It was in Antioch that the disciples first got the name of Christians. (REB) This is Luke’s very benign statement. It doesn’t tell us, or how, only that the Antiochenes called the followers of Jesus ‘Christians’ first. It is a parenthetical, a footnote — not a linear event. Nor does it tell us when the sect adopted the name of Christians for themselves. You cannot convert to something that is not separate. Just saying…
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (NASB) It did not take long for the early Christians to start to qualify (or quantify) the relationship between the Father and the Son, not to mention what role if any the Holy Spirit played in this family of sorts. Yesterday, while discussing the Book of Acts with my Sunday School class, I read this as a measure of the author’s (not Paul’s) Christological stance. The developing
From here, a link to check out, yo.
Craig Keener’s first volume on the book of Acts covers two chapters while containing decades’ worth of extensive research. To dismiss the weight of this volume is to forego a severely missing component in any study on the Acts of the Apostles. I have a certain trepidation in approaching such a large volume for review. Indeed, this book is well worth a year of study and another for reflection and measurement of use before a thorough-going review can be given. After all, where do you start? Perhaps on the back cover, with the endorsements. This, after all, are where many of
There are three stories of Paul’s conversion experience in the book of acts. The first is given by the author of Acts directly, as if recounting history, in chapter 9. In chapters 22 and 26, Paul is said to telling the story in his own words. Do not worry about the seemingly apparent contradictions between the three. This is a perfectly valid tactic used by ancient authors. We are given two insights into Paul’s conversion (it is an anachronistic term, but you understand) in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians 15.3-6. But, what is said here is that Jesus appeared to
Did Luke theologize Paul’s blindness? Hang on, let me flesh this out. First, Galatians 4.13-15. Here, he says the Galatians would have ripped out their eyes for him. Later in the chapter, he signs the letter with a very large signature. He was, perhaps, going blind. Now, remember the conversion story of Paul in Acts 9. If Acts is written long after Paul’s death, and with the same theological motivation the Evangelists applied to Jesus, then is it possible that Luke takes the known disability of Paul and theologizes it inside the conversion story? Anyone have any scholarly articles
In 64 CE, Paul stood before Felix as both a Jew and a Roman (Acts 23.23-35), mired in a conspiracy that accused the Jews of attempting to murder the apostle. Or, at least, according to Acts. Is this a historical or a historiographical event? Oddly enough, Josephus records that he went to Rome during the same time period (1.13-6). And… there was a shipwreck. I can’t tell from reading it if he accompanied the priests or not. I’m not going to put this into my book because of the hypothetical nature of this – and I don’t discuss Paul. Of course,