Does the Power of the Most High overshadowing or enveloping Mary describe the incarnation of the Son of God, his transformation from divinity to mortality? Luke 1:35 ESV > And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and > **the power of the Most High will overshadow you**; therefore the child to > be born will be called holy—the Son of God. The Son is identified as the "Power of God" and the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24 > but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, **Christ the power > of God** and *the wisdom* of God. The Wisdom of God existed with God from the beginning according to Proverbs 8:30 > Then **I was a skilled craftsman at his side**, and his delight day by > day, rejoicing always in his presence. The Wisdom of God is also the Word of God according to John 1:1 > **In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God**, and the Word > was divine. The Son became flesh according to John 1:14 > And **the Word became flesh and dwelt among us**, and we have seen his > glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and > truth. The Son was at the Father's side during creation, and the Son became flesh at his conception by the Holy Spirit. Again my question is, Does Luke 1:35 imply that the Son pre-existed his human incarnation as a divine personage, and did this personage overshadow Mary at the spiritual conception of Jesus to undergo the kenosis and incarnate into flesh as described in Philippians 2:6?

In an article on "Authorship of Luke-Acts " in Wikipedia, it states the following: > According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – > c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of > the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the > countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic > Pauline letters... The editors of Wikipedia appeal to the following reference for a "critical consensus" for a list of contradictions: > Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998) . The historical Jesus: a > comprehensive guide. Translated by Bowden, John. Fortress Press. ISBN > 9780800631239. What are the strongest arguments contained in that source, translated by John Bowden, and what are the responses by critics (i.e. Christian apologists) holding to a traditional view of the unity of canonical Scripture?

According to Luke's genealogy Jesus is the 76th great grandchild of Adam . But in the holy bible how many years elapse between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus? I have googled the question, but I do not believe the answers given by google to be accurate. All the answers point to a time period of around 4000 years which would bring us back to only 4000BC. However according to Wikipedia Adam was 930 years old when he died, Seth was 912, Enos was 905, Kenan was 910, Mahalalel was 895. Therefore we still have around 71 generations left to go and we are already beyond the 4000BC period.

Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

I have a good reason to think that Luke died as a martyr partially because of the continuous persecution and pursuit of Christians by the Roman Empire. The good reason being, the fact that because of his close companionship with Paul he had received the same fate, but I just want to know more about the consensus (if there is one) and what the truth is because there seems to be other accounts. Although, I found out while searching for answers on Google on how some actually saying he just died of old age and claiming a location in Greece which is not=fully confirmed.

There is significant debate about the nature of Theophilus in Luke's writings. Some say that the name is a symbolic term applied to all believers. This is because Theophilus (*Θεόφιλος*), can be translated to "lover of God," "friend of God," and even "God's beloved." This idea was made popular by the early church father Origen. This generic use of Theophilus is often compared to the tendency for early gentile Christians to be seen as "God-fearers." Though this thought can be dismissed as Luke employs the words *φοβούμενοι* (Acts 13:26) and *σεβομένων* (Acts 13:43) to refer to such individuals who fear God. Others posit that Theophilus was the given name of an actual person. This is because scholars, like Craig Keener, state that it would be unlikely to dedicate the text to an individual and leave out their real name. Though I agree that Theophilus was an actual person, I remain unconvinced that *Θεόφιλος* was his given name. The name *Θεόφιλος* is well documented from the 3rd century onward, but *Θεόφιλος* does not seem to appear often before hand. I admit that I cannot find a source to verify this information but all who speak about the use of "Theophilus" as a common name signify its relevance from the 3rd century onward. This presents some doubt in my mind as to "Theophilus" being the given name of Luke's recipient. (I welcome any and all suggestions concerning this perspective). Additionally, the argument can made that Theophilus was of high status and even a government official. Consider that Luke uses the honorific "Most excellent" when addressing Theophilus in his gospel account. This word, *κράτιστος*, is used in only three other places in the New Testament. All appearances of the word are found in Luke's writings, (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). The three appearances in Acts see *κράτιστος* attached to a figure of high status and governmental authority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that Theophilus is at least of high status, if not also a government official. If Theophilus was a government official it would have made sense to be more discrete in matters by using a pseudonym. Though it should be noted that this interpretation demands that a potential shift in relationship between Luke and Theophilus to have occurred due to Luke using *ὦ* as a term of endearment that precedes the name of Theophilus in Acts 1:1. After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I am compelled to believe that Theophilus is neither a generic term to address all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them. (Since this is a tertiary issue, I will not be offended if you disagree with my conclusion. I am willing to be wrong on the identity of Theophilus).

We read in Lk 2:21 , how Jesus was named : > After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. As for the case of John the Baptist, there was difference of opinion on how he should be named, as we see in Lk 1: 59-63: > On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, but his mother spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called John.” They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has that name.” Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” Now, the formal naming ceremony of a baby does not in any way take away the right of the parents in calling it by the name they like most, just to strike a chord of communication with the new-born child. Such a name could also derive from the names of objects like honey, pearl, amber etc. varying from culture to culture. It is also possible that Joseph and Mary addressed the Infant as Jesus from the very day of his birth, without ever giving him a pet name. (On the contrary, they could have given him a pet name and kept using it even after the formal naming ceremony). My question therefore is: Are there any traditional/apocryphal teachings on by what name Jesus was called until the 8th day after his birth? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

>(Exodus 31:13-17) What is God's Sign?-The sign of obedience is the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.If men keep the fourth commandment,they will keep all the rest(Letter 31,1898)(7BC 981.5) The above comment is from E G White commenting on Revelation 14.She articulates that those who observe the fourth commandment(Sabbath) will also keep the rest But in many instances the pharisaic order who were keen observers of the Sabbath were lambasted for observing the Sabbath while neglecting the other laws. Luke 6:1-2 NASB >Now it happened that [a]Jesus was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath, and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them. 2 **But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”** Luke 6:6 NASB >On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and taught; and a man was there [c]whose right hand was withered. 7 **Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him**. Even when the greatest commandments are mentioned the Sabbath is conspicuous by its absence from the list Matthew 22:36-40 NASB >36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [u]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments [v]hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” Mark 10:19 NASB > You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” How then can one understand the assertion that those who keep the fourth commandment will also observe the other laws How can one understand this assertion?

Around 66 A.D, the Armenian King Tiridates I, who was also a Zoroastrian priest and magus, traveled from the east to Rome accompanied by other magi (Mάγος) to pay homage to Nero and vow fidelity to him. The emperor Nero even held a coronation ceremony for him. Tiridates I addressed the emperor: > My Lord, I am a descendant of Arsakes and the brother of the Kings > Vologases and Pacorus. I have come to you who are my god; I have > worshipped you as the [sun];I shall be whatever you would order me > to be, because you are my destiny and fortune. (See here .) A Wikipedia article states a skeptical viewpoint: > It has been suggested that the visit of Tiridates I, an event that > greatly impressed contemporaries, was adapted by Christians to become > the story of the adoration of the Christ Child by the Three Magi. (See here ) The late bishop John Shelby Spong, argued a few years back about how to understand the account of the magi of Matthew's Gospel. In his book, *Born of a Woman*, he writes how the universal assumption of people he knows, associated with New Testament study, is that the magi were not actual people. He states: "Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash." (*Born of a Woman*, pages 89-90) Of course, Spong is not clear on whether the concept of Matthew using forms of midrash necessarily implies the use of fictional stories to illustrate spiritual truths. The definition of *midrash* (midˊ-rash) is that of noun, from a root meaning “to study,” “to seek out” or “to investigate.” Midrash stories elaborate on incidents to derive a principle or provide a moral lesson. So, in theory, one could write non fictional midrash. It is unlikely that Matthew's Gospel contains made up fictional stories to convey spiritual truths, as this was clearly addressed by the apostle Peter. He writes in 2 Peter 1:16 that: > ...we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to > you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were > eyewitnesses of His majesty. Daniel Wallace gives a good defense for attributing 2 Peter as an authentic letter of Peter. It can be found here . In the early church, Tertullian (215 A.D.) writes about a church leader who wrote fictional accounts and attributed them to the apostle Paul. He writes about the dim view that the early church had in regards to those making up stories and wrongly attributing them to the apostles: > ...let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that > writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, > after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of > Paul, was removed from his office. (On Baptism, 17) With the above in mind, could a late editing of Matthew's Gospel include a non fictional midrash story of the Magi specifically because of the events in 66 A.D.? Charles Hill believes he’s found another fragment of Papias in one of Origen’s Homilies on Luke, which would suggest John had reviewed the other gospels in their final form as part of the final canonization process: > There is a report noted down in writing that John collected the > written gospels in his own lifetime in the reign of Nero, and approved > of and recognized those of which the deceit of the devil had not taken > possession; but refused and rejected those of which he perceived were > not truthful. (Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and > Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment,” Journal of Theological Studies NS 49 > (1998), p. 585) Matthew's original "oracles of Jesus" were written in the Hebrew dialect. See Papias in Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16. So, the Papian quote from Hill could be taken in a general sense for how the apostle John selected Matthew's longer Greek version for the final canon that he authorized. A longer version that contained the account of the magi visiting Jesus at his birth would have been very helpful in Matthew's mission journeys later in life. According to Hippolytus (170-235 A.D), Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew and published it at Jerusalem, and died at Hierees, a town of Parthia (Hierees is near modern day Tehran in Iran). That the writing of multiple editions of books in other languages was a practice in the first century can be demonstrated by reference to Josephus’ first work, *Bellum Judaicum* (History of the Jewish War). He wrote seven books between AD 75 and 79, toward the end of Vespasian’s reign. The original Aramaic has been lost, but the extant Greek version was prepared under Josephus’ personal direction. See here . Josephus writes in his *Jewish Wars* (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1): > I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the > government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek > tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and > sent to the Upper Barbarians. Would a longer edition of Matthew contain this story after 66 A.D., as the Persians were then seen in a more favorable light at least by Rome? Or, would the longer version of Matthew's Gospel be more likely written prior to 66 A.D.? Perhaps a little after Artabanus III, king of Parthia died in 38 A.D., and before the next war with the Parthians in 58 A.D. - as the coming of the Magi to worship Jesus would be less controversial at the time? It has been suggested that one of the reasons why Luke's Gospel does not include the story of the wisemen (magi from Parthia) is that it would have been distractive to include it at the time of its composition, as there was a Roman conflict with the Parthians going on. Lucian of Samosata, the 2nd century Greek rhetorician, drew up a set of rules for the budding historian in his book *How to Write History*. In it he writes (emphasis added): > Rapidity is always useful, especially if there is a lot of material. > It is secured not so much by words and phrases as by the treatment of > the subject. That is, **you should pass quickly over the trivial and > unnecessary,** and develop the significant points at adequate length. > **Much must be omitted.** After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don't put salt fish and > porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, > wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, **simply because they are > ready too!** You forget the cheaper articles altogether. (56) The dates of the various conflicts with Rome and Persia run as follows: > The decision of the Parthian King Artabanus III to place his son on > the vacant Armenian throne triggered a war with Rome in 36 AD, which > ended when Artabanus III abandoned claims to a Parthian sphere of > influence in Armenia. War erupted in 58 AD, after the Parthian > King Vologases I forcibly installed his brother Tiridates on the > Armenian throne. Roman forces overthrew Tiridates and replaced him > with a Cappadocian prince, triggering an inconclusive war. This came > to an end in 63 AD after the Romans agreed to allow Tiridates and his > descendants to rule Armenia on condition that they receive the > kingship from the Roman emperor. (See here ) I have a final thought that I picked up from Louis Sweet. He points out that the use of the phrase “Herod the King” by Matthew suggest an earlier dating, as the later signification “Herod the Great” was not yet in use.

I was reading **Luke 10:19** >Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. and I said to myself: "great!", but to be honest I really don't know how to trample serpents and scorpions. I am asking for this because I have a huge difficulty in understanding figurative language because of Asperger's Syndrome. Can somebody help me? I know you can talk to me about the armor of God, but here we go again: figurative language. I need to know which kind of prayers or actions I should do, what passages should I read, but please, let me fight this battle in a practical way. Ps: I'm lacking in using Bible's promises as a weapon. I ask for your help in this also!

Luke was considered to be a prolific writer, but I cannnot find any other information on this aspect of his life.

The passage from the Gospel of Luke 13 has a very curious beginning. We hear about an episode involving Pontius Pilate that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says Pontius Pilate had mingled the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1-5). > **Luke 13:1-5** > > **New International Version (NIV)** > > 13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the > Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus > answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than > all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, > no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those > eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think > they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I > tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ’” Who were the galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices? There's some historical/tradition information? Any clue?

From [Luke 6:13–16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+6%3A13-16&version=NIV) (NIV): > When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of > them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), > his brother Andrew, James, **John**, Philip, Bartholomew, **Matthew**, > Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas > son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. John and Matthew were included, but the remaining two authors of the Gospel – Mark and Luke – were not. Why is this, and how did they come to know Jesus so closely as to later write his Gospel?

Luke 24:36-39 (NASB): > 36 Now while they were telling these things, Jesus Himself suddenly stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened, **and thought that they were looking at a spirit.** 38 And He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why are doubts arising in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; **touch Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you plainly see that I have**.” Matthew 14:26-27 (NASB): > 26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, **“It is a ghost!”** And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately **Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”** In these passages we see Jesus acknowledging the existence of disembodied spirits / ghosts. Of course, these entities are awake, not asleep, and yet they lack physical bodies. How do soul sleep adherentes make sense of this?

> "It is possible that Paul’s “relative” Lucius is Luke, the author of > the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. On his second missionary > journey, Paul may have gone to Troas (where Luke lived—or at least > where he joined Paul) because he knew a relative he could stay with > there (Acts 16:8, 11)." - > http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1995/issue47/4702.html I know a related question is this: Who was Luke in the Bible? But I find the answer lacking. I recently heard teaching on slavery in the New Testament by Michael Card, and he presented Luke as a slave, and physicians in general as slaves in the time of the New Testament. > The 'doctors' in ancient Rome were not nearly as highly regarded as > the doctors in Greece. The profession itself, outside of the legions, > was considered a low social position, fit for slaves, freedmen and > non-latin citizens, mainly Greeks. unrv.com He also taught that slaves in that time were named one of two way, 1) by the master's desired characteristic for the slave (the most common slave name, philokurios - *loving of the master*, and Philemon - *dear one*), or 2) by a nickname of the master (i.e. Michael would name his slave Mike). Paul mentions a relative, Lucius. Lucius would name his slave Luke. As a physician, he would have been given to Paul to care for his ailment, (or thorn?). That would explain why Luke traveled so extensively with Paul. Michael Card does have a book on both slavery and Luke, and I will be getting to those, but how come I've never heard this before? Is there substantial evidence pointing to a definitive yes or no?

I have seen some similar questions, however, this is slightly different. The passages in John cannot be referring to the 'Holy Spirit' as it was here already, Jesus in John is talking about someone to come after him. Luke 3:22 2 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: Luke chapter 1 verses 39-41: And Mary rose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. (Genesis 1:2) – from beginning of time - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete (advocate) shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7 also John 16: 12-14 and a number of other passages. Jesus also mentioned as parakletos 1 John 2:1 Jesus is a parakletos (advocate), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, ["Paraclete" (Parakletos, Advocate, Comforter, Helper)] that he may abide with you into the age (to come)."John 14:16 John 1:20-24 20He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21“Then who are you?” they inquired. “Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” 22So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” 24Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25asked him, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”… "2 Peter 1:21" - For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit; “John 15:26" - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me”. “Ephesians 4:30" - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. “Acts 4:31" - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. "John 16:13" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what so ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." John chapter 16: verses 7-8: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

I'm curious how the authors of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) actually knew how to write. They were fishermen and simple people, and very few people knew how to write back then. Perhaps some will say that it was the Holy Spirit who gave them this ability, but I'd like to know whether there is some other historical explanation for the fact that they were literate.

Currently I'm studying Youth Ministry and have a New Testament class that has been challenging. One of the tips for understanding an author better is to read everything they've written. Have these four written anything else that we know of other than the Gospels? Or were they only inspired to write the Gospels?

In the Gospel of Luke chapter 13, we hear of an episode that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says eighteen men died because Siloam's tower fell on them. > **Luke 13:1-5** > > **New International Version (NIV)** > > 13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the > Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus > answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than > all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, > no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those > eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think > they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I > tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ’” Who were those men? Who wants to build that tower? Is there some historical information about this episode?

The scriptures show that Judas betrayed Jesus, but did he positively know what the outcome was to be? Even the apostles did not understand fully what Jesus was trying to teach them. References: Luke 22:3,4 | Acts 1:6,7