So you are going to conclude that Luke wrote the book of Acts. What evidence do you have other than the conjectures of certain others of the theological profession as found below. "Author and time of writing In the first verse of the book of Acts the author mentions the fact that he has already written an earlier report "concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which he was taken up." The gospel of Luke, as well as the book of Acts, is addressed to a certain Theophilus (cf Luke 1:3). Therefore one would conclude that the book of Acts also originates from the pen of Luke. Already the church father Ireneus (ca 140-202) mentions that Luke is the author of the book of Acts. Various scholars have also pointed out that the style and the choice of words in Luke and Acts are very similar." Very profound evidence...indeed... Your apology is acknowledged however that apology is also unnecessary. You have your views and I have mine. I offer no apologies with regard to my beliefs. An apology on a matter that is still a part of the discussion shows a lack of conviction on the part of the person making the apology. If you are right, then why apologize? Does God change? "the same yesterday, today and forever". He was perfectly willing to heal physical bodies in the past, so what has changed? Certainly not God. Well of course He gives us strength. 'I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me." Well, if God is "not different", then that would mean that God is capable and does in fact still heal physical bodies. Why are they "of no importance to our discussion"? They are the conclusion of the story that you related to. What Paul thought of our physical bodies is contained in those verses that you said are of no importance to this discussion. When Jesus returned for the meeting at Pentecost, did Jesus appear in some nebulous unrecognizable form? Did the body of Jesus decompose in a matter of 3 days leaving nothing behind... not even the bones of that body? Gee, I wonder if that fact could be contributed to such a factor as "their job on earth was completed."? I am sure you have. My dearly departed Wife was such an example. Having passed due to cancer which had ravaged her entire body and had numerous growths in the brain... Just before she exhaled that final breath... I said my good bye to her, and she smiled and exhaled. Yes, I too am fully aware of that strength, poise, dignity that you are speaking about. It is accounted unto every man to once die. So, yes, we will all die (physically); but that is just a transition point.
I apologized for not resisting the temptation to rub in your mistake of attributing the Story of the sons of Skeva to Paul when in fact it is indeed certain that Acts, where its in, was not written by Paul. A point you seem to have taken on board. Otherwise you'd be pretty much alone in your opinion. It was a snappy side remark for the sole purpose of getting back at you for scolding me and did nothing to further the discussion at hand. But if you want to jump on the question of the authorship of Acts: modern scholarship's opinion is pretty much undivided that the book of acts was written by the very same author as the Gospel of Luke, but is divided when it comes to the identity of the author. Some maintain that church tradition was right when it attributed these two books to Luke the physician, who is mentioned in Col 4,14 (a letter that's thought to be deutero-pauline by the way), some attribute it to a travel companion of Paul, but aren't sure which, some think it must have been authored by somebody who probably never met Paul. I find all sides have more or less convincing arguments and counter arguments. So if you ask me about my opinion concerning the identity of the author I'd have to say I don't know. And while finding the question mildly interesting it certainly doesn't keep me from sleeping at night that I can't answer it. So I probably wouldn't make for a very passionate discussion partner on the matter. While all of this is just a side issue it raises one interesting question for our main discussion though: Why was Paul was accompanied by a physician in some of his journeys? One would think that with Paul running around doing all kinds of healings by the mere force of his faith this poor bloke would have been out of a job. Odd. I would think that God reveals Himself in different ways at different times has more to do with the fact that humanity changes and can understand Him in different ways. Well, at least some of us can, while others apparently cling to the magic worldview of 2000 years and even longer ago. If you want to find out about decomposing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition It does indeed set in right after death. With weather conditions in the ME I would indeed think that Jesus' body can't have been a very pretty sight three days after He died. But again with the resurrection of Christ and the various existing Christian views on it you're opening a completely new topic that would be worthwhile a new thread. The clue about the importance of our physical bodies is in Paul's text and isn't refuted by any of the following verses. Look again. You may of course be a follower of some rather antiquated ideas of bodily resurrection of the dead that led Churches to reject cremation for a long time. In that case you must be really really sorry for those who died in the twin towers, not only because they died a horrible death but because with their bodies basically having been turned into cinders they wouldn't be fit for eternal life in your eyes. Well, in my eyes they are. It probably can, yes. But we may note that while God may think their job on earth is completed, many people dying and their friends and relatives are still full of plans and hopes for the future will probably disagree with God on that one. They may even turn to some quack faith-healers to prolongue their earthly lifespan – to no avail, because our life is in God's hands not in the hands of our personal wishes. I'm glad to hear that the two of you could share this precious moment. On that we are in full agreement.
Need I say more than what is emphasized above? BTW: With regard to your comments here: "You may of course be a follower of some rather antiquated ideas of bodily resurrection of the dead that led Churches to reject cremation for a long time. In that case you must be really really sorry for those who died in the twin towers, not only because they died a horrible death but because with their bodies basically having been turned into cinders they wouldn't be fit for eternal life in your eyes. Well, in my eyes they are.".... Bad call on your part regarding how I perceive things.. my wife was cremated.
So you are not of the opinion that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by one and the same author, who was definitely not Paul?
Is my opinion going to change what was written, or by whom it was written? I don't think so. Neither is yours or theirs. Being the inspired word of God, it makes no difference who the so-called author of the document is. Give the glory to God instead of seeking to glorify some man, be it Paul or Luke... the glory is not theirs.
Nothing wrong with studying the scriptures though, is there? Judging by previous discussions it seems to me that it is more you than me who gets upset about questioning the 'glory' of Paul's authorship
Which particular words and phrases that I have used, served as a catalyst to your conclusion that I have gotten "upset"? Please be specific, as I would like to analyze those words and or phrases that led you to such conclusion. Also include your justification for such conclusion.
On this one, from my reading and study lead me to believe Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. I'm not sure why Paul would be considered the writer of Acts. Unlike many I do accept the writings of Paul as being divinely inspired and that he did not pervert the Word.
You don't seem to be too happy here, wild exaggerations of the scholarly debate concerning pauline and deutero-pauline epistles and writing whole words with big letters don't speak for a calm attitude: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/214126-healed-not-8.html#post4649546 Apparently you were so upset that somebody had at some point questioned the authorship of Paul for the pastoral epistles that you would have written the same nonsense had somebody questioned Paul's authorship concerning Genesis. Seriously Incorporeal: relax!
I'm not sure why anybody would think Paul wrote Acts either. It would be rather weird to speak of yourself in the third person singular. I wouldn't go as far as saying He 'perverted' the divine message, but he certainly brought his own cultural and historic perspective into things. We should account for that when reading his epistles.
You are seriously laughable at best. The one 'word' used in that citation of yours was "KNOWS".... (or you could have been referring to BFOJ or perhaps TV). MY usage of such writing style is simply a matter of placing emphasis on the word as a means of showing sarcasm toward those who claim to "KNOW" what happened 2000 or even 14 billion years ago. All that any of us have to go on is the past writings of other people...'opinions'... So, really, you should "RELAX", and while you are relaxing, take the time to address some of the questions that I have posed that you have conveniently ignored. BTW... quit being so presumptuous.. thinking that you KNOW what is within my mind, because you don't.
Which questions would that be? ... ah no, forget about it ... I give up. Obviously trying to have a civilized and coherent discussion with you is futile.
Civilized, coherent? Because I disagree with your analysis, and because I do not lean on the opinions of other people to dictate what I believe, renders me incapable of holding a 'civilized' and 'coherent' discussion? What religious following did you say that you subscribe to?
I don't think a reason was being given. It's simply stated as an observation. And, if I may add, a frequent observation at that.
I'd doubt that. But the contraception pill and condoms undoubtedly were a good idea. Unfortunately some people still don't seem to know how to use them.
No, it's more to do with you not being able to follow a stringent line of argumentation and then asking stupid questions like the latter about my religious following. To answer what was merely meant as an insult (not hard to read your mind on that one): I'm a Protestant and a member of the Evangelical Church in Germany that requires its pastors to get a proper university-diploma in Theology before being ordained. Any of them will be able to tell you about deutero-pauline epistles and the question who authored Luke and Acts etc. (you learn about that stuff in the obligatory class on New Testament Studies) and I never met a pastor in my Church who dabbled in faith healing or who wasn't a devout Christian.
God is our Creator, not our Destroyer. No, man has has that unique distinction of causing death thanks to their following their father, satan.
I take no issue with means to prevent a pregnancy but to destroy human life after conception is not only a tragedy but it's an unGodly act. No justification for destroying innocent life.
I mean that if I was diagnosed with a terrible illness tomorrow and told my pastor about it, he'd surely listen to my worries and give me pastoral care and pray with me to help me cope with this difficult situation, but he wouldn't insinuate that he or I might have the spiritual power to make the illness go away or even lay his hands on me in an attempt to drive the illness out.
I agree. And as a Christian I see it as my job to prevent desperate women from doing it by working for a society in which every woman does not only have information on and access to contraception, but can find social networks and help for carrying out an unwanted pregnancy and to raise kids.
Perhaps, but Christians do typically seek medical help in such cases and not rely of God's healing power. That's understandable and encouraged. But please do not write off the possibility of what can be done in His name. We are taught to take our problems to God and tell him about them and what we need. However, my recent study and teachings I have received on this reveals to me that we do things kind of arse-backward. Rather than tell God about our problem, He has told us in His Word that we are to speak to our problem and tell it what a BIG God we have. We have the authority and power to do this. God's power is released in the spiritual realm through us through the Holy Spirit within us. It may take time for it to manifest in the physical realm and this is why Christians fail to understand why we don't see miraculous healings on the spot or soon to be. There are many reasons why this might happen, some reasons can be of our own making, some could be things being dealt with in the sprititual realm. Something to thank about. As for me, I believe in God's healing power for I have witnesses such. Let not our unbelief get in His Way. He is bigger than any problem we shall ever face.
I commend you for being active on this issue. You are a blessing to those women that receive such critical information and I'm sure you've been blessed much more in return. Thank you Sister-in-Christ.
