Questions on Acts 1

http://www.freerepublic.com | Self

[LearsFool]

Sorry to have caused you any fretting over #5! In 1:3, though, we do have a hint as to what these witnesses might testify to:

"To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days..."

But beyond that, we just have to let Luke tell the story himself, watching as it unfolds, and letting this Spirit-inspired story make its impressions upon us.

On a related note, Luke's method is interesting in itself. He claims, both in his gospel and in Acts, to be doing the work of an historian, reporting to Theophilus both what he has discovered and what he himself witnessed. (Sir William Ramsay, the notable archaeologist and scholoar, who set out to discredit Luke as an historian, was in the end persuaded to give him the very highest marks, calling him (IIRC) "an historian of the first rank.")

So as to the selection of Judas' replacement, what we have is Luke simply telling us what happened. Those who want to take Peter on, and charge him with such grievous sins as have been lodged against him in this thread...let'em give this apostle their best shot. The Lord will deal with them. Apparently Luke and the Holy Spirit didn't see any need to defend the apostles against such charges. This book was written to a different audience and for a different purpose.

[LearsFool]

I was looking up that Ramsay quote, and found something on it right here on FR. :-)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2486595/posts