14 thoughts on “An Introduction to the New Testament – Acts”
On page 4 of “Christianity and Class structure,” you mention that Paul did not call for the liberation of slaves explicitly. Given the history mentioned in the paper, I don’t understand why Paul was not more outspoken about liberating the slaves. You mention it would have overshadowed his preaching, but it still doesn’t make sense to me.
Pg. 1 of “The Intersection Between Christianity and Politics”
In the first paragraph you mention that the stability of the political world when Christianity came about was due to the conquests of Alexander the Great. This lead to the establishment of the Roman empire. I’m just wondering were their other events before this leading up to this political stability? Were all events leading up to this moment in history orchestrated in such a way?
On page two of “Christianity and Stoicism,” you say that the Stoics asserted that god was “intelligent, fiery breath…” So, what else did the Stoics believe about God? Did they believe that there was only one?
In “Chrstianity and Class Structure” you talk about the brutal and dehumanizing slavery prevelant in the Roman world.
I’ve hear people say before, when asked about slavery in the Bible and “why didnt God stop it?” and “Wasn’t that wrong?”, that slavery back then was different. It was more of a bond servant relationship, and that conditions were much nicer.
Were there varying degrees of slavery in the Ancient Middle East, or was it all really as brutal as you say, or as “ok” as other people have said? (Yes, “nothing is ever always anythying” but in General, what were things like?)
PG. 4
It says that “its obvious that Christianity was indeed not a sect of Judaism”-but why would people think it would be in the first place?
my question is a lot along the lines of anna about pg 4. i dont get why paul would not want to explicitly talk about the liberation of slaves…did he think it was ok? was it ok? if a slave had the opportunity for freedom by running away does paul say it is not good if he/she does run away? this has always bothered me.
In the paper about Christianity and stoicism it talks about right away how the stoicism with which the apostles interacted with was Roman Stoicism. Is this just stating that the stoics were Roman or does it mean that it is a different form of stoicism?
page 3 of “the intersection of christianity and politics talks Herod’s reaction to news of the birth of the king of the jews. its understandable that herod would be furious at this news, but why was all of jerusalem troubled as well? wouldn’t this be good news for them? were they just afraid of what herod would do in response?
“The writer of the epistle to James concludes his letter by chastising the indifference and luxurious living of the rich (James 5:1-5) and encouraging the recipients to imitate the “suffering and patience” of the prophets (James 5:10).”
On a global scale all of us in this room are rich. What direct application did the words of James imply for the 1st century rich, and what do they mean for us now.
In christianity & Stoicism on page 1, who is Seneca the Younger?
So if Alexander the Great was so great. Then why did Attilla the Hun kill him in deadliest warrior last night?
but, on page 2 the writer of the epistle to James chastises the luxurious living of the rich. why does this happen all over the bible. so many things about the rich and them not doing anything right. why?
On page 1 it talks about how Alexander conquests paved the way for the emergence of the imperial age of Rome. What were some of the characteristics that Alexander possessed that went into making him such a great leader
Why was Paul”s message of the cross foolishness? Or why did you think so?
Okay for the record I’m NOT copying anyone’s question Webby! HA!
Any-who … My question comes from page uno of “Christianity and the gods.”
Would any of Paul’s followers (people who believed what he was preaching) have stuggled with the pantheistic worldview of that time period even though they were following Paul’s teaching?
By this I am asking if there was a stuggle to truely believe in the supernatural ALL powerful God Vs. the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon.
I understand that this might be hard to know absolutley, but is there any hint/word in Acts that would give some insight on this topic?
On page 4 of “Christianity and Class structure,” you mention that Paul did not call for the liberation of slaves explicitly. Given the history mentioned in the paper, I don’t understand why Paul was not more outspoken about liberating the slaves. You mention it would have overshadowed his preaching, but it still doesn’t make sense to me.
Pg. 1 of “The Intersection Between Christianity and Politics”
In the first paragraph you mention that the stability of the political world when Christianity came about was due to the conquests of Alexander the Great. This lead to the establishment of the Roman empire. I’m just wondering were their other events before this leading up to this political stability? Were all events leading up to this moment in history orchestrated in such a way?
On page two of “Christianity and Stoicism,” you say that the Stoics asserted that god was “intelligent, fiery breath…” So, what else did the Stoics believe about God? Did they believe that there was only one?
In “Chrstianity and Class Structure” you talk about the brutal and dehumanizing slavery prevelant in the Roman world.
I’ve hear people say before, when asked about slavery in the Bible and “why didnt God stop it?” and “Wasn’t that wrong?”, that slavery back then was different. It was more of a bond servant relationship, and that conditions were much nicer.
Were there varying degrees of slavery in the Ancient Middle East, or was it all really as brutal as you say, or as “ok” as other people have said? (Yes, “nothing is ever always anythying” but in General, what were things like?)
PG. 4
It says that “its obvious that Christianity was indeed not a sect of Judaism”-but why would people think it would be in the first place?
my question is a lot along the lines of anna about pg 4. i dont get why paul would not want to explicitly talk about the liberation of slaves…did he think it was ok? was it ok? if a slave had the opportunity for freedom by running away does paul say it is not good if he/she does run away? this has always bothered me.
In the paper about Christianity and stoicism it talks about right away how the stoicism with which the apostles interacted with was Roman Stoicism. Is this just stating that the stoics were Roman or does it mean that it is a different form of stoicism?
page 3 of “the intersection of christianity and politics talks Herod’s reaction to news of the birth of the king of the jews. its understandable that herod would be furious at this news, but why was all of jerusalem troubled as well? wouldn’t this be good news for them? were they just afraid of what herod would do in response?
“The writer of the epistle to James concludes his letter by chastising the indifference and luxurious living of the rich (James 5:1-5) and encouraging the recipients to imitate the “suffering and patience” of the prophets (James 5:10).”
On a global scale all of us in this room are rich. What direct application did the words of James imply for the 1st century rich, and what do they mean for us now.
In christianity & Stoicism on page 1, who is Seneca the Younger?
So if Alexander the Great was so great. Then why did Attilla the Hun kill him in deadliest warrior last night?
but, on page 2 the writer of the epistle to James chastises the luxurious living of the rich. why does this happen all over the bible. so many things about the rich and them not doing anything right. why?
On page 1 it talks about how Alexander conquests paved the way for the emergence of the imperial age of Rome. What were some of the characteristics that Alexander possessed that went into making him such a great leader
Why was Paul”s message of the cross foolishness? Or why did you think so?
Okay for the record I’m NOT copying anyone’s question Webby! HA!
Any-who … My question comes from page uno of “Christianity and the gods.”
Would any of Paul’s followers (people who believed what he was preaching) have stuggled with the pantheistic worldview of that time period even though they were following Paul’s teaching?
By this I am asking if there was a stuggle to truely believe in the supernatural ALL powerful God Vs. the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon.
I understand that this might be hard to know absolutley, but is there any hint/word in Acts that would give some insight on this topic?