Author	Thread: Question about book of Acts
Admin	Question about book of Acts Posted : 4 Feb, 2010 11:51 PM So... there haven't been many new topics here over the last 2 or 3 days, so here we go. lol. Ok. So I was reading in Acts today while at work. In the 16th chapter... the point of view seems to change. It goes from a third person point of view to a first person point of view. Kinda weird. I know that this book used to be a single work with the book of Luke... it was split into two separate books. So, when Acts starts using "we" and "us" instead of "they" and "them", does that mean that the author of Luke was with Paul and that point? It's kind of confusing because it just comes out of nowhere. Before the dream of the macedonian, it is 3rd person. Immediately after the dream, it's 1st person. The question I have is this... Was the author of Luke with Paul and his journey's the whole time, or does he just leave out the fact that he joined Paul for a short time? I'm not losing any sleep over this, but I'm kind of curious. Thanks in advance for anyone who has any input. In Christ Garrett Post Reply
View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 5 Feb, 2010 08:58 AM Was the author of Luke with Paul and his journey's the whole time, or does he just leave out the fact that he joined Paul for a short time? I'm not losing any sleep over this, but I'm kind of curious. Thanks in advance for anyone who has any input. I have read a few verses the last few days in Acts 1 and noticed the name Theophilus, whom Luke is referring to as the person Acts was written to or we are reading a report that was written for Theophilus. I am not that certain from where I am to where you are. If you refer as to "they or "them. I would take this as the party that the writer knows and is using to explain what had been done in witness for them to give in writing so, that the party that was not there would know of the witness that had happen.Let me know what you find out, I am curious 2. GivenLife NOTE: Theophilus name appears in verse Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1 Post Reply
DontHitThatMark View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 5 Feb, 2010 09:44 AM It does sound like a great effort was made to go to Macedonia, possibly by a "missionary group" that involved whoever was writing the account. Maybe Paul had the vision, then went around and gathered a group together to go work in Macedonia. :peace::peace: Post Reply
View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 5 Feb, 2010 10:37 AM dear garreth, i had that same experience a while back also i tried to figure it out but in cases like this the relevance pops up in my mind at some other time and i have an 'a ha' moment. i know it doesn't help much but i was just .... hmmm nyanda Post Reply
View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 5 Feb, 2010 10:44 AM I realize I didn't give a specific location within the book. My bad! lol. I believe its in the beginning fo the sixteenth chapter... maybe 10 verses in. It only lasts for a number of verses. Post Reply
chering1 View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 6 Feb, 2010 05:07 PM " I know that this book used to be a single work with the book of Luke... it was split into two separate books. So, when Acts starts using "we" and "us" instead of "they" and "them", does that mean that the author of Luke was with Paul and that point?" It is "generally" belived by scholars that Acts 1-12 were sources already in existence when Acts was written and incorporated into the book of Acts because of what you noted ..Why do they believe this? 1) these speeches in contrast to Acts 13 onward translate well into Aramaic which would be expected if these record actual speeches given to Jewish audiences in early Christianity 2) these speeches have a unique vocabulary,tone, style and theology when compared to the rest of Acts which points to preexistence to the rest of Acts 3) the theology is primitive ie messiahship of Jesus is emphasized and not His Deity (although compatible), "Jesus the Nazarene" etc and a primitive concept of redemption is used ie Jesus is seen in terms of His redemption of Israel as a nation 4) when one compares1 Peter, Mark (which tradition says comes from Peter) and Peters speeches in Acts, the language. style, and emphasis are almost identical. this makes sense if one assumes that all three actually refer to statements that Peter makes himself 5) Acts 1 & 2 indicate that the earliest preaching of the gospel took place in Jerusalem seven weeks after the crucifixion. This is historically probable since there is no reason for inventing the seven week interval. In fact , such an interval would have raised doubts, people would have wondered why the disciples would have waited seven weeks to preach the resurrection. Several lines of evidence converge to show that the speeches in Acts 1 -12 are early and that the probability that they are accurate pieces of history is high. Once again, we see that a unique view of Jesus, including His resurrection was present very shortly after the crucifixion. Further reading if interested: "Jesus of Nazareth" Stanton ,pp 67-85 "New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels" Royce Gruenler "Scaling the SecularCity" J P Moreland Post Reply
View Profile History	Question about book of Acts Posted : 13 Feb, 2010 05:19 PM It seems that when the pronouns change that Luke might have been with the Apsolte Paul. ( Although it really does not say what he does or show him walking and talking with the apsolte Paul.) Post Reply