FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 978
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
ok, first of all the author of acts is not stated in the book of acts anywhere. many are basing this belief on the style. this doesnot make it fact. Very true that the author of Acts does not name himself... however, did you not notice when I said this...quote:
Actually, we do know who wrote the book of Acts. Take a look at Acts 1...quote:
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, So we know that this book is written by someone (hence, "I") who is writing to someone else (Theophilus) that they had already written to (in my former account). So the question is what is the former account... Answer? The Gospel of Luke. Evidence? Luke 1... quote:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, So, if you are willing to believe that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, then you have to accept that Luke also wrote Acts. That is basic bible reading. That statement requires no understanding of the Greek style of Luke or Acts. Both are addressed to Theophilus, and one declares it is the same author as the other. So if you believe that Luke the Physician wrote the book of Luke, then he, by necessity, wrote the book of Acts also.quote:
however it is not important who wrote the books of the bible. it does us no good to know that. Only to a point. It is important to know that the Apostles did write the books because (A) many of them said that they wrote them... so either Paul, James, Jude, and Peter had their names used by other people or they wrote them... and (B) because it establishes the Bible as eyewitness accounts and not mere heresay. Because John writes the Gospel of John, we have to say that either the Gospel of John is true, or John is a liar and our faith in his testimony is in vain. Were you to ask me if it is important that Isaiah wrote all three parts of the book credited to him, I would say probably not. As for the New Testament, those authors claimed to have seen God face to face, thus giving their message an extra oomph. So we had better hope that they wrote their respective books, or we are believing a lie.quote:
the point here is the difference when we go to seminary schools we are taught the worldly obvious of the bible and given a test on a mans thought of the bible. this means that we have to answer he way a man wants us to without the true revelation of the lord. this is where the false teachings come in. You know, humans are good enough at developing false teaching and doctrine without a Seminary's help. If we were to totally obliterate all Seminaries everywhere, there would still be a plethora of False doctrines arising out of seemingly nothing. That is why the church councils were so heated. I would agree that a spirit of Wisdom and Revelation (pursuant of Ephesians 1:17-19) is way more important than a sheepskin from a Seminary, but education is not the enemy. That would also be why you check into the doctrine of a Seminary before paying up for a semester.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
RE: A Great Mystery of the Bible - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
