Free Republic

“What God hath joined together...shouldn’t take 4 years to put asunder!!”

Sounds like you’ve found a translation that doesn’t have the answers.

No, I didn’t mention which translation(s) of the Bible I use, because it’s irrelevant to the questions posed in the OP, as well as to the question of whether or not the Bible can be understood by reading it.

Try it for yourself and see... Read the chapter and the other relevant passages, and see whether you can find the answers. I’ll bet you can!

Thanks for joining in the discussion. Would you like to try your hand at the ch. 4 questions?

By the way, I forgot to post the links for the first three chapters' questions, so here they are. (The book of Acts is Luke's account of events, so some of what he tells us won't make sense if we jump right in the middle and skip over what he's already covered.)

Questions on Acts 1

Questions on Acts 2

Questions on Acts 3

I don’t understand your post. Do you want more difficult questions? Questions over the Greek text rather than English translations of the Scriptures?

Simplicity is a beginning point, and will take one far in the knowledge of the truth. There are loads of silly articles posted on the RF which can be easily dismissed with a simple reading of the Scriptures. Theologians and seminary graduates can’t compete with Bible students. :-)

Some tougher questions this time. But careful reading and pondering will yield fruit. :-)

To help you, I've included hyperlinks to referenced passages.

Well said.

There are lots of people with lots of different rules about marriage and divorce. Just another opportunity to find out whose disciples they really are.

You must have the “teacher’s edition” of the Bible - the one with all the answers in it! :-)

I really must stop posing questions that the Bible doesn’t give us answers to, such as #3. Thank you for pointing that out. It’s an interesting question, but I knew we weren’t given the answer, and should’ve left that one out. :-/

The answer to #7 seems to be a very important point, and one I missed for many years. The emphasis in the gospels is not so much on the physical suffering of Christ, but on the rejection of Him - the mocking, the spitting, the ridicule, the choosing of a murderer to be freed instead of Him, etc. He had been executed as a blasphemer because He claimed to be the Messiah.

So when God raised Him up, that was the Father’s testimony of Him, that He is indeed the Messiah. If the resurrection really happened, that would prove His claims were true. In addition to the apostles’ testimony, Peter’s sermons in chs. 2 and 3 make two different arguments to that end.

#11 brings out an interesting aspect of Luke’s writing: He gives these summaries from time to time.

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

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.

Indeed!

So...psst...what did you put for #6? :-)

Nicely done. See? I told ya you could understand the Bible! :-)

The answer to my Question 5 isn't actually in Acts 1, so that's my mistake. We won't hear the apostles' testimony until later, beginning in ch. 2...though we're given hints about in ch. 1, in their references to what they had witnessed and could therefore testify about. After all, a witness has to have witnessed something, right?

The apostles' testimony will be a key part of their preaching. Without eyewitness testimony, the case for the gospel would not have been as convincing. (Peter and John will both reiterate this point later, in their epistles.)

This fits with the qualifications Peter announces for Judas' replacement as well. Only two men were found who qualified. (Either that, or somebody else did some choosing besides the Lord, in eliminating all but these two.)

Thank you for contributing to the study! I hope it's as beneficial to you as it is to me. :-)

Right. No need to spend years in seminary or be dependent on those who have. Careful reading of the Scriptures is the way to find the right answers!

Good answers, by the way. :-)

While not explicitly forgiving those in attendance Peter explained to them that he realized that they did what they did in ignorance and that therefore God would accept their repentance and forgive them.

Very well said. This is right in line with what Jesus said on the cross, isn't it?..."Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Lk. 23:34) The conditions for their forgiveness would be first preached on Pentecost, and now we hear them again, as Peter seizes this opportunity.

I was hoping for a bit more explanation for question #4, though. For instance, in addition to the prophecies, Peter submits the case of the healing of the lame man as a proof that God has raised Jesus from the dead and glorified Him. And he also offers himself and John as witnesses of that resurrection.

Here's what I was getting at with the "extra credit" question: Today we know that the gospel is not only for Jews but for Gentiles also. As Jesus said in Acts 1:8: "ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Yet at this point in the story (Acts 3), the gospel is being preached only to Jews and proselytes (converts to Judaism). In a few chapters, the gospel will spread to Samaria. And later, Peter will be the one chosen to preach to the first Gentiles. So not only is it down the road a ways, but it'll take several different signs from God before Peter understands His will regarding the Gentiles.

Here in Acts 3, we have Peter referring to something yet in the future, and which (it seems to me, at least) he has only the vaguest understanding of. (And yet he still speaks with complete trust in whatever the Lord's plan is for Gentiles!) Something to ponder, perhaps.

Thanks for contributing to the study! :-)

As others have well noted, taking up one's cross refers to being willing to give up everything - up to and including one's life - in service to the King. It's not a reference to wearing symbols to demonstrate one's holiness, as the hypocrites did, "to be seen of men" (Mt. 23:5ff).

Take a look at this passage, and I bet you'll see what Jesus is getting at:

"Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." - Mt. 10:32-39

I’ll look for your answers later then. :-)

To promote study, discussion, and greater understanding of the Scriptures.

Previous question lists:

Questions on Acts 1

Questions on Acts 2

Huh? They went to John to be baptized by him, who then told them to believe on the One to come afterward, and then he baptized them again?

Seriously? You go digging through the archives for this stuff as a way around the plain teaching of the Scriptures?

See ya ‘round.

directive by senior Pentagon leaders to integrate women into front-line combat units

women sustain injury rates at double the rate of men

It's all a clever part of our war on women. Now that the secret is out and women have caught on, we'll have to change tactics, since they'll stop signing up for this double-dangerous duty.

/sarc

We know more about the salvation of the Ephesians than Paul mentions in his letter. (After all, they already knew how they had been saved, didn't they?) And what we know gives us a complete picture of the gospel - more complete than we get from selective quotations. When we read more of the Bible, we're immunized against false doctrine.

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?

And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.

And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism.

And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.

And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." - Acts 19:1-6

So there we have it. God quickened them (brought them to life) the same way He did everyone else, and still does.

We have here the same gospel Jesus instructed His apostles to teach. The same gospel Peter taught on Pentecost. The same gospel taught all through the Scriptures.

Quite different from the perverted one so often taught by false teachers, which leads people into the Lord's second group doomed to damnation. Much better to join the first group, as these Ephesians did, by simply believing the Lord and being baptized so that we can be saved, isn't it?

But apparently salvation requires more than some people are willing to do. After all that God, His Son, and His Holy Spirit have done, some still insist on rejecting the gospel. God will deal with these unbelievers.

Others insist on leading astray those seeking to serve the King. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

"And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." - Mk. 9:42

I phrased that last part poorly. I should've said:

MOST have family and friends and upbringing and other pressures holding them back. They're not worthy to be Christ's disciples (Mt. 10:34-38, Lk. 14:26-33, etc.). They're in His second group.