Luke and Acts are not inspired

[Aaron11]

I have found reason to believe that Luke and Acts are not inspired texts.

-They never claim inspiration.
-They claim other sources than inspiration (eyewitness accounts and investigation by Luke)

Pretty straightforward.

I also have found no reason to believe that they are inspired texts.

 

[Ioustinos]

I have found reason to believe that Luke and Acts are not inspired texts.

-They never claim inspiration.
-They claim other sources than inspiration (eyewitness accounts and investigation by Luke)

Pretty straightforward.

I also have found no reason to believe that they are inspired texts.

The Church disagree's. I do not mean to be rude but there were men and women before our time who we more knowledgable than us both who disagree with your ascertion.

 

[Aaron11]

Who? What did they say?

 

[Aaron11]

Also, if they had good reason to believe that Luke and Acts were inspired, I would like to know what it was.

I think it would be obvious error to just believe things that have been traditional just because they are the traditional view on the issue.

 

[filosofer]

I have found reason to believe that Luke and Acts are not inspired texts.

-They never claim inspiration.
-They claim other sources than inspiration (eyewitness accounts and investigation by Luke)

Neither of these criteria have been used as the basis for determining inspiration. For instance, the writers of Kings and Chronicles used court records and other writings as the basis for their writings, which were regarded as inspired by later Jews of the OT era. They are included in Paul's statement that "all Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim. 3:16).

Also, none of the other NT writers claim inspired in their own writings.

 

[Ioustinos]

Who? What did they say?

In the year 397 at the Council of Carthage the books that now comprise Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, were prescribed as the limit of the canon.

As for the idea of not following tradition, I must ask why do you even read the Bible at all? How do you know any of it is inspired? As Filosofer said, the criteria that you use to try and "disprove" the inspiration of the books of Acts and Luke would also "disprove" the inspiration of many books in our Protestant Bible. Therefore it would seem prudent to study the history of the canon of Scripture and the criteria used to judge inspiration before making hasty assertions.

Again I must say I am aghast that one would whimsically pick or choose what books of the Bible are inspired or not, based upon a faulty criteria.

 

[BWSmith]

Define "inspired".

 

[Aaron11]

As for the idea of not following tradition, I must ask why do you even read the Bible at all? How do you know any of it is inspired? As Filosofer said, the criteria that you use to try and "disprove" the inspiration of the books of Acts and Luke would also "disprove" the inspiration of many books in our Protestant Bible. Therefore it would seem prudent to study the history of the canon of Scripture and the criteria used to judge inspiration before making hasty assertions.

Tell me why Luke and Acts would be considered inspired then.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I have found reason to believe that Luke and Acts are not inspired texts.

-They never claim inspiration.
-They claim other sources than inspiration (eyewitness accounts and investigation by Luke)

Pretty straightforward.

I also have found no reason to believe that they are inspired texts.

I am curious if you toss Luke/Acts then tell us what you consider canon and why? It is clear that none of the Gospels written by eyewitnesses.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Allen2]

Hi Mr. Mod-Baptist(I are a Baptist as well): When Paul is describing the training Timothy received in the OT as a youth ("holy Scriptures"), he states, "All Scripture is inspired by God..."(2Tim.3:16). The word in the original is lit. "God breathed", conveying the notion that the Scriptures come to us through God's creative power. I realize there are other issues, eg. inerrancy,etc., but just as a basic we should regard the Scriptures as Divine in origin and work from there. Whaddayou think, Al

 

[Philip]

-They never claim inspiration.

Neither do many of the books in the Old Testament. Does Esther claim to be inspired? No. Yet, we still count it as Scripture. Paul even denies inspiration of some of his writings. Yet, we still count them as Scripture.

Further, many non-inspired books claim to be inspired. The Koran and the Book of Mormon claim to be inspired. Yet, I don't consider them Scripture.

Historically, claims of inspiration have never been relevent in the recognition of Scripture.

-They claim other sources than inspiration (eyewitness accounts and investigation by Luke)

Do you consider it beyond God's power to guide Luke's investigation? What about the Old Testament? Do you believe that the authors of all of those books were first hand witnesses to the events recorded?

I also have found no reason to believe that they are inspired texts.

Do you consider the rest of the Bible inspired? If so, could you give me a run-down of why you believe each of the other books are inspired?

 

[Aaron11]

I am curious if you toss Luke/Acts then tell us what you consider canon and why? It is clear that none of the Gospels written by eyewitnesses.
Jeff the Finn

I didn't say I would toss anything. I believe them to be accurate accounts. My question was "Why are they considered inspired?". The only semi-answer given so far is that people in the 4th century thought they were worthy to be in the Bible. Is that it?

 

[Philip]

I didn't say I would toss anything. I believe them to be accurate accounts. My question was "Why are they considered inspired?". The only semi-answer given so far is that people in the 4th century thought they were worthy to be in the Bible. Is that it?

Gospel accourding to St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles have been counted as Scripture throughout all of Christian history. Luke's close association with the Apostle Paul is a primary reason for its acceptance. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit has confirmed that Luke's writings are inspired. As early as AD 95, St Clement of Rome treated Luke as Scripture.

 

[Aaron11]

Gospel accourding to St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles have been counted as Scripture throughout all of Christian history. Luke's close association with the Apostle Paul is a primary reason for its acceptance. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit has confirmed that Luke's writings are inspired. As early as AD 95, St Clement of Rome treated Luke as Scripture.

So it was because of Luke's close association with Paul that was a primary reason that it was considered inspired? Weak.

I'd like to see a source for St Clement, but unless he talks about something that I don't already know (like if Luke told him that his writings were inspired), then I still won't understand how anyone can just take the scripture as written by God.

 

[Philip]

So it was because of Luke's close association with Paul that was a primary reason that it was considered inspired? Weak.

You are aware that an association with an Apostle is the is also the reason that the Gospel of Mark is considered inspired, aren't you? Do you object to it as well? It is fairly well accepted that the Epistles of St Peter were not written by Peter himself, but by someone under his authority. It is this Apostolic connection that leads us to accept the Epistles as Scripture.

I'd like to see a source for St Clement,

1 Clement, Chapter 13 (Compare this with Luke 6:36-38)
For thus He spoke: "Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you ; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you."


1 Clement, Chapter 24 (cf Luke 8:5)
The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.

St. Ignatius also quoted Luke in the beginning of the 2nd Century.

If I might ask, what are your criteria for the recognition of Scripture?

 

[Aaron11]

You are aware that an association with an Apostle is the is also the reason that the Gospel of Mark is considered inspired, aren't you? Do you object to it as well? It is fairly well accepted that the Epistles of St Peter were not written by Peter himself, but by someone under his authority. It is this Apostolic connection that leads us to accept the Epistles as Scripture.

Each writing should stand on its own since it was written as a single writing. If you assume that I assume that Mark is inspired, you are wrong. I am not saying it is not, I am just saying that arguing Luke and Acts' inspiration with the comparison with Mark will not do.

 

[Aaron11]

If I might ask, what are your criteria for the recognition of Scripture?

Scripture or inspired scripture?

 

[Philip]

Scripture or inspired scripture?

All Scripture is inspired.

 

[Philip]

Each writing should stand on its own since it was written as a single writing. If you assume that I assume that Mark is inspired, you are wrong.

Which books do you consider inspired? Why those books?

 

[Aaron11]

I consider Revelation inspired, because I believe John when he claimed it to be inspired.