Luke 1

[wolfpurplemoon]

Gabriel spends his time telling people that they are going to be expecting a baby who will be very important. John the Baptist's parents were old and his mother was barren before Gabriel visited his father, it's been a while since we had an old & barren couple have any children.

Comments

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

I love how God always grants old barren couples with Special Babies. It's like their reward for being so blindly pious - a child they probably can't really take care of in their late years. CONGRATULATIONS.

[zteccc.livejournal.com]

The gospel of Luke is typically regarded as part one of a two part set, with Acts of the Apostles being the second part. The author is possibly Luke the Evangelist, an early Christian and a contemporary of the apostles. The author admits that he was not eyewitness to the events in the Gospels, but just as clearly, he knew and conversed with many who were. His writing makes it clear that he was with the apostles and spoke with them in the events in Acts. As such, he would have been able to gather authentic information from the apostles about the events. Luke's Gospel is historical in nature. It isn't written to any specific group of believers, but it is written for gentiles and addressed to Theophilus which literally translated is friend of God. There was a High Priest in Jerusalem called Theophilus ben Ananus who could have been the intended recipient of the Gospel. If so, then the gospel is written within 10 years of Jesus' death. It may also be that another person was the intended recipient, but we do know that the gospel was written in the first century, well within the lifespan of the apostles.

Chapter 1
Verses 1-4: Luke establishes the purpose of the Gospel, to write to Theophilus and explain "exactly" what took place after doing a careful study. Luke's study would have involved interviews of the apostles and other disciples. Today, this approach is a generally accepted approach used by anyone seeking to verify an event from eyewitness accounts.

Verses 5-25: John (the baptist) is born to an older couple who are barren. The angel Gabriel talks to John's father and relays this information, and relays that John will have the spirit of Elijah just as prophecied by Malachi 400 years earlier, but Zechariah doesn't readily believe. This is exactly as we would expect, who would believe that an elderly barren couple could have a child? God may do things like this because nobody could argue whether the sign came from God. Because of Zechariah's disbelief, he won't be able to speak until John is born.

Verses 26-38: Gabriel is then sent to Mary and tells her about Jesus. Note the similarity between Zechariah's and Mary's response. They both were confused and afraid of Gabriel. The Bible nearly always refers to people's interactions with angels in this fashion.

Verses 57-66: Zechariah and Elizabeth are obedient to God's instructions. It was traditional to name a boy after the father or occasionally after another relative. People didn't get a book of baby names and then pick one they liked as they do today. Elizabeth's naming him John was a serious breach of tradition, and Zechariah's complicity would have been astounding in that time. Because of Zechariah's obedience, he could then start speaking again, and he started by praising God.

Verses 67-80: The praise of Zechariah describes John's mission, but it also describes a benevolent, loving God. This is the truth as seen by an obedient priest of God. The obedient see God as benevolent and loving. It should be noted that the name John means "God's Grace". As Zechariah's praise describes God's Grace, it also describes his on, John.

-- Jeff

hello

[300gary.livejournal.com]

Hi, I am new to your blog but have reviewed several of your archives as well as comments from various readers. I applaud your willingness to do what very few Christians ever do, which is to read the Bible cover to cover. It looks like you have approached it with a skeptic's eye, as you should any piece of literature that claims divine authority.

I would like to challenge you to try a new outlook for the remainder of your journey. Read each day's passage from the perspective of a human (creation) seeking to understand God (Creator). It seems lame, I know, since you profess that there is no God, but as it stands now, you are on pace to finish your study in a few months with no new perspective on the generations of people who have been inspired by this book to accomplish the greatest of human endeavors, ie. hospitals, charities, orphanages, aa, etc. The Christian bible is a powerful resource to those who choose to study it with the intent of finding ways to understand God's goals for their lives, serve others and do good.

You have also made it clear that you are not seeking outside help, but why? Humanity is not comprised of 7 billion individuals each required to start from scratch on their quest for knowledge. We rely on the works of those who came before us to broaden our understanding of why things are the way they are. And yes, religion often fights the revelation of new facts, ie. Galileo, but that is the result of imperfect humans seeking to impose their imperfect perspective on a world created by a perfect God.

I believe in God because of who He is, not who I want Him to be.

Give it a go and see where it takes you.

Gary

Re: hello

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

hospitals, charities, orphanages, aa

Christians have also done very bad things in the name of god, some of which i'd be willing to call the worst of human endeavors. the most recent that come to mind in the last five years include Fred Phelps hate campaign, the Catholic church sex scandals, the damaging abstinence-only education push, television-evangelist scams, etc etc. and that is just within the past five years, never mind the rest of recorded history.

it's true that Christians themselves are sinners (Romans 3:23) and that no one is exempt except through Jesus (Galatians 3:22, 1 John 3:5), but when trying for a "new perspective", one must weigh not only the good things but the bad. and in the past five years, i have yet to see something like AA, the Red Cross, or similar organizations with the "Christian" label pop up - instead, just a bunch of Glenn Beck and Mormon theophobia scare tactics.

Re: hello

[wolfpurplemoon]

I'm not sure what you mean by me not seeking outside help, anyone is permitted to comment on my posts and I do my best to read the comments I get.

I'm afraid that I'm just not capable of putting aside reason and logic in order to pretend even for a while that the entire universe was created by a God who also has goals for a few humans on an insignificant planet.

Of course I recognise that some Christians have achieved a variety of good deeds that they claim they only could have done with the help of God, but I think that the credit for human achievements and the will to serve others selflessly should go directly to those people. Would these people really have been self centred and ignored the suffering around them without religion? Because if that is true then humanity is more doomed than I thought.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

i have something i thought you might appreciate...

Newton's Witnesses (http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcpfhfUEo01qayczvo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1291316353&Signature=%2BWsManYP9QgsreScB08vsnp7XKE%3D).

[wolfpurplemoon]

Yeah, I don't think I'd answer the door to those guys either, lol!

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

God is a joker, impregnated a virgin who is engaged to a Jew, and what Joseph do?

Talk about a god who creates the heavens and earth in 7 days and "raped" a maiden? Is Mary a willing particpant? Is Joseph a willing particpant? If there is, it was not reflected. If there isn't, where is free will?