Gospel of Luke

===Christology===
Luke's understanding of Jesus – his [[Christology]] – is central to his theology. One approach to this is through the titles Luke gives to Jesus: these include, but are not limited to, Christ ([[Messiah]]), [[Jesus is Lord|Lord]], [[Son of God]], and [[Son of Man]].{{sfn|Powell|1989|p=60}} Another is by reading Luke in the context of similar Greco-Roman divine saviour figures (Roman emperors are an example), references which would have made clear to Luke's readers that Jesus was the greatest of all saviours.{{sfn|Powell|1989|pp=63–65}} A third is to approach Luke through his use of the Old Testament, those passages from Jewish scripture which he cites to establish that Jesus is the promised Messiah.{{sfn|Powell|1989|p=66}} While much of this is familiar, much also is missing: for example, Luke makes no clear reference to Christ's pre-existence or to the Christian's union with Christ, and makes relatively little reference to the concept of atonement: perhaps he felt no need to mention these ideas, or disagreed with them, or possibly he was simply unaware of them.{{sfn|Buckwalter|1996|p=4}}

[[File:Bartolomé Esteban Perez Murillo 023.jpg|thumb|left|upright|''Annunciation'' ([[Bartolomé Esteban Perez Murillo|Murillo]])]]
Even what Luke does say about Christ is ambiguous or even contradictory.{{sfn|Buckwalter|1996|p=4}} For example, according to [[Luke 2:11]] Jesus was the Christ at his birth, but in Acts 2:36 he becomes Christ at the resurrection, while in Acts 3:20 it seems his messiahship is active only at the [[parousia]], the "[[second coming of Christ|second coming]]"; similarly, in Luke 2:11 he is the [[Redeemer (Christianity)|Saviour]] from birth, but in Acts 5:31<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|5:31}}</ref> he is made Saviour at the resurrection; and he is born the [[Son of God]] in Luke 1:32–35,<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|1:32–35}}</ref> but becomes the Son of God at the resurrection according to Acts 13:33.<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|13:33}}</ref>{{sfn|Ehrman|1996|p=65}} Many of these differences may be due to scribal error, but others are argued to be deliberate alterations to doctrinally unacceptable passages, or the introduction by scribes of "proofs" for their favourite theological tenets.{{sfn|Miller|2011|p=63}}