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,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 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,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


TRIBO:

when i started to read Luke today i noticed the above - as you can see in verse 2 - this [supposed author]states that he himself is not an eye witness to the accounts he goes on to tell of in the book. secondly, he holds this ""Theophilus"" in very high reguard >>most excellent<<

now according to what i've read on the background of this book even the theologians disagree on its time of writing, so i investigated to find out that this ""most excellent Theophilus"" lived in the 3-4th centuries see catholic encyclopedia for this or i'll post it here if needed.

so why is this been determined to be canonical as to other books when it's clear that it was written well after the facts spoken of? the above also shows no sign of the writer being or telling the reader of his divine inspiration for writing this - it sounds like it was written for the soul purpose of telling this story to the person Theophilus only.??

thats a very good question.im no theologen.gos i cant even spell half the time but niether could st.peter but i know a phd in theology.its not that he knows all the right answers but i will get in take on the subject.

Well Mark, it really don't make any difference - as i have gone on and looked at all the authors and few have written there names in the books so even the earliest theologians can not agree as to who is really who for the most part.The more i look into all these things the more discouraged i get, maybe Jeanniebean is right maybe it was a plot to rule or govern the people back then and nothing more. At this point it makes little difference to me one way or the other.

It's a matter of faith as to someone believing the book or not, but it's also ashame those who do not look into it's beginnings in an intricate way, so they know what is written is what was actually said - but that is where faith enters into the picture - huh?

blessings of shalom.

Well - since Luke was a contemporary of Paul, that would mean that the scholarly interpretation of Luke having written his gospel in the 3rd or 4th century, maked him about 300 to 4oo years old. since it was appointed that men live only about 3 score and 10 at this time, I would question these scholars.