The Book Of Acts

In this topic, I want to explore the Book Of Acts and all that the book says and ideas and beliefs which the book may imply.

Originally I meant this topic to be a Great Debate between jar and myself, but it appears that jar, though able to make 22855 posts, has no interest in discussing this topic with me.(Though he loves explaining what the books of the Bible actually say, he doesnt want to participate in what he calls a "biased propaganda" book.

jar writes: And what I keep trying to point out is that the various books that got voted into the Bible are different individual works, each with its own purpose.

In other words, if it doesn't agree with his particular theology, he wants nothing to do with discussing it.

The Theology of Acts is agreeable with me, however, so im opening this debate up to Christian Believers who can accept the Bible has an important source for our faith.

Edited by Phat, : revised the topic

Thread copied here from the The Book Of Acts--Jar and Phat Only thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello, all. To start with, I wanted to explore the story of the stoning of Stephen.

Acts 6:8-15

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.

Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”

So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”

All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

So who or what is this Spirit that Stephen has? Why do people hate him so much? Does it appear he was right or wrong?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the The Book Of Acts thread in the The Great Debate forum.

Does anyone else have anything of interest to them in the Book Of Acts?

Hi Phat,

Phat writes: So who or what is this Spirit that Stephen has? Why do people hate him so much? Does it appear he was right or wrong?

1. The Spirit that Stephen had is the same one that seals the spirit of a male/female when they come to the point in their life they realize there is nothing they can do to merit eternal life that God gives as a free gift. When they come to that conclusion and address God asking for mercy believing that He can save them and He will save them and give them eternal life by trusting in what was finished on the cross of Calvary when God in the flesh gave His life to reconcile mankind to Himself.

2. I am sure that those who were recepants of miracles he preformed did not hate him.

The only people who hated him was those who were threatned by his ministry. The Jewish religious hierarchy that was in charge of the Temple wanted him out of the way just as they wanted Jesus out of the way.

3. I would say what Stephen was doing was right and the Scripture testifies to that fact.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Jesus went to heaven and sit down by His Fathers side but when Stephen was facing death Jesus stood up to receive him into His presence.

God Bless,

This book, along with the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Philippians clearly and convincingly showcases the communion of the Holy Spirit with the people of God and the excitement of living in these times and being (hopefully) led by the Spirit.

Wiki writes: The purpose of Acts has been the subject of much scholarly research and debate. Since Luke-Acts was originally a single work, it is important to note that the purpose of Acts is normally examined in conjunction with the Book of Luke. In Luke 1:3-4, the author states that he decided to “write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” Theophilus is Greek for lover of God and it is suggested that he may either be an individual who recently converted to the faith or a Roman official of whom the church is seeking acceptance from.[12] “Acts, then, is a continuation of the Lucan Gospel, not in the sense that it relates what Jesus continued to do, but how his followers carried out his commission under the guidance of his Spirit.”[13] Thus, part of the answer to the purpose of Acts is that Luke is writing to Theophilus, who is also mentioned in Luke 1:3, in order to explain to him the occurrences that take place in the church that fulfill Jesus’ promise to his disciples that “you will be baptized with, the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Fitzmyer states that by looking at the prefaces of Luke and Acts together it can be seen “that Luke-Acts purports to be basically ‘a work of edification’.”[13]

This book is for edification and encouragement, and it quite rightly gives me a sense of purpose as well as the power and ability to carry out my calling as a Christian. Some may say that its a feel good book that makes their skin crawl, but I might point out that anyone with an inborn resistance to having God direct their life might feel this way.

Hi Phat,

Phat writes: Some may say that its a feel good book that makes their skin crawl, but I might point out that anyone with an inborn resistance to having God direct their life might feel this way.

To me the entire Bible is a feel good book. It tells me where I came from, why I am here, and where I will spend an infinite eternity.

But most folks will not read the Bible for the reason you mentioned it makes them uncomfortable. Even the thought of the existence of the God of the Bible makes mankind who wants to be his own god very uncomfortable.

Thus the denial of God's existence.

God Bless,

This book is for edification and encouragement, and it quite rightly gives me a sense of purpose as well as the power and ability to carry out my calling as a Christian.

Don't want to interupt your discussion on Jewish mythology but, curiously how do the stories that call for the death of homosexuals and women who aren't virgins when they marry or the killing of your child who tries to steer you away from your faith make you feel?

Does it give you the same sense of purpose or does it give you a sense of shame that god would call for the death of your fellow humans, including that of your wife and your child?

ICANT, or anyone else, if you'd like to answer this too feel free. This isn't specifically a question for Phat.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

But most folks will not read the Bible for the reason you mentioned it makes them uncomfortable.

It's no more unformfortable than reading any other book on mythology, god/s, religions of the world, the after life, etc. We can all enjoy fiction.

I don't get what you feel people find uncomfortable about a book on Jewish mythology? I quite enjoy all mythology ever since I was able to read. I've read the Bible cover to cover. In fact, I was just reading it recently while in a hotel because there was nothing on tv.

Thus the denial of God's existence.

Not finding the Bible to be anything more than Jewish mythology says nothing about one's belief in a God/s. That's pretty close minded thing to say.

- Oni

Oni writes: Don't want to interupt your discussion on Jewish mythology but, curiously how do the stories that call for the death of homosexuals and women who aren't virgins when they marry or the killing of your child who tries to steer you away from your faith make you feel? Does it give you the same sense of purpose or does it give you a sense of shame that god would call for the death of your fellow humans, including that of your wife and your child?

I don't for a moment believe that "my God" would even suggest such atrocities.

Why is it that people cant separate what the Bible says versus what the Spirit says? Granted, since I accept the book for what it is I will take responsibility for what it(the compilation of books) says....but we are discussing Acts here, and I dont see anything negative in that particular book....does anyone see contraily?

Oni writes: Not finding the Bible to be anything more than Jewish mythology says nothing about one's belief in a God/s. That's pretty close minded thing to say.

The only problem with your approach is that God cant be agreed upon as to character. All we have is a bunch of human(and in my opinion flawed) ideas as to who or what God is.

I don't for a moment believe that "my God" would even suggest such atrocities.

Well, wait, are you saying those things aren't in the Bible?

You did say that the Book of Acts gave you a sense of purpose as a Christian. I was just asking what the other stuff gave you a sense of?

t we are discussing Acts here

Fair enough, I'm off topic so carry on.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

The only problem with your approach is that God cant be agreed upon as to character. All we have is a bunch of human(and in my opinion flawed) ideas as to who or what God is.

I agree, to an extent of course. Again, if we're simply saying "the creator of everything" then I think we can all agree. Unless someone has some radically different image of God that I've never heard of. So while specifics may never be agreed upon one certainty is true: we are speaking about the creator of everything.

My point was, according to ICANT many don't read the Bible and thus deny God's existence. But if we, as you say, have only ideas as to who or what God is, then the Bible is only 1 of thousands of ways to "know" God or believe in his/her existence.

But here again I'm off topic so, feel free to ignore this message.

- Oni

Oni writes: My point was, according to ICANT many don't read the Bible and thus deny God's existence. But if we, as you say, have only ideas as to who or what God is, then the Bible is only 1 of thousands of ways to "know" God or believe in his/her existence.

I agree.

Romans 18-23 writes: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. says:

In other words, humans have an innate idea of a God beyond human description and character. Some of us believe that Jesus Christ was sent to bring character to this God, allowing us to be able to comprehend and commune through Christ to God. The reasons for not choosing to acknowledge and/or attempt to know God are many.

Many logical minds reject the Bible as they understand it. Many reject Christianity based on past behavior of self proclaimed Christians. I can see the logic of these two reasons, but the one I cant see being valid is rejecting the idea of God simply because of wishing to preserve the right of one to think freely without limits or constraint on behavior that such a Spirit may impose on a human conscience.