THE BOOK OF ACTS.

[marksman]

Let's face it the book of Acts is an exciting and interesting book to read and understand. It seems to be a blueprint of what to expect if you are a full-on believer in Jesus and the sort of thing the believers had to go through to preach the gospel and establish the church.

According to the prosperity doctrine people, Paul was a complete failure if you read all the sorts of problems and suffering he went through. I don't read anywhere in the book where Paul was rolling in money and went everywhere in his private jet or its equivalent.

So let's see what it has to offer which gives us a taste of reality, or inspiration, or trembling knees.

And please note that this not a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to talk about that I suggest that you start your own thread and not hijack someone else's to push your barrow.

 

[marksman]

I have been doing some research into the background of the New Testament Church (NTC) which was established during the Roman control of Israel. To say the least, they were brutes and held life very cheaply. They would kill or crucify anyone at the slightest whim. This meant that if you did something quite honestly or innocuously but the Romans didn't think so, you could have your throat slit without trial or a chance to redeem yourself.

The Roman Governor's word was law and everyone lived in fear of him. Especially when a brute like Caligula was running things. He killed people for sport. Despite this, the believers in Jesus were fearless and never wasted an opportunity to spread the good news about him. Note that they were not called Christian as that word had not been invented until Antioch and even then it was a term of derision invented by unbelievers.

Travel in those days was mainly by walking unless you were well off and could afford a donkey or a horse. When Saul went to Damascus from Jerusalem he walked. And that is why under Jewish law you were not allowed to walk more than a certain distance on the Sabbath which was the distance that they determined was necessary to walk to the synagogue. If where you wanted to go was further than that it was no go.

As the NTC in Jerusalem was made up of Jews they still kept the Jewish way of life such as Saturday Sabbath, the feast days, and the authority of the father in the home. Generally speaking, the younger people respected their elders and juvenile delinquents were few and far between. Children obeyed their parents.( What a wonderful thought).

And of course one of the most exciting things about the NTC is it all began with over 3,000 converts on day one.

 

[marksman]

Being jews, the NTC did not cut itself off from the temple. It met in the temple courts if they wanted a larger space to meet together. And as there were several bathing pools in the temple grounds, they often used them to baptize people who wanted to join the believers. If there was a difference of opinion between the High Priest and the Roman governor, they would side with the High Priest especially when it came to issues about the Temple.

Apparently Caligula wanted to put a statue of himself in the Temple but it was resisted vigorously by the priests and the people of Jerusalem as it was seen as blasphemy as no graven image of any kind was allowed. The first attempt to do this was foiled by the priests and people of Jerusalem as they all knelt in front of the entrance to the temple so the roman soldiers pulling the statue could not pass.

 

[Fred Eans]

Well, did you note that Judas did not go out and put a rope around his neck? And did you note that Peter wouldn’t eat any unclean stuff? That has not changed, as the swine hasn’t cleaned up it’s act, and we have the same body, so we still ought to try to go along with what God says. Jesus the Son, was at that time was still very much in the “Act”. Chapter 7, is a very good short description of the O.T. and God’s Plan. Every time I read it I get chills. I’ll stop there with the easy ones.

 

[marksman]

Well, did you note that Judas did not go out and put a rope around his neck? And did you note that Peter wouldn’t eat any unclean stuff? That has not changed, as the swine hasn’t cleaned up it’s act, and we have the same body, so we still ought to try to go along with what God says. Jesus the Son, was at that time was still very much in the “Act”. Chapter 7, is a very good short description of the O.T. and God’s Plan. Every time I read it I get chills. I’ll stop there with the easy ones.

I will get onto those sorts of things later.

 

[DPMartin]

Let's face it the book of Acts is an exciting and interesting book to read and understand. It seems to be a blueprint of what to expect if you are a full-on believer in Jesus and the sort of thing the believers had to go through to preach the gospel and establish the church.

According to the prosperity doctrine people, Paul was a complete failure if you read all the sorts of problems and suffering he went through. I don't read anywhere in the book where Paul was rolling in money and went everywhere in his private jet or its equivalent.

So let's see what it has to offer which gives us a taste of reality, or inspiration, or trembling knees.

And please note that this not a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to talk about that I suggest that you start your own thread and not hijack someone else's to push your barrow.

you might take into consideration that when the children of Israel was taken from Egypt and brought to what is now the land of Israel men did not see anything like it from God. so was Acts , from Jesus until Christianity was established by the roman emperor as the religion of Rome no one has seen anything like it from God.

when the Almighty walks with you He does what is necessary to establish what He sees fit. once established those acts of God don't need to be done over and over again.

once you establish your new place of residence, you don't do it again and again in the same place.

but if you want a taste of reality, go to a soup kitchen.

the parable of the rich man and the beggar, the beggar experienced no entitlements fulfilled, but was in the bosom of Abraham.

 

[Fred Eans]

One thing you should know, after this period of Jesus’ sacrifice, and the clearing the mud of the Kenites, and the Apostles task of jump starting the “body of Christ”, into a more viable organization, still under the treacherous auspices of the fake Priest and his thugs, it almost became to be a modern day mafia story.

 

[Enoch111]

So let's see what it has to offer which gives us a taste of reality, or inspiration, or trembling knees.

One cannot discuss the book of Acts and avoid addressing the egregious errors of Hyper- or Ultra-Dispensationalism. So I will leave it up to you, since there are some here who promote those ideas.

Something else to note is that even while the title is "The Acts of the Apostles" it could rightly be called "The Acts of the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit manifested Himself in great power on the day of Pentecost and thereafter.

 

[marksman]

you might take into consideration that when the children of Israel was taken from Egypt and brought to what is now the land of Israel men did not see anything like it from God. so was Acts , from Jesus until Christianity was established by the roman emperor as the religion of Rome no one has seen anything like it from God.

when the Almighty walks with you He does what is necessary to establish what He sees fit. once established those acts of God don't need to be done over and over again.

once you establish your new place of residence, you don't do it again and again in the same place.

but if you want a taste of reality, go to a soup kitchen.

the parable of the rich man and the beggar, the beggar experienced no entitlements fulfilled, but was in the bosom of Abraham.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Note that they were not called Christian as that word had not been invented until Antioch and even then it was a term of derision invented by unbelievers.

Do you have a reliable source to substantiate this claim. I don't get a sense of the epithet Christian being derisive in this verse

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.

 

[marksman]

Do you have a reliable source to substantiate this claim. I don't get a sense of the epithet Christian being derisive in this verse

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.

Having spent two years studying the New Testament church, several writers said that the term Christian was a derisive one given to them by the unbelievers. As my Chronological New King James Bible says in its background notes "Gentiles called these disciples of Christ by the name Christians with an element of scorn."

 

[bbyrd009]

The first attempt to do this was foiled by the priests and people of Jerusalem as they all knelt in front of the entrance to the temple so the roman soldiers pulling the statue could not pass.

To say the least, they were brutes and held life very cheaply. They would kill or crucify anyone at the slightest whim. This meant that if you did something quite honestly or innocuously but the Romans didn't think so, you could have your throat slit without trial or a chance to redeem yourself.

seems like a disconnect here maybe

Note that they were not called Christian as that word had not been invented until Antioch and even then it was a term of derision invented by unbelievers.

really? i thought the term "Christian" was already extant, only by another definition, You almost convince me to become a Christian (one hopeful of a literal restoration of the Davidic throne iow)

 

[Stumpmaster]

Having spent two years studying the New Testament church, several writers said that the term Christian was a derisive one given to them by the unbelievers. As my Chronological New King James Bible says in its background notes "Gentiles called these disciples of Christ by the name Christians with an element of scorn."

I prefer the teaching that followers of the sect known as the Way simply became known as Christians first in Antioch as their numbers grew and it became necessary to distinguish them from other groups. [See Albert Barnes Quote below]

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Quote from Albert Barnes on Acts 11:26
And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act_2:7, or as Nazarenes Act_24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act_26:28, “Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; 1Pe_4:16, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.

 

[marksman]

I prefer the teaching that followers of the sect known as the Way simply became known as Christians first in Antioch as their numbers grew and it became necessary to distinguish them from other groups. [See Albert Barnes Quote below]

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Quote from Albert Barnes on Acts 11:26
And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act_2:7, or as Nazarenes Act_24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act_26:28, “Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; 1Pe_4:16, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.

You are most welcome to what you prefer. The only thing I ask is that you do not use my thread to promote your views as opposed to mine but you are most welcome to start your own.

 

[theophilus]

That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable.

It certainly isn't dishonorable now but it probably was considered dishonorable by the enemies of the early church.

Do you have a reliable source to substantiate this claim. I don't get a sense of the epithet Christian being derisive in this verse

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.

This conversation took place long after the word was first used. Perhaps it was first applies as an insult and later adopted by the Christians. This is true of such words as Quaker and Methodist.

 

[Candidus]

Do you have a reliable source to substantiate this claim. I don't get a sense of the epithet Christian being derisive in this verse

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.

Just as John Wesley and the Holy Club became "Methodists" because they had a written "plan" they were "methodical." Initially it was a negative criticism, sometimes holding onto and owning that moniker as a positive takes hold. They are going to call you that anyway!

Keep in mind that in the Book of Acts, people hated Christians. They were being persecuted and killed. I doubt if calling them "Christians" was neutral or a positive. "Look over their! A Christian!" This was a call to say, "Stay away! They may think that we are one too and take us away and kill us!" Looking at history at that moment, it is unlikely that people were saying, "Look at those admirable followers of Jesus, let's honor them by calling them "Christians!" The title however, is a descriptive and appropriate description that would be accepted.

In America in the 1800's, we had people we called "Mormons." This was not a neutral or positive moniker. They would rather be called "Latter Day Saints." Some names stick, and others do not. Campbellites, became "Restorationists," Millerites became "Seventh Day," "Russellites" became "Jehovah's Witnesses ." Names and whether they are positive, are sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Candidus]

That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable.

For the first 21 years of my life, it certainly was not in my mind "honorable." Why would it have been "honorable" when people were being persecuted and put to death for it? The term "Jew" has been around a long time. Do you assume that being called a "Jew" in 1940 in Nazi Germany was a term of admiration and endearment?

In all due respect for Albert Barnes, I think that he got it wrong, and the "probability" is that being called a "Christian" in the First Century was not an honorable thing to those that were not followers of Christ.

 

[DPMartin]

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

that figures

 

[Stumpmaster]

You are most welcome to what you prefer. The only thing I ask is that you do not use my thread to promote your views as opposed to mine but you are most welcome to start your own.

Rather than promote my views I share them. It's a given that one person's opinions and views be challenged on these forums. Enough said. Moving on.

 

[marksman]

Rather than promote my views I share them. It's a given that one person's opinions and views be challenged on these forums. Enough said. Moving on.

To challenge you have to prove your alternative is valid.