Malachi151

I find it interesting that many Biblical scholars admit that Acts of the Apostles is a highly problematic and unreliable work, but then those same scholars often but a lot of faith in GLuke and consider one of the best Gospels, calling it the first true historical account of the life of Jesus.

But, if the same person wrote both Acts and GLuke, this doesn't make any sense.

notapadawan

What scholars are these? Sir William Ramsay of Aberdeen, Scotland used the book of Acts and found it to be very accurate. He authored a ton of books on the times of the 1st century Asia Minor and declared Luke to be the greatest historian who lived in that period.

S.C.Carlson

:huh: Which scholars are you talking about?

Stephen

jakejonesiv

I was wondering, why does Acts (1:9-10) and Luke (24:50-51) have two separate ascention stories? it doesn't make sense for the same author to tell two versions of the same story separated by 40 days.

Chris Weimer

Perhaps you're referring to the idea that Luke's double tradition more accurately preserves Q than Matthew's?

Toto

I think that the reverse is more likely to be true. There are scholars who admit that the gospels are full of legends, but think that Acts contains real history. Believing Christians might think that the gospels contain real history, but they have no way of proving that to a secular audience and tend to look like mere apologists when they try. But Acts looks and reads more like it might be history, and parts of it can be correlated with Paul's letters, providing the appearance of confirmation (but see Doughty Fictional History in Acts)

John Kesler

Keep in mind that Acts 1:3 is the only place in the NT which claims that there was a 40-day interval between Jesus' resurrection and ascension. Even the long ending of Mark (vv 9-20), which incorporates parts of Luke 24, seems to indicate a same-day ascension. Notice what Jesus is said to have done during the 40 days after his resurrection: "speaking about the kingdom of God." Acts 1:3 allows Luke to change the focus of the "kingdom of God" from the rulership of God (Luke 9:27; 22:29-30) to the church and teaching about Jesus (Acts 8:12; 28:23, 31). It is also possible that Luke 24:51 did not originally say, "and was carried up into heaven," since there are textual variants of this verse.

GenesisNemesis

Who's GLuke? :Cheeky:

Sorry, at least one person had to say it.

Toto

Jargon is a way of keeping the discussion among the insiders, and keeping the outsiders in the dark.

GLuke = Gospel of Luke, otherwise known as the 3rd gospel. It's also written gLuke.

ALuke or aLuke = the author of Luke, whose name might or might not have been Luke or Loukos or Lucy.

GenesisNemesis

OH...

Now I feel blonde. :Cheeky: