A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[historia]

Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event.

Can you provide the exact quote from Ehrman on this?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 51 by historia]

You may wish to check the video Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig on YouTube.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 44 by Realworldjack]

I wonder if we are not getting hung up on semantics here? Because I am not sure what you mean by stories?

By "story" I mean a written or spoken series of related events. A story can be true, fictional, or a combination of truth and fiction.

What I do know is, the author of Luke did not claim to be telling stories, but rather claimed to be giving an, "orderly account."

A story can be an "orderly account." I don't then think Luke was denying that what he was writing a story when he called it an orderly account.

I guess it would be better to say, "he had no intention for anyone else to read the letter." I would also guess that anytime any of us write a personal letter, that we really have no idea if anyone else would read it or not.

I think that Luke intended that many read his letter and not just Theophilus. The Gospel of Luke seems way too elaborate and lengthy to be merely meant for the recipient. Also, the Gospel of Luke is very similar to both Mark and Matthew. If Mark and Matthew were meant for many people to read, then why conclude that Luke was merely a letter to be read by one recipient?

The point here is, the author was not intending for this letter to be as widely read as it now is.

I think I agree with you here. Probably a billion people or more have read Luke or at least parts of it. Luke maybe didn't even know what a billion is.

My thinking is, most people have the idea that this author, along with the rest of the authors in the NT, were intending for their letters to be read, always, and forever, when this is not the case at all.

At the very least Matthew indicates otherwise. In Matthew 28:19-20 we read (my emphasis):

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Here's another example from Acts 1:8 (my emphasis):

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Why in the world would Paul intend anyone else to read this letter besides Philemon?

Some of Paul's letters may have been meant for only the recipient to read. Philemon might be one of them. However, many of Paul's other letters are way too lengthy and elaborate to be meant for one person only.

A story can be an "orderly account." I don't then think Luke was denying that what he was writing a story when he called it an orderly account.

Okay, if this is the case then I guess we can agree. I just do not want it to be thought that if one is "telling a story" that it is necessarily fiction. As an example, if Luke would have told Theophilus, "I want to tell you a story" as opposed to, "I want to give you an orderly account", how would you understand the difference between the two? I would suppose that the "story" might not be a true story, however, I would suppose an "orderly account" would be meant to be true.

I think that Luke intended that many read his letter and not just Theophilus.

What would give you this idea? If this was the case, then why did he only address, Theophilus? Why would he not address all those that he intended?

The Gospel of Luke seems way too elaborate and lengthy to be merely meant for the recipient.

I do not disagree that it is, "elaborate and lengthy", and let us not forget the fact that "Acts" is "elaborate, and lengthy" as well. But again, why would the author only address Theophilus, if he had others in mind? Are you suggesting that no one would ever have a friend who would go to such lengths to explain to a friend the things he witnessed and believed to be true?

If this is what you believe, then it would have to be based upon assumptions, because the evidence suggests, only Theophilus was intended.

Either way, there is no doubt, the author had no idea, there would be those thousands of years later who would read his letters, much less that his letters would be included in what we call the, Bible.

If Mark and Matthew were meant for many people to read, then why conclude that Luke was merely a letter to be read by one recipient?

Well I conclude, Luke, and Acts "were merely letters to be read by one recipient" because they only address one person. Where do you get the idea that, Mark, and Matthew "were meant for many people to read?"

Are you suggesting that since no one is addressed, that it must, and has to be meant for many? What if you were to ask me to give you an account of certain events? Would you expect me to address you? Or would you be satisfied if I simply supplied the account?

You see, my point is, I would have no idea who, Matthew, and Mark, were writing too, because no one is addressed. This means, I have no way to know just how many people these men intended to read the account. With this being the case, I do not assume anything at all.

However, you seem to claim to know that Matthew, and Mark were indeed intended for many to read, but I do not see how this would be any more than an assumption, and I do not like to assume.

On the other hand, I do not have to assume who Luke was writing too, and I do not have to assume the reasons he is writing, nor do I have to assume how he received his information, because it is all right there in the letter.

I also do not assume that Luke is telling the truth, and I do not claim that he must and has to be. However, I can, and do point to the evidence that certainly seems to suggest that he was.

Now the question is, are there those who assume, Luke must not have been telling the truth, and that it all must have been "completely fictional", with the only evidence being, what the "mainstream" has to say?

I think I agree with you here. Probably a billion people or more have read Luke or at least parts of it. Luke maybe didn't even know what a billion is.

Right! But the evidence suggests strongly that the author only had Theophilus in mind, unless of course you have other evidence? If not, you are building your case upon assumptions, while I am building my case upon the FACT, that only Theophilus was addressed.

At the very least Matthew indicates otherwise. In Matthew 28:19-20 we read (my emphasis):

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Great! Lets look at this in context, because you see, you have only supplied one verse here.

The context actually starts in verse 16, where it says,

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

Okay, so who does Matthew say was there to witness this event? It was the "eleven" right? It goes on to say beginning in verse 18,

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying,

Okay, who is the "them" that Jesus is speaking too? It is the "eleven" right? So what does Jesus go on to tell the "eleven?"

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.

So now, who is being told to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you?" Well, that would be only the "eleven" right?

In other words, it is clear in the context, that Jesus was addressing, and speaking to only the "eleven", and Matthew is reporting to his audience what Jesus had to say to them, and them alone.

Therefore, this command was given to the "eleven" and only the "eleven", and has nothing to do with us today. And, as reported later in the Bible, these men do in fact go into all the known world at the time, and preach the Gospel.

My point is, this passage, along with the other passage you refer too, as we shall see, does not in any way demonstrate that Matthew, and Mark, has to have a wider audience in mind. They may have. There is no way to know, but this passage does not offer any evidence.

Here's another example from Acts 1:8 (my emphasis):

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

And again, context is king! Before verse 8, we clearly read in verse 1 thru 3,

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

So here, he is clearly speaking of the Apostles, and when the author uses the word, "THEM" in verse 3, it is clearly in reference to the Apostles. The author then goes on to say,

And being assembled together with them

Who is the "THEM?" It is clearly the Apostles! It goes on

He commanded them

Who did Jesus command? It was "them", right? The same "them" whom he had "gathered with."

So then, what did Jesus command, "them" (the Apostles: the one he had gathered with) to do?

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father

Now, here is the key. The command, "not to depart from Jerusalem" was absolutely, and clearly only intended for the Apostles, and could not possibly have anything at all to do with a command for any of us today. For one thing, I have never been to Jerusalem.

If this is clearly the case, then why would we think that the promise,

but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

Would apply to us today, when we were not there, Jesus was not addressing us, and He tells "them" (the Apostles) that this would occur, "not many days from now?"

On top of this, when we continue into the next chapter, the author clearly goes on to tell how this event actually took place in the upper room, when the Holy Spirit came upon "them."

This passage continues on, speaking of how, the Apostles went on to ask Jesus a question which was,

Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

Jesus goes on to answer this question by saying,

It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

Clearly when Jesus says, "it is not for YOU to know", the "YOU" clearly, and only refers to the Apostles, because he is answering the Apostle's question. In other words, I did not ask the question, so the "you" is not intended for me.

So now, after all of this we arrive to the passage you refer too which is,

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

So again, when Jesus says, "But when YOU", the "YOU" clearly and only refers to the Apostles, because I have never been to Jerusalem, therefore there is no way I could ever be a witness for Jesus there, and I have never traveled all over the world to do such a thing, because I realize this command was not intended for me, and as I continue to read what this author has to say, I can clearly see how the Apostles actually did such things.

The point in all of this is to demonstrate that these passages you refer too, in no way show that this letter must, and had to be intended for many. In fact, after a careful reading we can actually see how the author was giving an account about a particular conversation that was between, Jesus, and His Apostles, and it is clear from the context that only the Apostles were intended.

So how do you come to the conclusion that these passages somehow demonstrate that others were intended? It is clearly not there, and one would absolutely have to tear the passages out of their context to do such a thing.

Some of Paul's letters may have been meant for only the recipient to read. Philemon might be one of them.

Well, it is not only Philemon, there are the letters to Timothy, and Titus, that were only intended for one person. Allow me to demonstrate. Paul begins his second letter to Timothy by saying,

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, a beloved son:

Clearly, only Timothy is addressed. But the evidence becomes even more clear. Paul continues,

I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day

So who do you think Paul is "remembering in his prayers day, and night?" I assure you, it was none of us. Paul goes on,

greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy

I really do not believe that Paul is "greatly desiring to see any of us." Rather as is clear, Paul is referring to the one addressed in this letter, which was Timothy. Paul goes on,

when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.

At this point, it should be abundantly clear that only one person is intended, because not very many of us would have a grandmother by the name of "Lois", with a mother by the name of, "Eunice." In fact, this could very well exclude everyone else in the world, but Timothy.

If all of this is not enough, let us turn our attention to the end of the letter. Paul says there,

Be diligent to come to me quickly

Should I be looking to see where Paul is now and, "get to him quickly?" He goes on,

Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come"and the books, especially the parchments.

Should I be attempting to round these things up, and take them to Paul?

The point is, it is ridiculous to think that any of these letters in the New Testament were meant for us today. Rather, we should read them just as they were written, which is to read them just as you would read any other letter that was addressed to another. In doing so, you just may able to determine what they intended to communicate.

However, many of Paul's other letters are way too lengthy and elaborate to be meant for one person only.

I am really having trouble understanding how "lengthy and elaborate" would have anything at all to do with how many people were intended?

At any rate, most of Paul's letters clearly address those who are intended. So then, when he addressed a particular Church, all those who belong to this Church would be intended.

The fact of the matter is, in most of his letters to the different Churches, Paul is addressing particular concerns within that particular Church. Like in the letter to the Galatians, Paul seems to be addressing a Church that wants to return to the law. Since I have no desire to return to the law, and I do not belong to a Church that desires to do so, then how would this letter have anything at all to do with me?

It does not! But I can certainly read this letter in order to determine what Paul as an Apostle had to say to this Church, in order to determine the things Paul taught, and this letter is certainly evidence that there was indeed someone named Paul, and that he lived out most of his life planting Churches, and preaching what he claimed to have witnessed.

The evidence in all of Paul's letters, is that he had particular audiences in mind, and would not possibly have known that his letters would be read by millions, upon millions.

My main point here is, all of the NT writers simply had those at the time in mind, and could not have been attempting to write for those such as us today. Rather, the evidence is clear, that these men were simply living out their lives at the time, and these letters are the by product of their lives, and the letters are certainly evidence that this is the case, which is certainly why, those opposed look to cast doubt upon who actually wrote them, and must, and have to assume they could not possibly have been written during the lifetime of those they are attributed too, and those opposed must, and have to do so, because they realize just how strong these letters are as evidence.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 53 by Realworldjack]

...why did he only address, Theophilus? Why would he not address all those that he intended?

That's a good question. I don't know why Luke addressed his gospel to Theophilus. One possibility is that Theophilus was a revered man who if addressed would attract the attention of others to the letter addressed to him. For example, if I addressed a letter to President Trump, I would expect that letter to attract attention from many people besides Trump.

Are you suggesting that no one would ever have a friend who would go to such lengths to explain to a friend the things he witnessed and believed to be true?

I think that's unlikely. If Luke only meant Theophilus to read his letter, then I wonder how that letter became so widely known and disseminated. Did Theophilus make that letter known realizing that Luke meant it for his eyes only?

If this is what you believe, then it would have to be based upon assumptions...

I am forced to assume because the evidence is lacking.

Either way, there is no doubt, the author had no idea, there would be those thousands of years later who would read his letters, much less that his letters would be included in what we call the, Bible.

There are so many mind readers in this forum! How do you know what idea Luke had for his gospel?

Where do you get the idea that, Mark, and Matthew "were meant for many people to read?"

Mark and Matthew are examples of religious propaganda. Propaganda is directed at large audiences.

...would you be satisfied if I simply supplied the account?

If I received correspondence from you like one of the Gospels, then I would think you meant that information for people besides myself.

[historia]

[Replying to post 51 by historia]

You may wish to check the video Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig on YouTube.

I might. But, in the meantime, can you give me the exact quote from Ehrman that informs your characterization of his argument in the OP?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 51 by historia]

You may wish to check the video Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig on YouTube.

I might. But, in the meantime, can you give me the exact quote from Ehrman that informs your characterization of his argument in the OP?

About 33 minutes into the video:

Miracles are so highly improbable that they're the least possible occurrence in any given instance.

From now on you'll need to do your own work.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 54 by Jagella]

That's a good question. I don't know why Luke addressed his gospel to Theophilus.

The first thing I will point out here is, Luke did not set out to write a Gospel. Rather, he set out to write a letter, and this letter was addressed to one person which was someone by the name of Theophilus.

In other words, Luke along with Matthew, Mark, and John, did not call their writings, "Gospels." Their writings were called "Gospels" by those later, long after the fact. This was actually brought up by Bart Ehrman, in the video you supplied.

The question then becomes, why would we ignore the plan evidence that this letter was only intended for one person, because it is only addressed to one person, and go on to insist that this could not possibly be the case, and others, must, and had to be intended?

The evidence that it was intended for only one person is right there in the letter. So what evidence is there to the contrary? You say you "do not know why Luke addressed his Gospel to Theophilus", and act as if it is not possible that the reason would be, because Theophilus was the only one intended, when this is the evidence we have.

One possibility is that Theophilus was a revered man who if addressed would attract the attention of others to the letter addressed to him. For example, if I addressed a letter to President Trump, I would expect that letter to attract attention from many people besides Trump.

I really cannot make what you say here make sense. If I were to write a letter to Trump, and only address Trump, how could, or would this draw the attention of others, unless Trump shared such a letter with others, and how could, or would I be sure that he would do such a thing?

The bottom line here is, you are working off of assumptions that can never be demonstrated to be true, while ignoring the evidence right in front of you, while I am dealing with the FACT, that only one person is addressed.

I think that's unlikely. If Luke only meant Theophilus to read his letter, then I wonder how that letter became so widely known and disseminated. Did Theophilus make that letter known realizing that Luke meant it for his eyes only?

Simply because this letter became "widely known and disseminated" has no bearing at all upon whose eyes were intended to begin with. You may write a letter to me, and initially only have me in mind. I could read this letter, and begin to tell others about it, and actually ask them to read it as well. If others begin to read it, it may begin to spark interest, and the next thing you know, thousands read it, but this would still have no bearing upon who, or how many folks you had in mind when you actually wrote the letter.

As an example, lets consider again the letter that Paul wrote to Philemon. It is beyond doubt that Paul only had Philemon in mind when he wrote this letter. There would be no other reason for Paul to have others in mind. However, for some reason this letter was saved and has been read by millions, but this clearly has no bearing upon the fact that, only Philemon was intended.

Did Theophilus make that letter known realizing that Luke meant it for his eyes only?

There is a tremendous difference between someone writing a letter that is intended for only the eyes of one reader because the information is private, and the author would rather only the intended read such a letter, as opposed to one writing a letter with only one person in mind, and the author having no problem with the information being shared with others.

Again, as an example, you may write me a letter, and at the time of the writing you only have me in mind. I may read this letter, and would like to share this information with others, and I could ask if you would mind if I shared this letter with others. If you consented to allow me to do such a thing, this still would have no bearing upon who was intended to begin with. In other words, the letter was still intended only for me, and you could have only had me in mind when you wrote.

The main point here in all of this is, there seemed to be some folks who seem to be attempting to make the case that these letters of Luke were intended to be some sort of book, for any and all to read, when this is not the case.

There are so many mind readers in this forum! How do you know what idea Luke had for his gospel?

It has nothing to do with "reading minds!" It is called, "dealing with the facts." Lets go back and look at the quote you were responding too. In it I said,

Either way, there is no doubt, the author had no idea, there would be those thousands of years later who would read his letters, much less that his letters would be included in what we call the, Bible.

The author could not have possibly had an idea that his letters would be read by those thousands of years later, because he could not have known that his letters would even be saved.

Next, he could not have possibly known his letters would one day end up in what we now call the Bible, because the Bible was not even a thought in anyone's mind at that point, and it would be hundreds of years later before it was.

So, one does not have to be a "mind reader" to know these things. They can simply deal with the facts.

Mark and Matthew are examples of religious propaganda. Propaganda is directed at large audiences.

This is a mighty bold statement. Do you have any facts to back it up?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 57 by Realworldjack]

The first thing I will point out here is, Luke did not set out to write a Gospel. Rather, he set out to write a letter...

Luke may have intended for his letter to be a Gospel. There's no reason why his letter could not also be a Gospel.

In other words, Luke along with Matthew, Mark, and John, did not call their writings, "Gospels." Their writings were called "Gospels" by those later, long after the fact.

Using this very logic you destroy your own argument. If you insist that a gospel is only a gospel if the author calls it a gospel, then you cannot conclude that the New Testament writers were writing letters either. Why? Because they didn't call their writings letters.

The question then becomes, why would we ignore the plan evidence that this letter was only intended for one person, because it is only addressed to one person, and go on to insist that this could not possibly be the case, and others, must, and had to be intended?

Jack, didn't you ever hear of an "open letter"? An open letter is a letter that is intended to be read by a wide audience. Luke's Gospel was probably an open letter.

If I were to write a letter to Trump, and only address Trump, how could, or would this draw the attention of others, unless Trump shared such a letter with others, and how could, or would I be sure that he would do such a thing?

You would draw the attention of others because Trump is a well-known person. I already explained this principle. You may not be sure it would draw attention from others, but that's beside the point. The point would be your attempt to draw attention by writing to a famous or revered person.

The bottom line here is, you are working off of assumptions that can never be demonstrated to be true...

Can you demonstrate that the intentions of the New Testament writers were that they only wanted one person to read their letters?

while ignoring the evidence right in front of you, while I am dealing with the FACT, that only one person is addressed.

I know that Luke is addressed to one person. I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm just disagreeing with your non sequitur that if a work is addressed to one person, then it must have been intended for that one person only to read. It does not logically follow that if a letter is addressed to one person, then that letter must have been intended for that person only.

You may write a letter to me, and initially only have me in mind.

There's no way I would write a letter like Luke and intend that only you read it! Luke is a Gospel in that it serves as a foundation for a religion. Religions are made up of groups of people. Luke posits Jesus as the son of God whose mission was to save the world. The world, then, needed to know what was being claimed in Luke.

As an example, lets consider again the letter that Paul wrote to Philemon. It is beyond doubt that Paul only had Philemon in mind when he wrote this letter. There would be no other reason for Paul to have others in mind.

You seriously believe that Paul meant his letters for one person only? Philippians 4:8 states:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable"if anything is excellent or praiseworthy"think about such things.

Paul is addressing "brothers and sisters" which is plural--more than one person--not just one person.

It is called, "dealing with the facts.

Yes, now deal with the fact that I just posted. I proved your argument to be wrong.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 57 by Realworldjack]

Many scholars disagree with the assumption that the gospels were intended to be private. They argue that public writings were not infrequently 'addressed' to a patron, someone sponsoring the work, or requesting it.

Did Paul himself not ask that his letters be exchanged?

I am not sure what RWJ's ultimate argument is, but it is most certainly the case that the authors of the gospels were not writing personal letters. They were 'bios', and as such intended for circulation. Hence they circulated, and quite speedily.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 58 by Jagella]

Luke may have intended for his letter to be a Gospel.

Luke, along with the other Gospel writers, would not have known what "A" Gospel was. Of course they knew what "THE" Gospel was. As already demonstrated, these authors did not call their writings "Gospels." This was done much later, along with the fact that they did not title their writings, nor did they break them up into chapter and verse.

As I said, this was brought up by Bart Ehrman, in the video you supplied. So then, Luke would have had no way to intend his writing to be "A" Gospel, since he would have had no idea of what "A" Gospel would have been.

Luke, set out to write a letter, and there were those much later wsho entitled his writing as, "The Gospel According To Luke."

Using this very logic you destroy your own argument. If you insist that a gospel is only a gospel if the author calls it a gospel, then you cannot conclude that the New Testament writers were writing letters either. Why? Because they didn't call their writings letters.

Again, none of these men would have known what "A" Gospel was. Next, Luke actually called his writings, "accounts." So I am fine with sticking to the facts, which means I will not insist on Luke's writings being called letters. However, it is also a FACT, that these "accounts", were solely addressed to one person, which was Theophilus. If the author had others in mind, he could have certainly addressed them as well, but he addresses no one else. These are the facts, and to claim that others must have been intended, is to place something in the authors intent that is not there.

So then, we have an account that was addressed to Theophilus, and only Theophilus.

Jack, didn't you ever hear of an "open letter"? An open letter is a letter that is intended to be read by a wide audience. Luke's Gospel was probably an open letter.

The word "probably" here sticks out like a sore thumb! Where is the evidence to suggest such a thing? The evidence against it is, the author addressed Theophilus. Now as far as the other 3 Gospel writers, you may can attempt to make the argument that what they wrote were open letters, since no one is addressed. But even then, the argument would have to be based upon assumptions.

It would seem better to stick to the fact that, we have no idea who the others were writing to, why they were writing, or who actually wrote them. However, as far as Luke, and Acts is concerned, we have the authors own account of who he is writing to, why he is writing, along with how he gathered his information.

We also have pretty strong evidence that the writer was indeed Luke. So to say his writings may have been, "open letters" would be to make an assumption, with no evidence whatsoever, and it would also be going outside what the author actually says himself.

You would draw the attention of others because Trump is a well-known person. I already explained this principle. You may not be sure it would draw attention from others, but that's beside the point. The point would be your attempt to draw attention by writing to a famous or revered person.

GOOD GRIEF! As you have admitted yourself, Luke writes "elaborate and lengthy" letters. He goes to such trouble, addresses theses long, and elaborate letters to one who may be "reverend" in hopes that it may call attention to the letters? This would most definitely have to be based upon assumption, and I would go on to suggest that it is highly unlikely.

So then, are you suggesting, it is impossible that Luke simply set out as he said, to give an "orderly account" to Theophilus in order that Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things he had been taught?" This is not a possibility at all?

Well then, thanks to you, we can all know that we cannot listen to what the author claims his intentions were.

Can you demonstrate that the intentions of the New Testament writers were that they only wanted one person to read their letters?

You are sort of putting words in my mouth. There is a tremendous difference between saying, "they only wanted one person to read the letter", as opposed to stating their intentions. In other words, when Paul wrote his letter to Philemon, it is clear that Paul only had Philemon in mind as he wrote. Paul may have been fine if others were to read it, but the point is, this is not what he intended.

Paul had information that he needed to get to Philemon. He may have cared less if others read it. But his only intention was to communicate to Philemon.

This would be no different than if I were to pick up a letter on my kitchen table that was addressed to my wife. The author may not care if I read it, but they did not have me in mind as they wrote.

I know that Luke is addressed to one person. I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm just disagreeing with your non sequitur that if a work is addressed to one person, then it must have been intended for that one person only to read. It does not logically follow that if a letter is addressed to one person, then that letter must have been intended for that person only.

If the letter is only addressed to one person, (and we both agree that it was) then it would be a mighty huge leap to go outside this fact to suggest others may have been intended as well. If this is the case, then why would Luke not write exactly the way in which the other Gospel writers did, by not addressing anyone at all? Or, if there were others intended, then why not address all the intended, much the same way as Paul when he addressed his letters to the Churches?

Again, I am sticking to the fact that, the author only addresses one person, while you are building your case upon, assumption. What I cannot understand is, why? Why do you insist others had to be intended?

Luke is a Gospel in that it serves as a foundation for a religion.

What evidence do you have that this was the intention of Luke when he wrote? Because as far as I can see, the evidence suggests that Luke was simply writing to a friend, he gives the reason for his writing, and he never comes close to claiming what you suggest.

Religions are made up of groups of people. Luke posits Jesus as the son of God whose mission was to save the world. The world, then, needed to know what was being claimed in Luke.

Then why would Luke not address his writing to the world?

You seriously believe that Paul meant his letters for one person only? Philippians 4:8 states:

Philippians 1:1
From Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus. To all those in Philippi

So who wrote this letter? Well, it says, "Paul and Timothy." Who was being addressed? "ALL THOSE IN PHILIPPI." So then who did the authors have in mind when they wrote this letter?

Again the point is, Paul, and Timothy may not have had a problem if others read this letter, but their mind was upon the Church in Philippi as they wrote. In other words this letter was clearly intended for this Church.

Paul is addressing "brothers and sisters" which is plural--more than one person--not just one person.

Right! And those people would clearly be those addressed, and it would be, "all those in Philippi."

Yes, now deal with the fact that I just posted. I proved your argument to be wrong.

Try again, my friend!