the apostles

May 5, 2007
8,706
9
38
uk
the apostles

which wrote fist hand info,and which wrote 2nd hand info.?why is luke in the bible?if it was worth saying the original writters would write the info.:)
 
Jan 24, 2007
924
0
16
45
Oregon
Forgive my naivity (is that even a word?). :eek: But was Luke an apostle? His gospel wasn't an actual first hand account was it?
 

violet

Inactive
May 13, 2007
8,149
1
38
59
England
just1lily.blogspot.com
da man
No, Luke was a physician and didn't walk with Christ in person.
Sorry for the confusion, SC~
If I'm not mistaken, most of The NT is written by Luke, in content, that is, between The books of Luke and Acts.

 
Jan 24, 2007
924
0
16
45
Oregon
Don't hold me to it, but I thought I read somewhere that Luke and Acts comprise around 28% of the NT. I think Paul has more books in the NT but the actual content may not be as much since many of his are short letters.
 

violet

Inactive
May 13, 2007
8,149
1
38
59
England
just1lily.blogspot.com
Don't hold me to it, but I thought I read somewhere that Luke and Acts comprise around 28% of the NT. I think Paul has more books in the NT but the actual content may not be as much since many of his are short letters.
I think you are right!!!
I didn't mean that Luke wrote most of the NT...

I think maybe as a single author he wrote the most?
Am I making sense?
Or did Paul?
 
May 5, 2007
8,706
9
38
uk
so back to my original question,if it was important john would have wrote it,so why is luke in the new testament.?also what scriptual truths did he bring.?past and present.?also how long after Jesus did he write this?:)
 
Jun 22, 2007
1,192
6
38
Salem, MA
Not to get off topic of Thread, but we all know that Paul was not one of the original "Twelve Apostles." With that said I will just add a little.
Luke written by Luke (around 60AD) Luke tells us in the first four verses of his book that he wrote this Gospel so we would have the true story of Jesus' life.
 
Jan 24, 2007
924
0
16
45
Oregon
if it was important john would have wrote it,
Under this thought process, John should be the only book in the Bible. I think you are wrong to question if the book of Luke is supposed to be in the Bible. The WHOLE Bible is the inspired word of God. Not just bits and pieces.
 
Sep 5, 2007
3,219
4
38
Central Oregon
Those who know the Lord can't contain it...yipppeeeee! Touched by the holy spirit, they have to sing it, dance it, write it, shout it, dream it, sleep it, rest in it, pray with it, eat it, drink it, share it.
 

Sylvanus

Inactive
Jan 17, 2007
590
0
16
49
England
www.sylvanusbible.com
Luke was added to canon, not because he himself was a first eye witness, but because he completed some pieces of the jigsaw by recording accounts passed on by first eye witnesses. His very first words were:

Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 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, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Inspired:
In-Spirited.
 
B

Boanerges(Inactive)

Guest
Hey Mike:
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
 
May 5, 2007
8,706
9
38
uk
we are on about scripture,bringing truth from old and new.7 books were kicked out,question is why.?who decided this?why is luke in and 7 books out.?who decided this and what reasons did they use?
 
May 5, 2007
8,706
9
38
uk
well i would hope he gives me some truth from one of you on this subject.many talk to God on here ,so any sort of answer would be good.:confused: