Luke's Prophecies

Luke was a medical doctor, a missionary, and evangelist, a historian, a researcher, and the writer of the third Gospel. The book of Luke was written in a formal literacy introduction noting his purpose in writing, his methodology, and the attempts others had made in such writing. Luke is the author of the book and it was written in AD 60 in Caesarea. According to Hindson and Elmer Luke’s purpose is to give “an orderly sequence” of the events about Christ’s birth, life, and sacrificial death followed by his resurrection and ascension back to heaven. The occasion calling for Luke to write his Gospel was that Theophilus, and other new believers like him, needed a clear account of the life and ministry of Jesus as an aid to confirm his faith

The argument over the material that is comprised of the first five books of the Bible and that Moses was the author is speculated to be hypothetical. The data that led scholars to arrive at the Documentary Hypothesis points out that there is no evidentiary support or documentation to back up the information claimed in the first five books. The Documentary Hypothesis includes repetition, shows similarities, reflects inconsistences,

John Oswalt, in his book The Bible Among the Myths, presents his position to the reader that the bible is different and separate from other writings of the Ancient Near East. He asserts the Bible is both historically accurate and theologically sound. He makes the defense the Bible was divinely inspired and revealed to humanity and unique from other Ancient Near East literature. There was a time when the Bible, and the Israelite religion was different from its neighboring societies. But as times have changed, many people now lump the bible with other Ancient Near East myths.

37); the Bible is regarded as being inerrant, because it was created by God and God cannot lie and is incapable of lying. The authenticity of God’s word is stated several times throughout Scripture, and David proclaims that God’s word is error-free; to object the honesty of God’s word as being true is to challenge the claim of Christ (Cartwright & Hulshof, 2016, pp. 35-37).

Matthew and Luke each contain short but elaborate birth narratives concerning Jesus’. Within each of their narratives,both Matthew and Luke mention the genealogies of Jesus which when compared to each other are quite different. In Matthews gospel he traces Jesus’ ancestry back to that “of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1). While in Luke’s gospel, Jesus is traced back through David and Abraham to Adam and God. Now, even though both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are not the same, what is even more concerning is that neither is overly correct. In regards to Matthews take on Jesus’ genealogy, one can see that his “genealogy suggests — indeed, it almost demonstrates— that the entire course of Israel’s history has proceed according to divine providence” (116). However, historians today know about two thirds of

William C. Placher states a question about whether to believe the truth of the Bible in “Is the Bible True?” He, in this article, starts by asking a question whether the Bible is true. While reading the paper, readers know that Placher actually believes the Bible is true. However, not like other authors, he does not explain to readers which particular chapter or sentence in the Bible is true, but on the other hand, he looks from the genre, the culture and the language of the Bible. In this way, he helps readers to think the authenticity of the Bible in a different aspect.

Jewish tradition passed down the oral and written story of Messianic prophecies for generations. To provide the correlation between the anticipated Messiah and the fulfillment through Jesus, Matthew affirmed prophecies throughout the birth story with two significant fulfillments—Abraham’s promised seed [offspring] and the virgin birth.

I chose to read The Gospel of Luke for my project. It is said that The Gospel of Luke was written somewhere between 80 CE - 90 CE. The Gospel of Luke was written for Theophilus, who was called “Friend of God”. But The Gospel was also written for a wider audience, including converts and potential converts.

The question of the importance of historicity aside, there can be little harm done in pondering the accuracy of a work. The Hebrew Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh have come under close scrutiny

Second: to offer that the Bible is true is to say that we can faith in its content; we believe it to be guide to our faith. We would have to embrace the notion that there are specific assertions about Gods faithfulness and how we should live our lives and reciprocate. These contentions may appear somewhat intricate, but recognizing its intricacies is a way not of evading commitment to the Bible 's truth however of fully addressing to the complex ways in which the Bible is true. Let’s contemplate the rapport between truth and meaning: the truth of a testimonial or a book hinges on what it means. Countless biblical scholars have worked for eons to scrutinize and appraise the text of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament.

In this particular section, Oswalt begins by arguing that you cannot rationalize calling the Bible a myth until you have a clear definition of the word “myth.” He continues by pointing out how difficult it is to actually define what a “myth” is. Oswalt emphasizes that “Rogerson goes so far as to say that there are so many differences in opinion on the subject that no one definition is possible.”4 The definitions for the word “myth” can be divided into two distinct categories: historical-philosophical and the phenomenological, or descriptive. Regardless of the analysis of the word “myth” and its various meanings, Oswalt concludes that Bible is definitely not a myth in way, shape, form, or fashion. He writes, “Rather it is a rehearsal of the nonrepeatable acts of God in identifiable time and in concert with human beings. Its purpose is to provoke human choices and behavior through the medium of memory.”5

Many scholars claim the New Testament is not reliable for many reasons. Some claim that the Bible is not reliably transmitted because it's like the telephone game. Others say that the Bible has been copied so many times there is no way it's accurate. When examining documents like the Bible, we can find out it's reliability by asking some fundamental questions. Was the document written close to the events it describes? Is the document able to be corroborated by multiple external sources? Has the document been reliably transmitted or copied? If we answer yes to these questions, we determine the document is reliable.

In this chapter the Bible is put to the test. The argument that the Bible is not historical is a matter of important and further discussion. The fact is, that the Bible, like it or not was written by more than 40 authors from different historical background, different period of time, different cultures, different social classes, and different economic strata in a span of 1,500 years, but yet the all tell the same historical story. In view of accuracy, the Bible meets all the standards without any reasonable doubt. The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelations has the same theme. In addition, the poetic books and the Prophets are more of a reflection of God relationship with humanity, who has reveals other aspects of life and reality.

The early beginnings of the Common Era displayed several Jewish expectations of the Messiah that were complex. As compiled in the Dr. Peter Flint, some was expecting the return of Elijah (Mal 4:5-6, Mark 6:15), or even Moses (Deut 18:15-19, John 1:21) and many expected the Messiah to be a descendent of King David, one that would arrive in Bethlehem . Apart from the background of messianic expectations seen in modern Bibles, several sectarian scrolls shed light on such expectations. Four select texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 helps shed some light into this area of messianic expectations and will aid help answering this question on who was the Messiah.

This topic has been studied on for a long period of time already. Thus, resulting to a lot of articles on the internet or in books that prove that the Bible really is reliable. Despite it being about thousands and thousands of years old, it is still consistent and very up to date.