Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?

[WIbaptist]

Interesting, aren't you disagreeing with yourself here. when you earlier stated The Gospels apply to everyone regardless of who they were originally written to.

I already knew you were going to try that and posted based on your other response. Next.

 

[WalkingTree]

Besides the Bible verses in the link. There is the Eusebius, ecclesiastical history 3.4.6 says Luke was “by race an Antiochian and a physician by trade.”

It is also known that Luke was from the second generation of the church and was not an eye witness of Jesus’ ministry. Ecclesiastical history 3.4.8 Paul preaches from Luke’s Gospel saying “according to my Gospel” and Paul was the last Apostle who was assigned to the Gentiles. It is fitting to have a Gentile author in that context.

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.

 

[Guojing]

Also, there are 31,101 other verses weighing on every other verse in the Bible. I did not say every verse applies to everyone. The Gospels as a whole in context apply to everyone.

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.

 

[WIbaptist]

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.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I agree.

 

[WalkingTree]

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.

 

[WIbaptist]

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.

Even Hellenized Jews were circumcised and were considered of the circumcision. Luke was not listed by Paul as being of the circumcision. Luke with others are named separately from those of the circumcision.

 

[WalkingTree]

Even Hellenized Jews were circumcised and were considered of the circumcision. Luke was not listed by Paul as being of the circumcision. Luke with others are named separately from those of the circumcision.

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?

 

[WIbaptist]

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?

It never says Luke is a Jew either.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Agreed, yet the law was used to point to salvation.

What strikes me looking at your statement alone is, do you believe anyone under the law could be saved? Or to put it a better way. Do you believe Israel before the coming of Jesus had a way to be right with God?

Yes they did

It was not by the law though,

I'm trying to understand if you think that even though Israel followed the law they had no chance of being saved and attaining a place in heaven with those who knew Jesus? Are all those who lived under the old covenant cursed with no way to enjoy the blessings of eternal life? If not, how was David 'saved'? To think of but one person.

When you simply state the above quote you leave room for me to believe you think those before the cross are lost. If not, how did all those Jewish souls become saved?

They were saved the same way adam was, noah was, abraham was, the way i was... by faith.

No one was saved by the law, ever..

 

[WIbaptist]

Yes they did

It was not by the law though,


They were saved the same way adam was, noah was, abraham was, the way i was... by faith.

No one was saved by the law, ever..

God could forgive the people of the Old Testament because He knew that Jesus would pay the price. Even King Saul who gave himself over to pride and wickedness went to the same place as Samuel when he died.

 

[John146]

Yes they did

It was not by the law though,


They were saved the same way adam was, noah was, abraham was, the way i was... by faith.

No one was saved by the law, ever..

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.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

God could forgive the people of the Old Testament because He knew that Jesus would pay the price. Even King Saul who gave himself over to pride and wickedness went to the same place as Samuel when he died.

Yes, and he did it because they trusted him,

Even david understood, sacrifice and burnt offering God did not desire, because he knew that could never take away his sin,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

Yeah i know, you want to push law. And OT salvation by it

Sorry my friend

They were saved by faith in God,

Saved means saved from the penalty of sin, if your not saved from the penalty of sin, your not saved.

 

[John146]

Yeah i know, you want to push law. And OT salvation by it

Sorry my friend

They were saved by faith in God,

Saved means saved from the penalty of sin, if your not saved from the penalty of sin, your not saved.

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?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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?

Thats fine believe what you want

I refuse to believe God did not save all people of all ages who has come to him in faith.

My god is not a respector of persons.

 

[John146]

Thats fine believe what you want

I refuse to believe God did not save all people of all ages who has come to him in faith.

My god is not a respector of persons.

Do you believe in a place called Abraham's bosom? Who was placed there? Why? Why didn't these people go straight to heaven upon death if they were born again, a part of the body of Christ, made new creatures, redeemed by the blood, sealed by the Holy Spirit, etc..

 

[Absolutely]

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.

15 And that thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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

 

[Guojing]

15 And that thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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

Do you still sacrifice a lamb for your sins?

 

[Absolutely]

Not being familiar with forums like this it certainty gives a great insight into why the Church has virtually become irrelevant. The question was posed " Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only" ? Many contributors do not even give the courtesy to even look at question, and outside of a very few individuals the comments are off tropic where individual favorite doctrines aired with the end result being a multitude of subjects being carries on at the same time i say that an approach to being His witness would turn even the most strident seeker of Gods truth to look for the nearest exit, it has been said to me how many people have i led to Christ, the better question is how many people have been turned away by behavior such as i have experienced here.

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.

 

[Absolutely]

Do you still sacrifice a lamb for your sins?

Jesus is the lamb.

Is your point some mental security for evicting The non pauline books?

Are you making a point against my post that the bible is inspired?