how do you know who wrote Luke?
102482
Although Luke is nowhere named in the account ancient authorities are agreed that he was the writer.  The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (*c.170 C.E. or A.D)and was accepted by such second century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.  Internal evidence also points strongly to Luke.  Paul speaks of him at Colossians 4:14 as "Luke the beloved physician," and his work is of the scholarly order one would expect from a well-educated man, such as a doctor.  His fine choice of language and his extensive vocabulary, larger than that of the other three Gosel writers combined, make possible a most careful and comprehensive treatment of his vital subject.  His account of the prodigal son is regarded by some as the best short story ever written.\n\nLuke uses more than 300 medical terms or words to which he gives a medical meaning that are not used in the same way (if they are used at all) by the other writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For example, when speaking of leprosy, Luke does not always use the same term as the others.  To them leprosy is leprosy, but to the physician, there are different stages of leprosy, as when Luke speaks of "a man full of leprosy." Lazarus, he says, was "full of ulcers". No other Gospel writer says that Peter's mother-in-law had "a high fever." (Luke chapter 5 verse 12, Luke 16:20 and Luke 4:38) Although the other three tell us of Peter's cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest, only Luke mentions that Jesus healed him. Luke 22:51) It is like a doctor to say of a woman that she had "a spirit of weakness for eighteen years, and she was bent double and was unable to raise herself up at all." And who but "luke the beloved physician" would have recorded in such detail the first aid rendered to a man by the Samaritan who "bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine upon them"? Luke 13:11; and chapter 10 verse 34.\n\nLuke was not, of course, an eyewitness of all the events he records in his Gospel, not being one of the 12 and probably not even a believer until after Jesus' death.  However, he was very closely associated with Paul in the missionary field (2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24) So, as might be expected, his writing shows evidence of Paul's influence, as can be seen by comparing their two accounts of the Lord's Evening Meal, at Luke 22:19,20 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.  As a further source of material, Luke could have referred to Matthew's Gospel.  In 'tracing all things with accuracy,' he  would be able personally to interview many eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' life, such as the surviving disciples and possibly Jesus' mother Mary. \n\n*historians use "c" meaning around
625948
Christians believe that God inspired the writers of the Gospels.\n\nWere the Beatitudes taught on a mount or on a plain or both? It doesn't really matter. What matters is the message in the Beatitudes about how to be happy (or blessed).\n\nThe Gospels were written either by actual disciples of Christ or people who knew the disciples. These were stories that were shared every Sunday during the breaking of the bread (Mass). All Christians knew the stories and would have raised a cry if the writers got it wrong. \n\nThis is a much better oral tradition than the Old Testament which was passed along orally for over a thousand years.\n\nAnother sign of accuracy kept over the last 200 years is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that when compared to modern Scriptures show very little discrepancy.\n\nWith love in Christ.
289660
I would imagine it would have to be Shakespear. Even though I love other poets such as Edgar Allan Poe, Shakespears writtings have become more popular and widely distributed. I have no hard facts, but, I would imagine this to be true since so many allusions to his work come in so many movies and songs. Entire movies are made of his writtings. I could, however, be wrong since it is only my own mere speculation.
1102584
The person who wrote it knows....
346698
Most of the "Gospels" that were not included in the Bible have been dated to about the second century. The books of the New Testament were all written either by eyewitnesses to the events or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses. Many of the books refer to other books of the New Testament as scripture. It certainly wasn't one person who "got to pick what would go into the Bible."\n\nAdded:\nThe language and content of the Gospel of Thomas is consistend with the second century, not the first. It was written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. It's pretty easy to write a book about events that happened two hundred years ago, since no eyewitnesses are around to refute it. Also, some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas don't line up with the rest of the Bible. The gospels (and other New Testament books) that are included in the Bible were written at a time when eyewitnesses to the events were still around to refute it. Luke, for instance, was most likely written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually lists names of eyewitnesses and tells the church in Corinth that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he was writing.
329567
It HAS been altered.  Books have been taken out, things have been chopped, text re-written, all of it.  Every person who has had it re-written has changed stuff.  The Song of Solomon was all but gutted because it was judged to be 'too sexual', Jesus' text was re-written to make him sound less sarcastic.  Ever king or ruler that commissioned a re-write of it changed it slightly to what he felt it should be.
1052747
I think your newspaper made that up 2000 years after Jesus was alive.  There are people who wrote about Jesus's life who lived with him and followed him around everywhere.  They are eyewitness reporters.  You can find their reports about Jesus in the bible, in the New Testament.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels about him - a gospel is a short story about Jesus that tells the message of why he was born and why he lived.  Luke was a historian who researched and interviewed people everywhere about all of their experiences with Jesus.\n\nNone of these people mention Jesus being married or having a child.  It is lunacy to think that they could have missed somehting that huge about Jesus's life.
120383
Mainstream Bible scholars don't believe the book of John was written by the apostle John, or that Jesus actually said the things "John" claims Jesus said. Given all that, I wouldn't waste time trying to interpret it. It is just the opinion of some anonymous guy 2000 years ago. I prefer to trust my own Life experience.
1068420
Flavius Josephus ?\n\n*he was a jew that lived around the time of Jesus ,they have an original manuscript that claims Jesus is the messiah.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthis could be totally wrong*
820882
The Old Testament was written by Hebrews.  These are Semites.  They come from Middle Eastern stock, so I doubt you could call them "white."  As to the New Testament, the bulk of it was written by Hebrews as well.  Matthew, Mark, John, James, Jude, and Paul were all of Hebrew descent.  Only Luke was possibly a Gentile, likely Greek, which may or may not be a "white" person, depending on whether they have more of a European heritage or not.\n\nAll that being said, the answer is "No, the Bible was not written by 'white' people."  As to why there are no Asians or Blacks, you are mistaken.  There was a disciple in the church known as "Simeon called Niger."  (Acts 13:1)  He likely was dark-skinned.  The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was from Africa, so he was likely dark-skinned as well. \n\nI'm sure there are other examples of blacks in the Bible, and there were Asians (see Babylon, Assyria, etc.)  The Bible was primarily written by Hebrews, however, and it is about their story and their God.
444902
Hi there,\n\nThe apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2 "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."\n\nJudas Iscariot is replaced by Matthias in Acts 1:23-26.\n\nMark is understood to be the sidekick or secretary of Peter. This is why his Gospel is included, as it contains information of an eyewitness (Peter), even though the author themselves may not have been one of the twelve. This however, does not mean they were not necessarily there.\n\nLuke makes it known that his account is compiled from an investigation of the events. (Luke 1:1-4)\n\nLuke is also the author of the book of Acts (or The Acts of the Apostles). Although written mainly in the third person, Luke makes it known that we was present at the events starting from Luke 16:10 by using the word "we" instead of "they".\n\nAs a bit of trivia, Luke appears to have written Luke and Acts as one volume, to the same audience, a person referred to as Theophilus (Luke 1:1, Acts 1:1).
124551
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6,7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary showing Jesus' NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' LEGAL right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.  Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father, but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.  Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) Notice that he does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) he says" "Jesus...being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son Of Heli." Luke 3:23.\n\nSince Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, but was the Son of God, Luke's genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.  Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit (1) That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; (2). That, this afffiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.  But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to his grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.  Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother, and among Jews the adage was: "Genus Matris non vocatur gfenus, translated "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"\n\nWe may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely. (a) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and (b) that Jesus was also the Legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
282461
There were lots of writings around, and none of them were called "gospels" at the time--they were just writings from different people.  The word "gospel" just meant "good news."  For example, if you look in your New Testament, you'll see that the Apostle Paul's writings are called "epistles" (another word for a letter or written message).\n\nThe first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written in the early days after the death of Jesus.  (The book of Luke and the book of Acts were originally one book.)  These three are called the "Synoptic Gospels" ("Seeing Together Gospels") because they have a lot in common, including some of the same source material--scholars  believe that the writers of all three of these gospels had read a document called the "Q Source" or"Sayings Source", which was a collection of things Jesus had said.\n\nThe fourth gospel, that of John, was written much later than the first three--no earlier than 90 C.E.--and is very different from them.  It contains a lot of visionary poetic imagery, and seems to reflect Gnostic teachings.\n\nA lot of other people wrote accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If the Bible had included them all, it would fill a bookcase.  Many of these other accounts have been lost, though some (such as the Gospel of Thomas) have been rediscovered.\n\nIn the beginnings of Christianity, there was no unified organization;  there were just a lot of different individuals and congregations who had heard about Jesus from different people.  So there was no real agreement about what books were sacred and/or authoritative. \n\nOn several different occasions, Christian leaders organized councils to discuss these questions.  A key council was the Council of Nicea.  There were a lot of arguments and politics there, and some doctrines were adopted and other conflicting ideas were declared heresies.  The Nicene Creed originated there.\n\nThis is how both the official doctrines and the official canons (declarations of what books and writings were holy) were formed.  Some Christian groups never affiliated with the Catholic Church (for example some of the Ethiopian and Coptic groups, etc.)  Some of these groups had other ideas about which writings were important.\n\nMuch later, when Martin Luther established Protestantism, the Protestants threw out some of the Bible materials they did not believe was authentic.\n\nI suggest you do a web search on the phrases "Council of Nicea", "Nicene Creed", "Bishop Arrius", "Bishop Athanasius", "Emperor Constantine", and "Early Christian heresies" and do some reading.  The links suggested by some of the people who have already answered this question are good, too.\n\nI'm not listing any links because I am writing from memory;  I studied religion in college, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth.  ;-)
289537
The best way to find out about the Man is to read what those who knew him or what those who knew him wrote.  It is found in the first 4 books of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
569645
Mind you not all historians date them the same way... some believe the book of John was written at the very time Christ was living. John wrote that Gospel, the 3 letters of John and Revelation. The writing style changes from the Gospel to Revelation (70 yrs after Christ) and John seems to be writing in a much younger style. So many believe John was a young man when he wrote the Gospel and an old man when he wrote Revelation.
1169062
These events occurred around two thousand years ago, which means there are many academic and traditional theories about the gospels.  Most of these theories hold that the gospels were all written before 100, placing the penning less than 70 years after the event.\n\nEach of the gospel writers wrote to specific audiences, and included/excluded details based on their audience.\n\n-Matthew (a Jew) wrote to Jewish Christians. Much of the gospel of Matthew justifies Jesus as the Messiah.  He quotes the Old Testament often.  Conservative scholars propose that Matthew was written in the 60's, but liberal scholars prose it may have been written between 80 and 100.\n\n-Mark wrote to a Roman audience.  Popular theories hold that Mark was the first to write a gospel.  Dates for the writing of Mark's gospel are between 60 and 80.\n\nLuke (a Greek, physician & historian) wrote his account to "most excellent Theophilus."  This gospel is written to a Greek audience.  Tradionally, Luke is dated between 60 and 63.  Critically, the book is dated between 75 and 100.\n\n\nJohn wrote to non-Jews.  One critical view of dating John's gospel proposes that the gospel was written in stages starting possibly as early as 50, and was probably finished around 100.  \n\nGiven the timeframe of the lifetime of Jesus and the gospel writers, the accounts focus on the events of Jesus' professional life (his ministry, started at age 30 years), which is why very little is written about Jesus' childhood.\n \nCurrent academic studies call the gospels according to Matthew, Mark & Luke "synoptic gospels".  The synoptic gospels contain much of the same content, sometimes even using similar words and phrases to describe the same event.  Some theories suggest that there was a gospel (now lost) which Matthew, Mark & Luke (Matthew was an eye-witnesses to Jesus and the events in his gospel; Mark wrote based on the discourse of Peter; Luke wrote based on eyewitnesses http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31; ) as a base for what to include in their narratives.  This lost gospel is referred to as "Q document." Other theories propose that Mark wrote his gospel account first, and Matthew and Luke both wrote their gospels based on Mark's.\n\nThe gospel according to John is not a synoptic gospel, and contains the more original conent not mentioned in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.\n\n-----\nConcerning the issue of translation that TAFF mentioned:\nMost modern translations of the Bible come from the oldest docuements in existance.  When ancient docuements of the same peice conflict, scholars and translators work to attain what they believe the author orginally wrote.  Differences in document sources come from a varity of sources, such as scribes copying down documents being copied, and writing down an oral mispronucation.  Another source of variences in texts is marginal notes which were written on a document, and the note became a part of the next copy because the scribe included it.\n\nThere's a pretty big misconseption about Bible translations which holds that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, then translated to latin, then to old english, then king james english, then modern english.  In reality, most modern translations (NIV, New Revised Standard Version) are new translations from the orginal languages (Greek, Hebrew).  These translations use redation--that is, they critically examine differences of sources to acertain the orignal writing.\n\nThe King James Translation even translates directly from Hebrew and Greek sources.\n\n-----\n\nAddressing what words_that_live_on said about languages:\n\nThe Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with the exception of the book of Daniel, which was written in Hebrew and Aramaic).  The New Testament was written in Greek (with the exception of the book of Hebrews, which was written in Hebrew).  Matthew, Mark, Luke (Greek), and John all wrote in Greek.  G
1166293
That person must be knowing who invented these words