Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Commentator wrong about Luke, Theophilus | Luke | Bereaniam | 169974 | ||
Was Luke, the physician, a Gentile? If so, isn't it important to know why God chose only one Gentile to write not just one book of the bible, but two of them (Luke and Acts). It is also amazing that God only used three of the "twelve disciples" to write books of the new testament. Have you ever wondered who Theophilus is (was)that Luke addressed in both the book of Luke and Acts? Do you know that word-for- word Luke wrote more than Paul (who wrote 14 books of the new testament)? Do you believe that Theophilus was probably a Roman official (since he was addressed as "most excellent" in Luke 1:3 and as "O Theophilus" in Acts 1:1)? Other Roman officials were addressed this way as we read about "most excellent governor Felix" Act23:26 and "O king Agrippa" Act 25:26. Is it possible Theophilus was not saved as some commentators have said, but just a Roman official that Luke was "briefing" since Paul was about to stand trial? Have you ever read of other believers in the bible addressed as "O" or "most excellent"? Please help me with this take on Luke and Theophilus? Bereaniam |
||||||
2 | Commentator wrong about Luke, Theophilus | Luke | Wild Olive Shoot | 169975 | ||
Repost of #156275 The Gospel according to Luke exhibits several differences from the other Synoptic Gospels. For instance, Luke is the only Gospel to have a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles. These two books are often referred to as a single unit called Luke-Acts. The name Luke is only mentioned three times in the New Testament. From these three occurrences, it is evident that Luke was a physician (Col 4:14) and a companion of Paul (2 Tim 4:11; Philem 1:24). It is more than likely that Luke was a Gentile, but he was not necessarily a Greek. It also seems as if Luke had some degree of association with Judaism because of his knowledge of the Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Not only did Luke compose the longest Gospel, but he also wrote more than any other New Testament writer. This is remarkable considering the amount of attention he gets in comparison to John and Paul. Both the purpose of the Gospel and its audience can be found in the prologue (1:1-4). Luke first mentions that many others before him have made an account of the things that have been fulfilled as they were handed down from the first generation. He also says that he cautiously examined everything from the beginning and this led him to write an organized account to Theophilus so that he might know the certainty of what he has been taught. It is obvious that Luke wrote to Theophilus, but who was Theophilus? There have been many theories trying to answer this question. First of all, the name Theophilus means, "lover of God," or "friend of God." It is unclear whether he was already a Christian, or if he was considering becoming one. Luke (1:3) refers to Theophilus using the words "most excellent" (kratistoV). Since this seems to refer to nobility, most of the theories on Theophilus state that he was either a government official or an influential citizen. A widely accepted theory is that Theophilus was Luke's patron and helped him to publish Luke-Acts. Luke's purpose in writing the Gospel has also suffered debate. Some suggest that Luke set out to make a case for Christianity as not being a threat to the Roman Empire. Others make the proposition that Luke-Acts was written to reassure those questioning Jesus' second coming because of its delay. Many believe that Luke was not writing to Theophilus exclusively, but that the two-volume work was intended to be distributed for ecclesiastical purposes. There is also the view, which seems to be growing in popularity, that Luke-Acts was specifically designed to aid Paul in his trial before Caesar. "The Gospel According to Luke," New Testament Introductions. The Blue Letter Bible. 1 Apr 2002. 20 Aug 2005. See the full article at: http://blueletterbible.org/study/intros/luke.html WOS |
||||||
3 | Commentator wrong about Luke, Theophilus | Luke | Bereaniam | 169983 | ||
Wow! WOS, I knew I would get some feedback...but your note greatly exceeds my expectations. It certainly "opens my eyes of understanding" beyond what I could ask or think. Not only was I impressed by the content of your note, but also your literary style of writing, and careful attention to details. Thanks also for the website for further study. Bereaniam |
||||||
4 | Commentator wrong about Luke, Theophilus | Luke | Wild Olive Shoot | 169991 | ||
Bereaniam, I copied all of that info from the article referenced in an original post, just re-posted it. They aren't my words or thoughts. WOS |
||||||