What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Theophilus Wrote Luke and Acts

CherubRam said:
Scholars are divided on the issue. It is likely that Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem were he met with the Apostles. Whereas Theophilus needed to inquire about what took place. Do you see what I mean?
Click to expand...
Another problem with your theory is that we/Scholars don't know who Theophilus was. So we don't know if he was a believer.

As far back as Origen
Origen (AD 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” might be a symbolic term rather than a proper name that Luke was addressing.

Its likely Theophilus was a person and of High Social standing as others suggest. "Most excellent" Theophilus.

There was a high priest named Theophilus noted in history.
Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from 37 to 41 CE according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews.
 
Randy said:
Another problem with your theory is that we/Scholars don't know who Theophilus was. So we don't know if he was a believer.

As far back as Origen
Origen (AD 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” might be a symbolic term rather than a proper name that Luke was addressing.

Its likely Theophilus was a person and of High Social standing as others suggest. "Most excellent" Theophilus.

There was a high priest named Theophilus noted in history.
Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from 37 to 41 CE according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews.
Click to expand...
It is believed that the book of Acts was written after 60 AD.
 
Randy said:
I don't dispute that. That is more uncertainty to who might be Theophilus not Luke's authorship.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't care if Bing Crosby wrote it.
Acts is so full of life and promise that every time I start to reread it I have trouble putting it down.
 
Randy said:
I don't dispute that. That is more uncertainty to who might be Theophilus not Luke's authorship.
Click to expand...
The person who wrote it needed to investigate those things. Most excellent, Michael.

Luke 1:3
With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
 
CherubRam said:
The person who wrote it needed to investigate those things. Most excellent, Michael.

Luke 1:3
With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Click to expand...
No. It’s unfortunate that you don’t bother to do serious study and seem to just want to make up your own rules for grammar, whether English or Greek. Both “most excellent” (a title) and “Theophilus” are in the vocative case in the Greek, which is only used for direct address; it identifies who or what is being addressed. That can only mean that Theophilus is the one being addressed, not the one writing. That is why you will find no translation to back up your personal translation.

That puts an end to your position.
 
Free said:
No. It’s unfortunate that you don’t bother to do serious study and seem to just want to make up your own rules for grammar, whether English or Greek. Both “most excellent” (a title) and “Theophilus” are in the vocative case in the Greek, which is only used for direct address; it identifies who or what is being addressed. That can only mean that Theophilus is the one being addressed, not the one writing. That is why you will find no translation to back up your personal translation.

That puts an end to your position.
Click to expand...
Your (very good) (friend of God)
 
CherubRam said:
The person who wrote it needed to investigate those things. Most excellent, Michael.

Luke 1:3
With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Click to expand...
Hello CherubRam, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread, your quote about needing to investigate everything from the beginning comes from Luke's Gospel.

Luke was NOT an Apostle (or even a disciple) of the Lord Jesus back then, but the Gospel of Luke is all about the Lord Jesus and His ministry on Earth (obviously). So, since Luke was NOT there personally, was NOT an eyewitness to the things that he wrote about in the Gospel of Luke, he had to "carefully investigate everything from the beginning" in order to write Theophilus (and us) an orderly account of those events (events, again, in the case of the Gospel of Luke, that he, Luke, was NOT there to witness).

Finally, I have yet to find anyone, from the most liberal/atheist "higher Biblical critic", to the most conservative Christian theologian/Biblical scholar, who believes that Luke and Acts were either 1. written ~by~ Theophilus, or
2. that they were originally addressed/written to anyone other than him (other than ~to~ Theophilus, that is).

--David
 
Last edited:
st_worm2 said:
Hello CherubRam, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread, your quote about needing to investigate everything from the beginning comes from Luke's Gospel.

Luke was NOT an Apostle (or even a disciple) of the Lord Jesus back then, but the Gospel of Luke is all about the Lord Jesus and His ministry on Earth (obviously). So, since Luke was NOT there personally, was NOT an eyewitness to the things that he wrote about in the Gospel of Luke, he had to "carefully investigate everything from the beginning" in order to write Theophilus (and us) an orderly account of those events (events, again, in the case of the Gospel of Luke, that he, Luke, was NOT there to witness).

Finally, I have yet to find anyone, from the most liberal/atheist "higher Biblical critic", to the most conservative Christian theologian/Biblical scholar, who believes that Luke and Acts were either 1. written ~by~ Theophilus, or
2. that they were originally addressed/written to anyone other than him (other than ~to~ Theophilus, that is).

--David
Click to expand...
Good job. Obviously we are reading from different sources.
 
CherubRam said:
Obviously we are reading from different sources.
Click to expand...
I've looked into all of the sources that I have access to personally, and on the Internet (some of them that I would have never looked at otherwise, in fact), and as I stated earlier, NO ONE, on either side of the theological fence, believes what you do, no one. So please, if you have sources that back what you are saying up, with evidence detailing why they do, please come back and share them with us.

I believe that several here have already asked you to share the evidence that you have for your beliefs, but you have never done so.

Why 🤔

--David
 
CherubRam said:
The person who wrote it needed to investigate those things. Most excellent, Michael.

Luke 1:3
With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Click to expand...
I don't share your reasoning.
 
Randy said:
I don't share your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Either the person was writing to Theophilus, or, the person was signing off as Theophilus. To make matters worse, the books of Acts and Luke do not mention Luke as signing those letters.
 
st_worm2 said:
I've looked into all of the sources that I have access to personally, and on the Internet (some of them that I would have never looked at otherwise, in fact), and as I stated earlier, NO ONE, on either side of the theological fence, believes what you do, no one. So please, if you have sources that back what you are saying up, with evidence detailing why they do, please come back and share them with us.

I believe that several here have already asked you to share the evidence that you have for your beliefs, but you have never done so.

Why 🤔

--David
Click to expand...
There is no evidence, it is just scholarly speculation.

One tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. The word in Greek means "Friend of God" and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description. In this tradition the author's targeted audience, as with all other canonical Gospels, were the learned but unnamed men and women of the era.
 
CherubRam said:
Either the person was writing to Theophilus, or, the person was signing off as Theophilus. To make matters worse, the books of Acts and Luke do not mention Luke as signing those letters.
Click to expand...
As I read the author of Luke was writing to Theophilus that he may know the certainty of those things. It was an investigation of the Christ from the beginning. While Luke was a traveling companion of Paul he was not noted as a disciple of Jesus during Jesus's walk on earth. Those events from that starting point he investigated.

I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
 
CherubRam said:
None of Acts or Luke are signed Luke.
Click to expand...
Which is really neither here nor there. If Church history supports Luke having wrote them, then, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to not believe that Luke didn't write them. What we do know for certain is that Theophilus was the recipient in both cases, not the writer.
 
Last edited:
Randy said:
As I read the author of Luke was writing to Theophilus that he may know the certainty of those things. It was an investigation of the Christ from the beginning. While Luke was a traveling companion of Paul he was not noted as a disciple of Jesus during Jesus's walk on earth. Those events from that starting point he investigated.

I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
Click to expand...
Paul made one or more trips to Israel to see the Disciples, and Luke was his traveling companion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top