The Book Of Acts

Fee completes his writings with his own conclusion: “The Spirit must be reinstated into the Trinity, where he has never been excluded in our creeds and liturgies, but has been practically excluded from the experienced life of the church.” Moreover, he argues that the very nature of the Triune God, as being three yet one, must become the character of the church both in its oneness and in its function, by the very application of the Spirit’s threefold work of the Trinity. Without this experience, the witness of the churches to the Resurrection today will remain generally ineffective in comparison with the witness of the early Christians, though they lived in a culture very similar to ours. As the title of Fee’s book emphasizes, we are meant to find God’s Spirit empowering for us in the present era while at the same time awaiting the consummation of Christ’s final return.

It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.

In the first section, “The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Challenge in methodology”, Stronstad discusses the theological

This is found by comparing Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:3-4. Acts 1:1: "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen." Luke 1: 3-4: " (3) Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) so that you may know the certainty of things you have been taught." Because Luke's first book was written to Theophilus as was Acts, Luke must be the author of both.

Statement # 1(From The Cradle, The Cross, and The Crown Chapter 8, Loc 10638 of 28382, 1st Paragraph) “There are several significant human agents, but there is one, and only one, major divine agent underlying the entire plot of the book of Acts: the Holy Spirit. For this reason, rather than identifying the book as presenting the “Acts of the Apostles,” it may be more accurate to say that at its heart are the “Acts of the Holy Spirit.” I believe that the book of Acts is a great depiction of how the Holy Spirit can and will move through dedicated people. Without the Holy Spirit, Paul and all the great men in the book of Acts are just great men.

I believe that Luke wrote the book of Acts to allow Christians to see the early history of the Church. Also, it was the place in the bible where to Holy Spirit arrived. The Holy Spirit is first mentioned when the Lord tells His people that He will send The Holy Spirit soon. Then later after Jesus told them that He was sending the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples, the Holy Spirit came. When the Holy Spirit came the Disciples, they were able to experience God on a whole new level. It allowed them to preach the gospel with much more power because it wasn't them speaking, it was God. Luke's purpose in writing the book of Acts was to make clear of what the early church history looked like and the arrival of the Holy Spirit. It was also written

The final eight epistles of the New Testament canon exert an influence out of proportion to their length. They complement the thirteen Pauline Epistles by offering varying perspectives on the richness of Christian truth. Each of the five authors – James, Peter, John, Jude, and the author of Hebrews – made a distinctive contribution from his own point of view. Like the four harmonizing approaches to the life of Christ portrayed in the Gospels, these writers provide a sweeping portrait of the Christian life as a whole and how it should be lived out. Although Paul’s epistles are excellent, the New Testament revelation after Acts would be severely limited by one apostle’s perspective had the writing of these five men been neglected. The

In reading Howard I. Marshall, “Acts”, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. He implied, the most significant for studying and interpreting the book of Acts is how a reader gets out of what he is reading and how he approaches it (Marshall, 17). He states that, “an average reader studies the books of Acts as a history book of the early church” (Marshall, 17). Readers should use critical thinking to seek a deeper revelation. For example: recognizing the authorship to the Gospel of Luke. And seek for what the author’s purpose of writing Luke-Acts (Marshall, 19). Accurate information gives better understanding. In fact, if a reader did not know the culture or customs of the first-century Christian writers of the early church. They would not know the first-century Christian writers were only known to write Letters and Gospels, and not large history literature, as the author did in the book of Acts (Marshall, 18). Who was the author addressing with his literature (Marshall, 18)? With these considerations, it is most significant to have accurate information to be able to study and interpret the true of the book of Acts.

In the first part of Dr. Timothy McGrew's discussion on the dependability of Acts and Luke as an author, McGrew shows and proceeds to interact with the opposing view held by Dr. Bart Ehrman. McGrew respectfully goes through each of Ehrman's negative and misguided beliefs on the contradictions and errors Erhman believes there to be in the book of Acts.

Scholarly evidence supports and opposes the traditional belief that Luke, Paul’s traveling partner, wrote the Gospel connected to his name. To begin, the opposing evidence shows that Luke or Paul was not a witness to the events he tells about, and Luke did not mention Paul, Paul’s letters, or thoughts during his writings of the Book of Acts (Harris, 2014, p.198). In addition, Luke did not reveal himself in the Gospels or in Acts. Therefore, scholars believe that is doubtful that Luke is the author and Luke-Acts is anonymous. In comparison, the supportive evidence that Luke was the author of works bearing his name includes a note in the Muratorian list of New Testament books identifies the author of the Gospel of Luke, who is known as a

Third, he dedicates his work to the reader’s knowledge and growth in the Christian faith. These three statements apply not only to Luke but to Acts as well. They help account for the plausibility, careful reporting, and theological sensitivity of the book.

Many people believe that there is only one account of the Passion of Jesus Christ or they believe that each story is the same; whereas there are four separate Gospel accounts of the Passion of Our Lord. Each of these Gospel accounts supplements the others, however each gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus is unique, not only in how the story is told but also in the events and features themselves. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John clearly present different portrayals of the death of Jesus Christ. By examining each account the reader discovers the evangelist's understanding of the death accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. The reader must examine and compare all of the Gospel accounts to have a full and

Luke and Acts tells the story of what Jesus did and taught during his ministry, first in his earthly life and then as the exalted Christ and Lord through his disciples. This essay will outline the various titles Luke used to portray or described Jesus in his two-volume narrative, in doing this we hope to get a better understanding and a complete picture of who Jesus was. Luke in his two volume work described Jesus in numerous ways and I am only going to be discussing four which referred to him as Christ, Lord, Prophet and Savior. The main Christological themes that appear in Luke-Acts highlighted and emphasised on the concept of the “Lord 's Christ”, meaning the coming ruler of God 's people, who will serve as their Savior and performing prophetic work [2 pg. 123-143]. Moreover, Jesus’s role was not assumed on his own initiative, but rather it was the work of God. Thus we can say that God’s work and plans were at the center of the Book of Acts and Luke’s gospel [1 pg 22].

According to Matera, Luke-Acts is a well-defined set of time periods. The Gospel is considered the time of Jesus and Acts is the time of the Church. The time of Jesus in Luke's Gospel foreshadows the Church (Matera, 7). As stated in Stanton, "Luke set out the story of Jesus as a prelude to the story of the origin and growth of the early Church" (Stanton, 80). John, on the other hand, focuses on Christology and the teachings of Jesus to the community (Matera, 9). Both Gospels contain strong references to discipleship, which form the basis for the Church.

The word "gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news. The first three books in the New Testament (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos, "seen together") They bear greater similarity to each other than any of the other gospels in the New Testament. Along with these similarities come some differences among the gospels, suggesting that each gospel was written for a specific audience and for a specific purpose. This paper will examine the resurrection of Jesus, while identifying the significant differences between Mark, Matthew and Luke. This paper will also analyze the differences to suggest the prominent theological perspective each gospel author