Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?
- Thread starter Churinga
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I want to thank you for taking the time to answer this personally.
Basically, all arguments for Luke being a gentile center around Col 4 with Luke's omission in Paul's list of Jewish missionaries. Being mentioned separately later on in verse 14, and identified as a physician. Assumingly a Greek profession, and name assumingly identifying him as a Greek.
Then we have the assumption that Luke was a second generation apostle, not having witnessed nor been apart of Jesus earthly ministry.
Name=greek/gentile
profession=greek/gentile
Paul did not identify him along side his other Jewish servants
Luke did not participate in Jesus earthly ministry/second-gen for the gentiles
First I'd like to point out those servants who Paul did identify as part of 'the circumcision' had gentile names (Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus), and Paul is also a Greek name. So the fact that Luke's name is Greek does not ipso facto mean he was a gentile.
Second, Messiah referred to physicians in Israel on several occasions. So it's not like being a physician excluded him from being a Jew.
In Col 4 Paul identifies his fellow workers in his ministry and leaves out Luke, mentioning him later in the chapter as his physician. So what? Luke was never a part of Paul's ministry but his physician and the one who wrote down his account. He as Dr. and Media. Not one of those selected by the Spirit to accompany Paul 'in' his work, but followed along with him recording it. To say he was not a Jew because of Col 4 is a weak argument.
Basically, all arguments for Luke being a gentile center around Col 4 with Luke's omission in Paul's list of Jewish missionaries. Being mentioned separately later on in verse 14, and identified as a physician. Assumingly a Greek profession, and name assumingly identifying him as a Greek.
Then we have the assumption that Luke was a second generation apostle, not having witnessed nor been apart of Jesus earthly ministry.
Name=greek/gentile
profession=greek/gentile
Paul did not identify him along side his other Jewish servants
Luke did not participate in Jesus earthly ministry/second-gen for the gentiles
First I'd like to point out those servants who Paul did identify as part of 'the circumcision' had gentile names (Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus), and Paul is also a Greek name. So the fact that Luke's name is Greek does not ipso facto mean he was a gentile.
Second, Messiah referred to physicians in Israel on several occasions. So it's not like being a physician excluded him from being a Jew.
In Col 4 Paul identifies his fellow workers in his ministry and leaves out Luke, mentioning him later in the chapter as his physician. So what? Luke was never a part of Paul's ministry but his physician and the one who wrote down his account. He as Dr. and Media. Not one of those selected by the Spirit to accompany Paul 'in' his work, but followed along with him recording it. To say he was not a Jew because of Col 4 is a weak argument.
W
So how about this for a win win solution. All Scripture is written FOR us, but not all scripture is ABOUT us, or written TO us. 
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
I agree.
-
1
- Show all
This last one really makes me scratch my head. Luke was never mentioned prior to Jesus resurrection and was not eyewitness to the ministry of the other three Jewish gospels. This misses the obvious while attempting the sublime. It misses the point that Paul also fits that description of not being a believer before the resurrection. If Luke is disqualified for not being like the other gospel writers then so is Paul.
But to further this it's said that Paul preached a different gospel than Matt, Mark, John. Separating them to the Jews and Paul and Luke to the Gentiles. This argument is birthed in replacement theology. There is no separation, there is no replacement. There are not two gospels. All the apostles preached one gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
Finally, I'd like to point out the temple fiasco with Paul. He was accused of bringing gentiles into the temple. and Luke recorded it as an eyewitness. Scripture identifies that the crowed pointed out Trophimus the Ephesian. Why didn't they point out Luke as well? He was with Paul all along. But he was never mentioned as being a gentile, then. One would think that would be the time to point that out.
Luke is said to be from Antioch, and so is not a Jew. Have you ever studied Hellenized Jews of Jesus day? The main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria, Egypt, and ...wait for it... Antioch.
But to further this it's said that Paul preached a different gospel than Matt, Mark, John. Separating them to the Jews and Paul and Luke to the Gentiles. This argument is birthed in replacement theology. There is no separation, there is no replacement. There are not two gospels. All the apostles preached one gospel. But that is a topic for another time.
Finally, I'd like to point out the temple fiasco with Paul. He was accused of bringing gentiles into the temple. and Luke recorded it as an eyewitness. Scripture identifies that the crowed pointed out Trophimus the Ephesian. Why didn't they point out Luke as well? He was with Paul all along. But he was never mentioned as being a gentile, then. One would think that would be the time to point that out.
Luke is said to be from Antioch, and so is not a Jew. Have you ever studied Hellenized Jews of Jesus day? The main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria, Egypt, and ...wait for it... Antioch.
Correct, as a Hellenized Jew he was circumcised as a Jew and the crowd in Acts 21 never had need to identify him any different.
The context of Col 4 does not prove that he wasn't a Jew, that position only begs the question. Luke was not listed by Paul as one of his fellow Jewish ministers. It was not Luke's calling. He was never identified as a person who did works pertaining to any ministry. He participated apart from that role. He was not healing, he was not preaching, he was not called by the Spirit to work along side Paul. ALL that does not negate his Jewishness. Would it be appropriate to list him as part of his ministry when he wasn't?
The context of Col 4 does not prove that he wasn't a Jew, that position only begs the question. Luke was not listed by Paul as one of his fellow Jewish ministers. It was not Luke's calling. He was never identified as a person who did works pertaining to any ministry. He participated apart from that role. He was not healing, he was not preaching, he was not called by the Spirit to work along side Paul. ALL that does not negate his Jewishness. Would it be appropriate to list him as part of his ministry when he wasn't?
I believe the narrative needs to be changed. It's not a matter of if those OT saints were saved or not. It's a matter of if those OT saints were spared from God's wrath in hell until He paid the price of redemption.
What do you mean by being saved? I don't think asleep in Abraham's bosom is eternal salvation. That's not heaven. If they were eternally saved, they would have been present with the Lord upon death. If their sins were washed away, if they were born again, if they were redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, if they were made new creatures in Christ, then there would be no need for Abraham's bosom.
What do you mean by being saved? I don't think asleep in Abraham's bosom is eternal salvation. That's not heaven. If they were eternally saved, they would have been present with the Lord upon death. If their sins were washed away, if they were born again, if they were redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, if they were made new creatures in Christ, then there would be no need for Abraham's bosom.
I don't push OT salvation period. I refuse to believe those OT saints were saved at all like you and I after the cross. Were they kept safe from wrath? Yep. If they were saved by the penalty of sin upon death, their sins would have not remained and they would have been present with the Lord.
Those OT saints under the law, how were their sins forgiven?
So how about this for a win win solution. All Scripture is written FOR us, but not all scripture is ABOUT us, or written TO us.
16 [i]For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness,
17 That the [j]man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works
Here paul invokes works ,the bible as fully inspired,and the ot as a guide for salvation.
Do the paulines see any conflict in this? lol
Concept vs concept can get a little dicey.
But lively debate airs out misconception.
Going personal usually means those invoking it are checkmated.
But most all forums need mods to police heretics and personal attacks etc.
Christians sites are made up of humans. We are all flawed.
Iron sharpens iron. I learn a lot by the challengers here. Usually anything i put out there i have either personally learned and proven from the bible,or have checked it out.
I have a bit of advantage over pauline adherants in that there are no books in the bible personally deported.
I accept Gods word as Gods word.
That gives me a superior starting place lol.
But lively debate airs out misconception.
Going personal usually means those invoking it are checkmated.
But most all forums need mods to police heretics and personal attacks etc.
Christians sites are made up of humans. We are all flawed.
Iron sharpens iron. I learn a lot by the challengers here. Usually anything i put out there i have either personally learned and proven from the bible,or have checked it out.
I have a bit of advantage over pauline adherants in that there are no books in the bible personally deported.
I accept Gods word as Gods word.
That gives me a superior starting place lol.