Luke 1:3 According to Bauscher

[distazo]

Hi,

I believe this is Semitic syntax. And he also explains this grammatically. ?Ethkhazay?

?of the Word ?. Luke is saying that The Lord Yeshua The Messiah had appeared to him and had authorized and directed his writing of this Gospel. Why would it be received otherwise? If Luke merely ?thought it good to write ?, why would the churches have put it on a par with the inspired Gospels, Matthew,Mark and Luke? He would have been merely rehashing second hand The New Testament. . That is no recommendation worthy of an inspired Gospel of information and serving warmed up leftovers ?Theophila ?, to whom Luke wrote, would have thrown it in the trash if that were Luke?s meaning.Verse 2 says the other gospels were written by ?eyewitnesses?. Verse three says Luke was also an eyewitness of The Messiah . If he were not, then he would be disqualified to write a gospel. It would seem that Western churches, in their misunderstanding of Luke?s introduction, have allowed scholarship to supplant Divine inspiration as its authority. This has subtly and slowly supplanted the Spirit ual with the intellectual , which Luke the Physician has come to represent. He was not writing a literary composition Which things we also :13 ?Co 2: 1, just as every other God inspired writer of scripture wrotehere; he was writing from God we compare spirituals ; ands wisdom, but in the teaching of The Spirit?not in the teaching of the words of manspeak;