Acts 17:28

[arunma]

I'd like to do some study on Acts 17:28, which says, "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"

As Paul himself says, those words are not his; they were written by Greek poets. Most modern Bibles have a footnote that Paul was quoting the Greek poet Aratus in his work, Phaenomena. Here's the quote in context:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken. For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus. Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring...Now, I hope this question doesn't sound too broad or general, but it is something I've been thinking about for awhile. Why do you think Paul takes a statement about Zeus and applies it to God? Also, do you think Luke is trying to suggest a specific approach to evangelism in this account?

 

[billwald]

If Paul said it, then God said it, right? Another problem for sola scriptura is that then all citizens of Crete are

Titus 1:
12. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

liars and evil beasts. The Bible says it.

 

[arunma]

If you read the footnote that is in most Bibles, you'll see that this is a quote from Epimenides of Crete.

 

[thewordcoza]

I'd like to do some study on Acts 17:28, which says, "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"

As Paul himself says, those words are not his; they were written by Greek poets. Most modern Bibles have a footnote that Paul was quoting the Greek poet Aratus in his work, Phaenomena. Here's the quote in context:

Why do you think Paul takes a statement about Zeus and applies it to God? Also, do you think Luke is trying to suggest a specific approach to evangelism in this account?

Paul was not referring to Zeus. Acts 17:23 KJV For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

I do not think that Luke/Paul is saying anthing differently than what Jesus said.

John 17:21 KJV That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 1:12-13 KJV But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[arunma]

Yes, I know that Paul wasn't referring to Zeus. I'm just a little intrigued that he would apply a statement about Zeus to God instead.

 

[mark kennedy]

THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

This is typical of pagan mythology and only in a general sense do they speak truely of the Living God. Since this point has allready been clearly made I won't bother elaborating.

 

[arunma]

So you think that these quotes only speak of the Living God "in a general sense." I suppose that claim is logical. Well, I guess that's a satisfactory explanation for me.

Oh, by the way...

If Paul said it, then God said it, right?

Actually, the only words of Paul that are of God are the words that Paul wrote down in the canonized epistles. In other words, everything Paul wrote down from Romans to Titus is the inspired word of God. The things Paul said in the book of Acts are the words of a fallible human being. So the way I see it, if Paul says something in Acts, it's OK to think that Paul might have been in error. But if he writes something to the Romans or the Thessalonians, then it is to be considered nothing less than the inspired word of God.

I have no idea why some people criticize only the apostles' letters in the Bible. Maybe people think that something can only be Scripture if it's written in the form of a story (as foolish as this sounds); I'm not really sure. In any case, it's heresy to not believe that the epistles are inspired Scripture. If I'm not mistaken, the issue was settled at the First Ecumenical Counci of Nicea.

 

[thewordcoza]

Actually, the only words of Paul that are of God are the words that Paul wrote down in the canonized epistles. In other words, everything Paul wrote down from Romans to Titus is the inspired word of God. The things Paul said in the book of Acts are the words of a fallible human being. So the way I see it, if Paul says something in Acts, it's OK to think that Paul might have been in error. But if he writes something to the Romans or the Thessalonians, then it is to be considered nothing less than the inspired word of God.

So, you recommend that I tear out Acts from my bible? Or only Paul's words in Acts? If not, what do you recommend? Should I just question everything Paul said or did in Acts?

 

[arunma]

So, you recommend that I tear out Acts from my bible? Or only Paul's words in Acts? If not, what do you recommend? Should I just question everything Paul said or did in Acts?

Most certainly not! Of all the apostles, I like Paul the most (well, they're all great). Besides that, the book of Acts is inspired Scripture, and it would be heresy to reject part of the canon. All I'm saying is that the life of Paul should be taken in the same way as the lives of Moses, David, or Peter. Often times, we tend to assume that Scripture-writers are infallible individuals. But that's not true. The Scriptures themselves are inerrent, but not the men who write them. I believe that Paul's letters are inerrent Scripture; I just don't think that Paul himself is inerrent, anymore than Peter is inerrent. Apostles are still human beings. Remember that Jesus is the only infallible person in the entire Bible.

But that's a digression. I think Paul's approach to evangelism in Acts 17 was something that we should all emulate, which is why I brought it up.

 

[Theophorus]

Paul was making an analogy that they would understand. It is interesting to note that he had little success in athens. Notice that in 1 corinthians 2:1-2 Paul says, "And I bretheren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Some believe that he came to this determination because his "tactics" were not very successful in Athens, as recorded in Acts 17.

 

[arunma]

But recall that in Romans 12, Paul writes that we should do what is honorable in the sight of all. In Ephesus, Paul failed to blaspheme the goddess Artemis. And Paul created a church in Ephesus. What I'm suggesting here is that when we evangelize, we shouldn't make any effort to blaspheme false gods, or deliberately insult other religions. Rather, we should be polite in explaining why we don't believe in other gods. Don't you agree?