Bible Question:
Nolan - Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that this is an answer I'm comfortable with, unfortunately. I understand and accept the inspiration of scripture, but I think what you're proposing is something different - something I've never heard before. The idea that parts of the Gospels are not only inspired, but actually the result of personal revelation in some part is pretty alarming to me. That means, if I understand you correctly, that the authors of the Gospel wrote down as actual events things that they had no direct or indirect knowledge of, on the basis of direct personal revelation. That seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about the Gospels, and even seems contrary to the Gospels themselves - they seem (to me) to be written as "history" - "This is what happened - I was there and saw it or know someone who did". Help me out here - that's way outside my sphere of comfort. |
Bible Answer: Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, Luke 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, Luke 1:3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; Luke 1:4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Hi, Jim, Why do you "find it hard to believe Jesus would relate the events Himself?" I don't understand the second half of your sentence: "and after His arrest, there simply wasn't time even if He'd wanted to." There were others around during his trial that could have been a source for Luke and the other evangelists. |