These kids will now be, by default, the cool kids, the rebels. The “educators” are trying to punish them by making them stand up and state their vaccination status, but this will only elevate their social status in grade school. It will also be an invaluable lesson these kids will carry throughout their lives.
Sauce
https://www.wnd.com/2021/12/ritual-humiliation-unvaccinated-children-put-front-classroom/
The “Gospel” of Thomas is not an inspired book. Dr. Luke was a historian’s historian. Read the inspired Gospel of Luke.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
LUKE
Title
As with the other three Gospels, the title is derived from the author’s name. According to tradition, Luke was a Gentile. The apostle Paul seems to confirm this, distinguishing Luke from those who were “of the circumcision” (Col. 4:11, 14). That would make Luke the only Gentile to pen any books of Scripture. He is responsible for a significant portion of the NT, having written both this Gospel and the Book of Acts (see Author and Date).
Very little is known about Luke. He almost never included personal details about himself, and nothing definite is known about his background or his conversion. Both Eusebius and Jerome identified him as a native of Antioch (which may explain why so much of the Book of Acts centers on Antioch—cf. Acts 11:19-27; 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:22, 23, 30-35; 18:22, 23). Luke was a frequent companion of the apostle Paul, at least from the time of Paul’s Macedonian vision (Acts 16:9, 10) right up to the time of Paul’s martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:11).
The apostle Paul referred to Luke as a physician (Col. 4:14). Luke’s interest in medical phenomena is evident in the high profile he gave to Jesus’ healing ministry (e.g., 4:38-40; 5:15-25; 6:17-19; 7:11-15; 8:43-47, 49-56; 9:2, 6, 11; 13:11-13; 14:2-4; 17:12-14; 22:50, 51). In Luke’s day, physicians did not have a unique vocabulary of technical terminology; so when Luke discusses healings and other medical issues, his language is not markedly different from that of the other Gospel writers.
Author and Date
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts clearly were written by the same individual (cf. 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). Although he never identified himself by name, it is clear from his use of “we” in many sections of Acts that he was a close companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). Luke is the only person, among the colleagues Paul mentions in his own epistles (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), who fits the profile of the author of these books. That accords perfectly with the earliest tradition of the church that unanimously attributed this Gospel to Luke.
Luke and Acts appear to have been written at about the same time—Luke first, then Acts. Combined, they make a two-volume work addressed to “Theophilus” (1:3; Acts 1:1; see Background and Setting), giving a sweeping history of the founding of Christianity, from the birth of Christ to Paul’s imprisonment under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30, 31).
The Book of Acts ends with Paul still in Rome, which leads to the conclusion that Luke wrote these books from Rome during Paul’s imprisonment there (c. A.D. 60-62). Luke records Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (19:42-44; 21:20-24) but makes no mention of the fulfillment of that prophecy, either here or in Acts. Luke made it a point to record such prophetic fulfillments (cf. Acts 11:28); so, it is extremely unlikely he wrote these books after the Roman invasion of Jerusalem. Acts also includes no mention of the great persecution that began under Nero in A.D. 64. In addition, many scholars set the date of James’s martyrdom at A.D. 62, and if that was before Luke completed his history, he certainly would have mentioned it. So, the most likely date for this Gospel is A.D. 60 or 61.
Background and Setting
Luke dedicated his works to “most excellent Theophilus” (lit. “lover of God”—1:3; cf. Acts 1:1). This designation, which may be a nickname or a pseudonym, is accompanied by a formal address (“most excellent”)—possibly signifying that “Theophilus” was a well known Roman dignitary, perhaps one of those in “Caesar’s household” who had turned to Christ (Phil. 4:22).
It is almost certain, however, that Luke envisioned a much broader audience for his work than this one man. The dedications at the outset of Luke and Acts are like the formal dedication in a modern book. They are not like the address of an epistle.
Luke expressly stated that his knowledge of the events recorded in his Gospel came from the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (1:1, 2)—strongly implying that he himself was not an eyewitness. It is clear from his prologue that his aim was to give an ordered account of the events of Jesus’ life, but this does not mean he always followed a strict chronological order in all instances (e.g., see note on 3:20 ).
By acknowledging that he had compiled his account from various extant sources (see note on 1:1 ), Luke was not disclaiming divine inspiration for his work. The process of inspiration never bypasses or overrides the personalities, vocabularies, and styles of the human authors of Scripture. The unique traits of the human authors are always indelibly stamped on all the books of Scripture. Luke’s research is no exception to this rule. The research itself was orchestrated by divine providence. And in his writing, Luke was moved by the Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:21). Therefore, his account is infallibly true (see note on 1:3