Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

Moving on from the Synoptic Gospels, our class is presently exploring the Book of Acts. Granted it's not the order in which the college text is written, however I do agree with our professor that it helps in studying both Luke and Acts side by side...in that they are both by the same author.

Traditionally, the authorship is ascribed to Luke...however it remains "unknown" for all realistic and intensive purposes. We do know however that the writing style for both books are the same, and they are both addressed to "Theophilus", which loosely translates to "Lover of God."
Scholars suggest a date of 90 CE, seems appropriate as to the time of writing, so around sixty years after Jesus died. Which brings me to the first points.

Consider if you will, in composing his story, the author (whom we call Luke) is highly selective in his use of the oral "traditions" and "eyewitness" reports on which Acts is presumably based. Although he lists the names of the original eleven apostles. Luke tells us almost nothing about most of them. Instead, he concentrates on only a few figures, using them to represent crucial stages in early Christianity's swift transformation from a Jewish to a Gentile movement.

The author of the book, takes a few shall we say? "Liberties." i.e. Although Paul is Luke's heroic exemplar of true Christianity, the author does not actually portray Paul as he reveals himself in his letters. Further, the author omits controversial Pauline ideas and even contradicts some of Paul's own versions of events.

What I find fascinating, is that I did not realize how large the movement was at the time of Luke's writings. Churches were being established in Egypt, Cyrene, and other locations in North Africa. Basically, across the entire Roman Empire. We're still about two hundred and ten years away, from it becoming an official religion...and a few decades away before all other religions were outlawed.

What's notable, is that there was a great deal of diversity across the landscape. The author had a strong preference for Pauline Christianity, a branch of the faith that historically came to dominate the Western church.

Like other historians of his day, Luke ascribes long, elaborate speeches to his leading characters, such as Peter, Stephen, James, and Paul. But whoever the speaker, most of the speeches sound much alike in both style and thought. Some would call it divine providence? :?

What varying scholars propose, is that Luke apparently follows the standard practice of Greco-Roman authors by supplementing what was remembered with material of his own creation. Ancient historians and biographers like Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, and Plutarch commonly enlivened their narratives with speeches put in the mouths of historical characters. The classical writer composed such discourses based on his conception of the speaker's character and major concerns at the time the speech was given. He was not expected to reproduce a particular speech exactly as it was delivered.

In short, while attempting to reproduce the "general sense" of what people said, Thucydides created their speeches according to his understanding of what "was called for by the occasion." We cannot know the extent to which Luke's speeches reflect ideas expressed in generations before his time. For those who are interested in the reference to Thucydides, he fully explains the historian's method clearly in (The Peloponnesian War I.22)

Another interesting element, is that the author seems to "exaggerate" in comparison to Pauls more subdued accounts of the very same events described, in his letters.

So far the chapter is a fascinating read. And I look forward to hearing commentary and/or ideas from others...as well as going into a little more detail. Plus seeing what the prof has to offer, in his lecture tomorrow night. :-D

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: .however it remains "unknown" for all realistic and intensive purposes. We do know however that the writing style for both books are the same, and they are both addressed to "Theophilus", which loosely translates to "Lover of God."

So what is it that makes this synopsis "realistic"? The writer was obviously a companion of Paul from the passages in which "we" and "us" are used (16:10, 20:5-21:18, 27:1-28:16). And He was obviously a physician, because he used medical terms frequently. Additionally, if it were written in 90 AD, why are momentous events such as the burning of Rome, the martyrdom of Paul, or the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned? It is known that Luke was with Paul in Macedonia, and later in Rome during his house arrest, it is likely it is during this period that the book was written. About 61 AD.

These facts put the theory of your college text in serious jeopardy.

[sLiPpY]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: .however it remains "unknown" for all realistic and intensive purposes. We do know however that the writing style for both books are the same, and they are both addressed to "Theophilus", which loosely translates to "Lover of God."

So what is it that makes this synopsis "realistic"? The writer was obviously a companion of Paul from the passages in which "we" and "us" are used (16:10, 20:5-21:18, 27:1-28:16). And He was obviously a physician, because he used medical terms frequently. Additionally, if it were written in 90 AD, why are momentous events such as the burning of Rome, the martyrdom of Paul, or the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned? It is known that Luke was with Paul in Macedonia, and later in Rome during his house arrest, it is likely it is during this period that the book was written. About 61 AD.

These facts put the theory of your college text in serious jeopardy.

:-D It does tend to explain the "we" passages, which the text acknowledges in it's discussion of authorship as to the Book of Luke. Some scholars point out that the writer uses medical terms no more expertly than he employs legal or maritime terminology. ;)

The author nowhere identifies himself, either in the Gospel of Luke, nor in the Book of Acts. The writers depiction of Paul's character and teaching, moreover, does not always coincide with what Paul reveals of himself in his letters. These facts indicate to many contemporary scholars that the author could not have known the apostle well. Perhaps the most telling argument against Luke's authorship is that the writer shows no knowledge of Paul's letters. Not only does he never refer to Paul's writing, but alludes to none of Paul's characteristic teachings in any of the Pauline speeches contained in Acts.

The author's identity is not conclusively established, that is why it is more realistic to acknowledge the question remains open for discussion.

As to the date of authorship, most scholars agree that it was written after 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies. Take a look at 21:20-24 in the Gospel of Luke, it seems to reveal a detailed knowledge of the Roman siege. It would appear, then, that the Gospel was written at some point after the Jewish War of 66-73, and before 90CE, when publication made Paul's letters accessible to Christian readers. Many scholars place authorship in the mid-to late 80's. Favoring Ephesus, a Greek-speaking city in Asia Minor with a relatively large Christian population, as the place of composition. However, that is also inconclusive.

So I'd gander it'd be a little like applying the scientific method. There are many theories, but a double blind study doesn't always agreeably yield the same result.

The text does not pretend to know when, however favors the latest possible date for testing purposes. It also provides opposing views, that exist within the scholarly community.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Take a look at 21:20-24 in the Gospel of Luke, it seems to reveal a detailed knowledge of the Roman siege.

:lol: C'mon.

[sLiPpY]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Take a look at 21:20-24 in the Gospel of Luke, it seems to reveal a detailed knowledge of the Roman siege.

:lol: C'mon.

You might want to elaborate a bit. In addition to the text, I've also looked at the passage in the Life Application Study Bible, which is a New International Version by Zondervan.

On a theological level, I'd interpret the passage as saying that the domination of God's people by his enemies would continue until God decided to end it. The "times of the Gentiles" refers not just to the repeated destructions of Jerusalem, but also to the continuing and mounting persecution of God's people until the end."

We also have 19:43-44 to look at. The Roman method of encircling a besieged town, a military technique that was used in the assault on Jerusalem.

btw...the verb tense of the original greek is the real kicker. :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Check out Daniel 12 for more foreknowledge of the same event. Mark 13, and Matthew 24 speak of the same event, which hasn't happened yet.

Note that the Abomination of Desolation was not in the holy place before the destruction of Jerusalem at this time.

Want to know what that is?

Daniel 2 gives us the type, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar who later made a replica of this statue in his own image and killed all who did not worship him (this is were the tell of the fiery furnace comes into play, typologically, of the salvation of the martyrs of Christ). Daniel 11 is a prophecy of Anitochus IV Epiphanes. Who placed a statue of Zeus made in his own image in the holy place and killed all who refuse to worship him. This was fulfilled.

Hadrian also placed a statue of Jupiter Capitolinus, made in his image, in a Temple to worship the Roman emperor constructed on the site of the temple in Jerusalem in 126 AD. This is often mistaken for the events mentioned by Christ, but the Abomination of Desolation was not placed in the holy place until 56 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple. So this is not the event Christ and Daniel told us would happen. The Roman emperors also killed those who refuse to worship them as God. The man of lawlessness who is yet to come will fulfill this event and he too will kill all who refuse to worship him. .

Take a look at Daniel 7, and compare it to Revelation 17.
Quote: Revelation 7:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11 "The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

The five kings who have fallen are the rulers of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, the Medo Persian empire, and the Greek empire. The one "that is" was at that time the Roman empire, and the one that has not yet come is the emerging world government. The revived Roman empire, what Daniel calls the little horn.

Quote: Da 7:8
"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.

The woman that sits on these mountains is the woman who rides the beast and is drunk on the blood of the saints and is the harlot, Queen of Heaven and the Mystery of Babylon, (Revelation 17:5) this is representative of the pagan idol worship of these world ruling empires, which is spiritual fornication in the eyes of God. This pagan worship finds it's highest expression in the Abomination of Desolation, worship of an idol made in the image of a man who thinks he should be worshiped like God. An anti-Christ.

Considering that much of this is fulfilled prophecy already, I have no doubt the rest will come to pass, as well. In fact, you can see world events coming perfectly into play to fulfill the last part of this prophecy.

You should have no doubt, the Bible is a sure word of prophecy.
Text criticism will not change this fact. It's just sticking one's head in the sand. Remember, if Luke 21 is a description of events in Jerusalem, as you say, these events were prophecized by Daniel hundreds of years before. Either way it was prophecized before the event.

I'm having a good laugh, because I now realize the sense of humor the Holy Spirit has, because He laid a trap for scoffers greater than that of the greatest chess master and you just stepped into it.
What a skillful design the Bible has! How masterful is the skill of our Lord!
Either way you look at it, prophecy was fulfilled. Scoff at that. :lol:

Quote: Psalm 2:1 Why are the nations in an uproar

And the peoples devising a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand

And the rulers take counsel together

Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

3 "Let us tear their fetters apart

And cast away their cords from us!"

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs,

The Lord scoffs at them.


Quote: Proverbs 1:20 Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square; 21 At the head of the noisy streets she cries out; At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings: 22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? 23 "Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. 24 "Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; 25 And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof; 26 I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes, 27 When your dread comes like a storm And your calamity comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. 28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me, 29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. 30 "They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof. 31 "So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way And be satiated with their own devices. 32 "For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them. 33 "But he who listens to me shall live securely And will be at ease from the dread of evil."

Slippy, your Lord is calling you.

Answer Him.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Mt 24:15 -
"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

:lol:

[cap'n queasy]

One of the most important verses of Acts is this.
Quote: 17:11 -Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Don't take my word for any of this, be like the Bereans, and search the scriptures yourself to see if these things be true. :wink:

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: One of the most important verses of Acts is this.
Quote: 17:11 -Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Don't take my word for any of this, be like the Bereans, and search the scriptures yourself to see if these things be true.
You'd think that a "Christian" would be less concerned w/ "being like the Bereans" and more concerned w/ "being like Christ"...

Radical concept..

[sLiPpY]

Tonights lecture on the Book of Acts was entertaining. Feel fortunate to have such an animated, and interested instructor.

n' many thanks to those who both challenge and/or contribute to the topics...it keeps me on my toes. And I'd credit scoring a 100 on the mid-term, to having an additional opportunity on these forums to discuss.

**************************************************

On to the summary:

Acts was interesting, in that in the beginning of the book the audience were individuals who practice Judiasm. As the story unfolds, and the first named Gentile is converted...it sets up the story of Paul's vision concerning food. We went back to Leviticus to examine items that were considered Kosher and ritually clean, to help us better understand the context for the vision.

Further, the cultural negotiation and discussions within Judaism as to what direction, for which Judaism were headed. More specifically, should Gentiles be required to practice Judaism in order to be considered followers of Christ.

The compromise that came about, listed four items that Gentiles must adhere to in order to be considered Christians. Which is kind of nice, in that who in their right mind would have wanted to become circumcized at an advanced age?

The first requirement, was not to take food that had been offered to an idol. Which was a common practice for people to make their offerings, and then later it was disbursed to the poor. I think most Christians today, unwittingly practice that requirement by default.

Then comes the second item, and my personal favorite out of the collection. The term "god fearing" simply referred to Gentiles, in that they also "feared the God of Israel." Paul is very big on Fornication, it seems to be one of his favorite topics. Within the Roman Empire at the time, ritual sex with the high priestess was pretty common. Gentiles were required to give up that paticularly odd, yet possibly enjoyable aspect of particpation in polythesism.

The third requirement, was not to eat anything that had been strangled. That concept seemed pretty weird to me, until the butchering requirements for Kosher food were explained to me. They're pretty ding dang humane. So, if your Grandma went to church, and went out and wrung the Chicken's neck to prepare for Sunday lunch. I'll bet grandma didn't realize she were ritually unclean. ;)

The forth requirement was to drain the blood from any animials that had been killed. According to the instructor Jews, felt that blood was life force...and reserved only for and to honor God. So next time you're chomping down on that Medium Rare Prime rib. Don't forget to wash anything that came into contact with that rare prime rib...or forget that you're unclean at least until Sundown.


I'd grown up in a church, and don't recall ever hearing those four items...or that James, Jesus brother was involved in helping determine them. Paul, didn't seem to think too much about item 1. And often encouraged people to disregard it.

That's all I really remember or care to type right now.