Luke and Acts are not inspired

[Aaron11]

All Scripture is inspired.

Rethink.

 

[Philip]

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

On what basis do you evaluate John's claim?

Is every book that claims to be inspired actually inspired? Is every book that lacks such a claim uninspired?

 

[Aaron11]

My question is why do YOU think luke and acts are inspired.

If the only reason is because some early Christians thought so, then just say that's the only reason why.

 

[Aaron11]

On what basis do you evaluate John's claim?

Is every book that claims to be inspired actually inspired? Is every book that lacks such a claim uninspired?

Are you disputing the validity of John's claims? I have a feeling that you consider them to be true. Just a hunch.

 

[Philip]

Are you disputing the validity of John's claims?

I am not disputing it. Rather, I am asking why do you accept it?

 

[Philip]

My question is why do YOU think luke and acts are inspired.

I accept it because the Church accepts it.

If the only reason is because some early Christians thought so, then just say that's the only reason why.

some?

 

[Aaron11]

I accept it because the Church accepts it.

I don't simply accept everything the Church would accept or has accepted.

 

[Spotty]

I don't simply accept everything the Church would accept or has accepted.

According to Paul, "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Now, accordingly, you seem to believe that "inspired books" are possible. Which would beg the question - inspired by whom? God, of course.

Now, if the above verse is inspired, then it can be interpreted two ways:

1.) The typical Catholic method would be following the decrees of the Magesterium which transfers to the priests and laymen combined with the support of all believers in an article of faith.

2.) The typical Protestant method would be God leading all of his believers on earth to an overall understanding of Scripture and divine revelation and to support such a stance.


Either way, you are inevitably compelled to believe and accept that Acts and Luke are inspired as both bodies of Christianity. So...you could do like Jerome did when he disagreed that the "Apocrypha" is canonical, and he submitted instead, to the authority of the Church (harkening back to the above verse).

So my point basically is, that regardless of what kind of Christian you call yourself, if you accept 1 Timothy as inspired - interpret that verse either way, and you inevitably come to the conclusion that all Christians before have come to.

Hope that helps.

-Spotty

 

[Aaron11]

Hmmm. It says "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household".

This is what I get out of that portion of the verse:

If Paul is delayed, then Timothy will know how the Church should conduct themselves.

Paul calls the Church the "the pillar and foundation of the truth". Please explain exactly what he meant there, if you would.

 

[Aaron11]

BTW, I am not decided on whether Timothy or other letters of Paul were dictated by God.

 

[Spotty]

Hmmm. It says "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household".

This is what I get out of that portion of the verse:

If Paul is delayed, then Timothy will know how the Church should conduct themselves.

True, but it says more than that if you keep reading...hence, the reason Paul wrote such a dramatic and punctuated line in Scripture.


Paul calls the Church the "the pillar and foundation of the truth". Please explain exactly what he meant there, if you would.

I believe I did in the preceeding post when I mentioned it. Paul kind of said this out of the blue - a very dramatic statement to follow such a mundane expectation of hospitality. The pillar and foundation (or pillar and support, depending on translation) of Truth!? Wow, that's powerful, and powerful with a purpose.

The Church, depending on the only two ways I have yet seen presented to interpret that verse, is either God leading his believers as a whole throughout the ages (accepting the Gospels as known truth, for example), or an authority decreeing through councils (such as the Nicean councils, the Lateran councils, Lions, Rome, Carthage and Hippo for a brief example) the truths of God. That's what is meant by the above verse, and with either interpretation one is inevitably lead to the descision that Acts and Luke are infallible Scriptures.

-Spotty

 

[Spotty]

BTW, I am not decided on whether Timothy or other letters of Paul were dictated by God.

Then I would ask how you believe anything to be inspired from God?

Why do you accept the belief of Jesus Christ? Was it not the Gospels and the NT that handed down and elaborated on the theology and Love behind Him? If you do not accept the Gospels, then is Tradition as your basis of faith in Christ? Otherwise...how do you justify faith in Christ?

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit will "lead us into all truth?"

-Spotty

 

[Philip]

BTW, I am not decided on whether Timothy or other letters of Paul were dictated by God.

Why not? Paul claims to be inspired, just as John did. Why do you accept John's claim but question Paul's?

 

[Mr.Cheese]

The Koran and the Book of Mormon claim inspiration.
Maybe you need to go buy some copies of those.

 

[Aaron11]

Why not? Paul claims to be inspired, just as John did. Why do you accept John's claim but question Paul's?

Where does Paul claim inspiration?

 

[Aaron11]

BTW, I am not decided on whether Timothy or other letters of Paul were dictated by God.

Then I would ask how you believe anything to be inspired from God?

Why do you accept the belief of Jesus Christ? Was it not the Gospels and the NT that handed down and elaborated on the theology and Love behind Him? If you do not accept the Gospels, then is Tradition as your basis of faith in Christ? Otherwise...how do you justify faith in Christ?
-Spotty

You are little confused on what I am asking. I am not asking whether Luke and Acts are accurate. I believe them to be accurate. I do not see reason to think that they are inspired and I see reason to think that they aren't. This does not mean that I don't think they are an accurate record of Christ's life and the acts of the apostles.

Maybe we should clarify this argument a little more. I don't think that God dictated every word of the bible. I don't think that God told Luke what to write in some miraculous form.

Furthermore, I do not think that God dictated the words of Paul. I think that God manifested His spirit in Paul and I am confident that Paul had a great understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When I speak of "inspiration", I am speaking of a "God-worded text".

 

[Philo]

Hey, Ron.

Anyhow...

I think that the vast majority of people, when they use the term "inspired," do not mean God-teletyped. Well, at least, that has been my impression. What most people mean when they say "inspired" is aided by the HS, especially when it comes to guidance. Those who believe in the teletype method will invariably cite the old Timothy verse, thus trapping their argument in a useless tautological loop.

I for one think that when Luke talks about finding witnesses and making sure his facts were straight, he is telling the truth. Do I believe that the HS had a hand the writing of those books? Of course. Do I believe Luke wrote them in the dark with a pen in one hand and a stack of paper in front of him? No.

 

[Philip]

Where does Paul claim inspiration?

Try Galatians 1:12

 

[Philip]

When I speak of "inspiration", I am speaking of a "God-worded text".

Are you suggesting that the author was taken over or possessed by God when "inspired"?

 

[Spotty]

When I speak of "inspiration", I am speaking of a "God-worded text".

On what basis does "inspiration" necessitate a "God-worded text?" What is your basis for what inspiration means and why do you believe it must mean it was actually "God-worded."

-Spotty