Timeline for What is the author's purpose in writing Acts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 6:09 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 576 characters in body
|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 5:36 | comment | added | Revelation Lad | @C.Kelly What I was trying to say is that if Luke/Acts are taken as historical documents, then they were written to an adult who had been born and grew up while the events were taking place and Theophilus would have first hand knowledge of some things (regardless of what/if Luke wrote). In that case Luke is not informing him of what happened but either giving him another perspective or placing it into a theological context. So that he may know the truth concerning the things he was instructed. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 5:26 | comment | added | Revelation Lad | @Tau It is speculation but i added my belief about Theophilus. There is no proof. Most commentaries say nothing is known of the individual. Opinions range from alias to folklore. I do not think any fictitiously addressed document would be persuasive in a legal proceeding or in an apologetic context. I think looking for a real person with that name is in keeping with a document written for the purposes Luke sets forth. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 5:16 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1626 characters in body
|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 0:00 | comment | added | C. Kelly | Thanks, @RevelationLad. I enjoyed your answer. But I don't understand your assertions about Theophilus' birth and first-hand knowledge. Where does this come from, and why is it relevant to your answer? | |
| Feb 8, 2016 at 21:29 | comment | added | elika kohen |
@RevelationLad I don't agree that "Luke ... has written an καθεξῆς account, one after the other. Once the first book ends, the reader should expect Luke to continue ... " -- But in fact, Luke's account of Jesus ended. So therefore, Acts was not a continuation of Luke's Account of Jesus, and so did not share the same purpose, (other than document the rejection of Jesus by the Jews; but rather, Acts was a new account regarding the Apostles.
|
|
| Feb 8, 2016 at 1:41 | comment | added | Tau | @RevelationLad I believe you attempted an answer, and offered a conclusion as to the 'why' of Theophilus. I think it's a start-but can you bring any conclusive proof as to whether or not Theophilus actually existed? Thanks. | |
| Feb 7, 2016 at 22:22 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 88 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2016 at 22:13 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2543 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2015 at 3:51 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 740 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2015 at 4:45 | comment | added | Revelation Lad | Thanks for feedback. I have edited to make it clear the purpose of Acts is the same as Luke. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 4:41 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2015 at 4:35 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Nov 9, 2015 at 16:12 | comment | added | ThaddeusB | Unfortunately, I don't think you answered the actual question - what was Luke's purpose for writing Acts. | |
| Nov 9, 2015 at 7:05 | history | edited | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Nov 9, 2015 at 6:56 | history | answered | Revelation Lad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |