Was Luke/Acts written to an individual person or to all individual God lovers?

[Razeontherock]

Can you give us the Canon compiled by inspired men, along with who these men were, where they received inspiration, where they wrote down their inspired canon and most importantly, a name / group of ANYONE in history using it?

I look forward to your answer which, if you can provide it, will re-write Christian history and thus make you quite famous.

That user has been banned - and you're seeing part of why that was necessary. I think I could answer as he would, but I will say it doesn't merit repeating.

What's most important is to not remove or add to Scripture, and not to fluff it up with lace around it to make it more attractive (figuratively speaking, of course)

"All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (KJV) Hebrews 4:13

I still enjoy KJV, largely because of passages like this that just strike me; it's so poetic, so far out of the norm of how we speak that it grabs my attention and makes me ponder the intent ...

then of course there's lots of places where it's not so conducive to understanding so I need to turn to another resource, but this passage makes its point clear enough, I think.

I do believe God can preserve His Word, and we should apply ourselves to the Canon, as delivered

 

[Walpole]

That user has been banned - and you're seeing part of why that was necessary. I think I could answer as he would, but I will say it doesn't merit repeating.

What's most important is to not remove or add to Scripture, and not to fluff it up with lace around it to make it more attractive (figuratively speaking, of course)

"All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (KJV) Hebrews 4:13

I still enjoy KJV, largely because of passages like this that just strike me; it's so poetic, so far out of the norm of how we speak that it grabs my attention and makes me ponder the intent ...

then of course there's lots of places where it's not so conducive to understanding so I need to turn to another resource, but this passage makes its point clear enough, I think.

I do believe God can preserve His Word, and we should apply ourselves to the Canon, as delivered

I wasn't aware he had been banned.

As for adding to or removing anything from Scripture, I think that can only be addressed by answering the question as to who / what / when the canon was given. For example, since the New Testament does not provide a canon and took several decades after Christ to develop, one could argue the very addition of the New Testament to the Scriptures of the Old Testament (used by Jesus and the Apostles) itself violates your own admonition to not add anything to Scripture.

Regarding the KJV, I too like it for it's poetic beauty.

 

[Razeontherock]

It's a mistake to say that it took several centuries for the Canon to develop. That of course refers to the first ecumenical council, called by Constantine. Which didn't really change anything!

A manuscript fragment has been found from circa 170 AD, that lists almost the identical list of books we have today. It includes nothing we don't have, and if the fragment were complete it may well include everything we include.

That is nowhere near the earliest witness to our collection, bound as the NT. What was and is accepted, is those writings that were used in Church services. (Plus Revelation) Their usage began concurrent with their writing, and in the case of the Gospels, they had been used for decades before being written down.

What didn't happen before Constantine, was the various letters to different Churches got spread around to everyone. Constantine wanted all the various writings gathered in one place, and quickly there were oodles of scrolls! This is surprising because you would be in serious trouble for having any such thing, likely being killed, just prior to this.

So we see the Church was engaged in 'civil disobedience.' And at no time were they without Apostolic writings.

So what Constantine was hoping for was a standardization, a codification of this thing called "Christianity," because that's what Romans did. Of course that never happened, lol. You can't "put God in a box." But it did enrich the reading library available to the Church as a whole. Although it did nothing to furnish everyone with a 'complete Bible,' as we know it today.

It also flushed out those who were promoting fake writings. They were given a chance to be included, but the Church as a whole didn't budge. Revelation was the only book that had any real controversy surrounding it's inclusion, and that because it wasn't read in Church. I'm glad they saw fit to hand it down to us! And it's obvious why there was concern.

We really aren't much different than they were, then. We still aren't sure about much of what Revelation is about, and we still aren't codified into a neat set of beliefs that covers all the details.

 

[for_his_glory]

I had to go back to the OP and reread it and I believe the answer is found in Luke 1:4.

Luke 1: 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

No one really knows who Theophilus was other than being a friend of Luke. The name means friend of God. The intentions of these letters written by Luke in Luke and Acts was to confirm that of the birth, death and resurrection of Christ as Luke was not an eyewitness to these events, but relied on those who were and wrote down their witness of Christ and what He taught.

Luke was more or less confirming what Theophilus was already taught by others. Luke and acts were written to one particular person, but like all of us who never witnessed the events personally we also rely on what has been written for our instructions.

 

[Walpole]

It's a mistake to say that it took several centuries for the Canon to develop. That of course refers to the first ecumenical council, called by Constantine. Which didn't really change anything!

A manuscript fragment has been found from circa 170 AD, that lists almost the identical list of books we have today. It includes nothing we don't have, and if the fragment were complete it may well include everything we include.

That is nowhere near the earliest witness to our collection, bound as the NT. What was and is accepted, is those writings that were used in Church services. (Plus Revelation) Their usage began concurrent with their writing, and in the case of the Gospels, they had been used for decades before being written down.

What didn't happen before Constantine, was the various letters to different Churches got spread around to everyone. Constantine wanted all the various writings gathered in one place, and quickly there were oodles of scrolls! This is surprising because you would be in serious trouble for having any such thing, likely being killed, just prior to this.

So we see the Church was engaged in 'civil disobedience.' And at no time were they without Apostolic writings.

So what Constantine was hoping for was a standardization, a codification of this thing called "Christianity," because that's what Romans did. Of course that never happened, lol. You can't "put God in a box." But it did enrich the reading library available to the Church as a whole. Although it did nothing to furnish everyone with a 'complete Bible,' as we know it today.

It also flushed out those who were promoting fake writings. They were given a chance to be included, but the Church as a whole didn't budge. Revelation was the only book that had any real controversy surrounding it's inclusion, and that because it wasn't read in Church. I'm glad they saw fit to hand it down to us! And it's obvious why there was concern.

We really aren't much different than they were, then. We still aren't sure about much of what Revelation is about, and we still aren't codified into a neat set of beliefs that covers all the details.

The first Ecumenical Council (Nicea) did not address the Canon.

RE: the canon circulating in 170 A.D. which you referenced, "almost identical" ≠ identical

So who / what / when was the IDENTICAL / EXACT canon Christians use today given?

 

[Randy]

The first Ecumenical Council (Nicea) did not address the Canon.

RE: the canon circulating in 170 A.D. which you referenced, "almost identical" ≠ identical

So who / what / when was the IDENTICAL / EXACT canon Christians use today given?

Did the church muzzle the cannon? This video is on the cannon.

 

[Walpole]

Did the church muzzle the cannon? This video is on the cannon.

This person does not answer the question who / what / where and when was the canon decided. For example, I am quite certain his Bible and yours has 66 books in it. Yet there is not canon in all of history which matches the 66-book canon. From whence did it come?

 

[Razeontherock]

So who / what / when was the IDENTICAL / EXACT canon Christians use today given?

Such a thing does not exist. Different flavors of Orthodox have different Canon. RCC has (mostly?) the same Canon as EO. Martin Luther never removed the Apocrypha, just rearranged it and as I understand it was first omitted to save on printing costs. Those were a much bigger concern in the first few centuries, so regional churches didn't have all the various Epistles we do. We can only imagine the sparks that flew when Bishops travelled, sharing this information. We can also imagine many receiving it gleefully.

The Bible did not give us the Church, the Church gave us the Bible. And the first Church knew Jesus better than any of us here. They didn't even need to have the Gospels written down! They knew it cold; He dwelt among them.

 

[Razeontherock]

This person does not answer the question who / what / where and when was the canon decided.

He addresses what matters. Canon was never declared, it was discovered. The Church as a whole knew and agreed as to what was inspired. It is obvious, because of its inherent value, which towers above everything else. He also spells out the other standards: not being a forgery, and being doctrinally pure, agreeing with what the Apostles taught. Which is why they were accepted, and read in Church.

On which writings meet these criterion there is no disagreement. Deuterocanon / Apocrypha don't, but do still have worth.