That every word is inspired, infallible and inerrant. Is that what this says?
2 Timothy 3:14-17 NIV
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of,
because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures,
which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[
I don't assume that. I'm simply suggesting to the "It's God's dictation" crowd that taking dictation and investigative journalism are polar opposites.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
You have a point. But there may inspiration, or spiritual giftings involved with a person's research attempts.
[
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Frankly, I think those who would restrict inspiration to "God's dictation" show a complete lack of imagination.
Similar threads
