Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 That thou mayest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed.
I'm sorry I don't get the hint where Luke says he is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I unsterdand that it seemed good to him to you write those things to Theophilus (not me, not you, not all of us 2000 years later but Theophilus!) But if anywhere else Luke explicitly says that he is writing under divine inspiration, please, point it out!
Inspiration from the Holy Spirit does not rule out human effort. All of Lukes research was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which insured perfect accuracy in Luke's gospel.
Each gospel emphasized a different aspect of Jesus. Matthew presents Christ as king. Mark presents Christ as a servant. Luke presents Christ as the Son of Man. John presents Christ as the Son of God.
As is true of each gospel, Lukes gospel contains information not found in the other gospels. For instance, Luke's gospel is the only one which contains the geneology of Jesus through David's son Nathan. This presents the legal line of descent from David and ending with Joseph, Mary's husband. He was the legal father of the humanity of Jesus, but not the blood father. Therefore, Luke's gospel shows the legal line of descent of Jesus from David. On the other hand, Matthew's gospel presents the blood line of descent of Jesus from David. Matthew's gospel shows Jesus blood line of descent because it goes through Davids other son Solomon from which Mary was descended. So between Matthew's and Luke's gospels, we get the complete picture of Jesus' blood and legal line of descent from David.
I bring this up to show how between the different gospels we get a more complete picture of Jesus than we can from any one gospel alone. Luke investigated this and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he included it in his gospel where it is recorded for all time for all to see.
But it is the book of Acts from which the quote I gave comes. Here it is again.
Acts 9:13 'But Ananias answered, ''Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14] and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.''
15] But the Lord said to him, ''Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16] For I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake.''
Here once again is Peter's endorsement of Paul.
2 Peter 3:14 'Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless 15] and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Do you understand that Peter in the passage above gave Paul's letters the same authority as the Old Testament Scriptures?
Now, if you choose not to believe Luke's account in Acts concerning God's conversation with Ananias about Paul being His chosen instrument, and if you don't believe what Peter said concerning Paul, that is your choice.
I've spent enough time on this. I advise you to do some serious research on these things and not attempt to come to any conclusions apart from having done serious research.
Inspiration from the Holy Spirit does not rule out human effort. All of Lukes research was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which insured perfect accuracy in Luke's gospel.
Each gospel emphasized a different aspect of Jesus. Matthew presents Christ as king. Mark presents Christ as a servant. Luke presents Christ as the Son of Man. John presents Christ as the Son of God.
As is true of each gospel, Lukes gospel contains information not found in the other gospels. For instance, Luke's gospel is the only one which contains the geneology of Jesus through David's son Nathan. This presents the legal line of descent from David and ending with Joseph, Mary's husband. He was the legal father of the humanity of Jesus, but not the blood father. Therefore, Luke's gospel shows the legal line of descent of Jesus from David. On the other hand, Matthew's gospel presents the blood line of descent of Jesus from David. Matthew's gospel shows Jesus blood line of descent because it goes through Davids other son Solomon from which Mary was descended. So between Matthew's and Luke's gospels, we get the complete picture of Jesus' blood and legal line of descent from David.
I bring this up to show how between the different gospels we get a more complete picture of Jesus than we can from any one gospel alone. Luke investigated this and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he included it in his gospel where it is recorded for all time for all to see.
But it is the book of Acts from which the quote I gave comes. Here it is again.
Acts 9:13 'But Ananias answered, ''Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14] and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.''
15] But the Lord said to him, ''Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16] For I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake.''
Here once again is Peter's endorsement of Paul.
2 Peter 3:14 'Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless 15] and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Do you understand that Peter in the passage above gave Paul's letters the same authority as the Old Testament Scriptures?
Now, if you choose not to believe Luke's account in Acts concerning God's conversation with Ananias about Paul being His chosen instrument, and if you don't believe what Peter said concerning Paul, that is your choice.
I've spent enough time on this. I advise you to do some serious research on these things and not attempt to come to any conclusions apart from having done serious research.
[quote=Mike555;20086433]Now, if you choose not to believe Luke's account in Acts concerning God's conversation with Ananias about Paul being His chosen instrument, and if you don't believe what Peter said concerning Paul, that is your choice. quote]
Again I'll ask for your guidance, which of the three "inspired" accounts am I suppose to believe:
First one: Acts 9:3-17 resume
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him stood speechless because they heard the voicebut saw no one; three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank; Ananias a disciple after receiving the Lord in a vision and arguing with him goes to Saul (who in turns have a vision of a man named Ananias), laid his hands on Saul to restore his sight (scale fall off his eyes) and fill him with the Holy Spirit, arose, and was baptized.
Second one: Acts 22:6-21 resume
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice; No mention of three days without sight or food; Ananias, a devout man Came to Saul and gave back his sight but no holy spirit no baptize.
Third one: Acts 26:12-18 resume Everyone fell to the ground; the voice spoke in Hebrew; No three days without sight or food, no blindness, no Ananias, no baptism, no restoration of sight, no filled by Holy Spirit just a straight up direct appointment by Jesus!
Please, take your time to read it and tell me which one of those stories I should pick since they sound quite different to me. Remember they were all written by the SAME writer in a short booklet, does that really seem "inspired" to you?
Now, if you choose not to believe Luke's account in Acts concerning God's conversation with Ananias about Paul being His chosen instrument, and if you don't believe what Peter said concerning Paul, that is your choice. quote]
Again I'll ask for your guidance, which of the three "inspired" accounts am I suppose to believe:
First one: Acts 9:3-17 resume
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him stood speechless because they heard the voicebut saw no one; three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank; Ananias a disciple after receiving the Lord in a vision and arguing with him goes to Saul (who in turns have a vision of a man named Ananias), laid his hands on Saul to restore his sight (scale fall off his eyes) and fill him with the Holy Spirit, arose, and was baptized.
Second one: Acts 22:6-21 resume
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice; No mention of three days without sight or food; Ananias, a devout man Came to Saul and gave back his sight but no holy spirit no baptize.
Third one: Acts 26:12-18 resume Everyone fell to the ground; the voice spoke in Hebrew; No three days without sight or food, no blindness, no Ananias, no baptism, no restoration of sight, no filled by Holy Spirit just a straight up direct appointment by Jesus!
Please, take your time to read it and tell me which one of those stories I should pick since they sound quite different to me. Remember they were all written by the SAME writer in a short booklet, does that really seem "inspired" to you?
Believe them all, for there are no contradictions in the passages. Did you think to do any research on these passages? I direct you to some commentary on it at this site --> Acts 9:7 Bible Commentary You can check out any of the verses by simply choosing the verse from the selection window at the upper left hand side of the screen. You can view the commentary, see parallel translations, see the Greek and the meaning of the words, etc...
With regard to Acts 22:9, the Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, page 376, says the following...
'An apparent discrepancy stands between verse 7 and 22:9. In 9:7 Luke recorded that the men who traveled with Saul ... heard the sound (phōnēs), but in 22:9 Luke wrote that ''they did not understand the voice'' (phōnēn). Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, ''They did not hear the sound.'' The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb ''to hear'' with the genitive case may mean 'to hear a sound'' and with the accusative case ''to hear with understanding.'' The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9).'
In like manner, everyone saw the light, but only Paul saw the resurrected Christ within the light.
As for Acts 9:7 'the men stood speechless', and Acts 26:14 'And when we had all fallen to the ground', it is probable that everyone fell to the ground at first, and then the men with Paul stood up, seeing the light, but not Christ, hearing a noise, but not a distinquishable voice.
And as for details such as beng three days without sight or food, why would you expect that all the details of Paul's experience must be recounted in all three passages? In each of the accounts, Paul simply related what he felt needed to be said.
Whenever there seem to be contradictions, simply research the passages in question. I recommend getting a good study Bible, and a good commentary such as the one I mentioned in this post.
Again I'll ask for your guidance, which of the three "inspired" accounts am I suppose to believe:
First one: Acts 9:3-17
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him stood speechless because they heard the voicebut saw no one; three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank; Ananias a disciple after receiving the Lord in a vision and arguing with him goes to Saul (who in turns have a vision of a man named Ananias), laid his hands on Saul to restore his sight (scale fall off his eyes) and fill him with the Holy Spirit, arose, and was baptized.
AISI
In this passage, Luke is giving an actual account of what transpired on the road to Damascus.
Quote:
Second one: Acts 22:6-21
Quote:
Saul fell to the ground; Those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice; No mention of three days without sight or food; Ananias, a devout man Came to Saul and gave back his sight but no holy spirit no baptize.
Here...Luke is giving an unbiased account of how "Paul related his experience" to the "Hebrew" speaking crowd while claiming to be a Hebrew himself.
Quote:
Third one: Acts 26:12-18 resume
Quote:
Everyone fell to the ground; the voice spoke in Hebrew; No three days without sight or food, no blindness, no Ananias, no baptism, no restoration of sight, no filled by Holy Spirit just a straight up direct appointment by Jesus!
Ditto: Paul's account of his experience to Agrippa, adding that...he too, lived as a Pharisee.
Quote:
Please, take your time to read it and tell me which one of those stories I should pick since they sound quite different to me. Remember they were all written by the SAME writer in a short booklet, does that really seem "inspired" to you?
Luke's overall account did not vary at all...he was just recording everything that transpired...how it happened, and how Paul had subsequently embellished the story.
Because of the seeming discrepancy in the three accounts...I had to read it in the same manner as I would read a detective story.
Why would "The Christ" change his mind and appoint someone else (not among the disciples) after Matthew 16:17-19 and commanding Peter to feed his sheep? John 21:15-17
Lastly...the main prerequisite of becoming an apostle (teacher) is that, he has to be one of the 120 disciples (students under the tutelage of Jesus. Acts 1:15) Acts 1:21-22.
2 Samuel 24:13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come upon thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thy enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? Now consider, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
1 Chronicles 21:11 So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
21:12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while the sword of thy enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
Ok, to not enter into translation games, what about these simple 2 verses which report the exact same story, except that one says 3 years of famine and the other says 7.
Last edited by Love Is God; 07-20-2011 at 10:05 PM..
AISI
In this passage, Luke is giving an actual account of what transpired on the road to Damascus.
Here...Luke is giving an unbiased account of how "Paul related his experience" to the "Hebrew" speaking crowd while claiming to be a Hebrew himself.
Ditto: Paul's account of his experience to Agrippa, adding that...he too, lived as a Pharisee.
Luke's overall account did not vary at all...he was just recording everything that transpired...how it happened, and how Paul had subsequently embellished the story.
Because of the seeming discrepancy in the three accounts...I had to read it in the same manner as I would read a detective story.
Why would "The Christ" change his mind and appoint someone else (not among the disciples) after Matthew 16:17-19 and commanding Peter to feed his sheep? John 21:15-17
Lastly...the main prerequisite of becoming an apostle (teacher) is that, he has to be one of the 120 disciples (students under the tutelage of Jesus. Acts 1:15) Acts 1:21-22.
First, let me applaud the subtlety of your approach which I find commendable instead of playing on translation. It does make a little more sense that way. Nevertheless, I fail to understand your last 2 points, which seems to endorse the fact that Paul wasn't a real apostle. Because in fact "Why would "The Christ" change his mind and appoint someone else"? He had already sent a vision in a dream to Peter to go to the gentiles so that was not the special "Paul field" for which he was “needed”. And having enough good disciple who had faith in Christ and had known him, why take Paul, a total stranger, an evil man by his own account, and force him into becoming an apostle (because seriously if a light spirit comes to you, blinds you and ask you why you persecute him and tells you to stop and follow him, I guess few people would have a different reaction of Paul, regardless of being good just because they’re scared to death!)
First, let me applaud the subtlety of your approach which I find commendable instead of playing on translation. It does make a little more sense that way. Nevertheless, I fail to understand your last 2 points, which seems to endorse the fact that Paul wasn't a real apostle. Because in fact "Why would "The Christ" change his mind and appoint someone else"? He had already sent a vision in a dream to Peter to go to the gentiles so that was not the special "Paul field" for which he was “needed”. And having enough good disciple who had faith in Christ and had known him, why take Paul, a total stranger, an evil man by his own account, and force him into becoming an apostle (because seriously if a light spirit comes to you, blinds you and ask you why you persecute him and tells you to stop and follow him, I guess few people would have a different reaction of Paul, regardless of being good just because they’re scared to death!)
There are spiritual questions that I am diligently seeking an answer to...as of yet, I only have a humble opinion...
This whole question arose just two days ago and I never had any questions about the aspostleship of
Paul (took it for granted). I had studied his I believe 4 mission trips with Phillip,Luke and others but
the question did arise after knowing he wasn't one of the original disciples (defined as students originally then advancing to apostleship the later title to those Jesus SENT). We know Paul was a ruthless
quasi-bounty hunter of Jesus followers, but on the road to Damascus was blinded by a light and Jesus
spoke to him post resurrection. Jesus questioned his modivation in persecuting His people etc . Ananias
a disciple received the lords instructions once Paul was helped to Ananias's house . "Go for he is a CHOOSEN instrument of mine (Jesus) to carry out my name before the Gentiles ,kings and sons of Israel.
1 Paul was baptized (I believe in the name of Jesus Christ)
2 He was SENT by Jesus via instructions to a disciple Ananias SENT equates to Apostleship!!!!
3.Paul accepted Jesus (believed) and was filled with the Holy Spirit
4 Was referred to as other apostles as their beloved brother (accepted into the
5.Little is known about Mathias (replacement for Judas) and many believe Paul was the final apostle
6 The disciples became apostles in Matt 28:19 (great commission) (go out.......SENT key word)
7 Paul Phillip and Luke went to Antioc and many Med. cities in 4 mission trips bring Jesus Name to
all that would hear and baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38
note evangelicals and christian religions have apparently misinterpreted the Great Commission of Matt
28:19. Why? Because the knuckleheads followed "religion" and never got it that Jesus was referring
to HIS NAME ! Go out allof you baptizing HOW? IN THE NAME of the Father Son and Holy Spirit not
the tiles as they are all his anyway ...duh.
Das THanks to the author of this vital question God Bless you!!!!
Last edited by DASULAR17; 07-22-2011 at 01:39 AM..
Reason: formating
There are many accounts written many decades after the supposed events i.e., the gospels....the question is there were well known historians who were contemporaries of jesus living the same time he supposedly walked the earth and yet they never mention him at all...not one little peep about him. Jesus who drew the masses and multitudes to himself and was the most popular trouble maker of his time and yet....not one mention of him. Why do you suppose that is?
The Jews mention him...So, does Josephus...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
