The Book of Acts as History

When we read the book of Acts, it seems obvious Luke intended to write some sort of history of the expansion of the early church from a small messianic sect of Judaism in Galilee and Judea to an empire-wide religion which included both Jews and Gentiles. In the opening lines of the Gospel of Luke we are informed that a main purpose for writing the book was to create an “orderly account” which was “thoroughly investigated” by seeking out “eyewitnesses” to the events recorded.

Luke the HistorianThis prologue is similar to any Greco-Roman historian. As one reads through Luke and Acts there are any number of key figures and events which “fit” into the general history of the world. Figures like Augustus, Herod, Pilate, Gallio are all well-known characters. Luke uses geographical references to show the expansion of the Gospel west from Jerusalem to Rome. All of these locations are verifiable and there is nothing in these descriptions which seems strange to a reader of ancient history. (Setting aside Luke’s penchant for exaggeration, “the whole town” did not literally come out to hear Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:44!) Often very simple elements of the book are historical, such as the detailed descriptions of sailing on the Mediterranean Sea in Acts 27.

Yet there are some doubts as to Luke’s accuracy. Part of this doubt is the result of applying modern historical method to an ancient writer like Luke. There is an obvious difference between reporting a speech on an ancient document like Acts and a modern work on a historical event. But sometimes the motivation is more theological, Luke is suspected of hiding some information or ignoring embarrassing details. Worse, Luke is suspected of creating an image of the church which never really existed.

Let me offer an example: In the movie Selma (2014), the producer Ava DuVernay re-wrote some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speeches for the film. Part of this had to do with copyright laws for the words and licensing agreements for films, but there is no way to make a compelling film with a lengthy speech, even if it is delivered by an excellent actor like David Oyelowol DuVurnay wrote “alternative speeches that evoke the historic ones without violating the copyright.” The speeches were “generally accurate” yet served the overall artistic and political goals of the filmmaker.

In addition to the speeches, there are vast amounts of detail in the film which can be “fact checked” against the historical record. These may involve order of events, but some a historical window dressing placed in the movie to make the viewer feel they are watching events in 1965. I do not know if this is true for Selma, but this kind of movie often has a car or television in a background scene. Someone notices it is not from the right time period and usually points it out (gleefully) on the Internet. And yes, I often looked up products and song references while watching Mad Men hoping to catch a few anachronisms!

One other frustration with a film like Selma is the huge number of historical events not covered in the film. Some of the criticism of the film centers on how LBJ is portrayed, but since I am not an expert on the period I am not worried about this too much. But what about the Bob Dylan and Pete Seeger singing “We Shall Overcome” with King in 1963? As a Bob Dylan fan, this is a very important detail which deserved to be included in the film. The writer of the film would obviously disagree: Bob Dylan was not relevant to her interest and was simply ignored.

I suggest Luke did something very similar to this when he wrote the Book of Acts. He had a vast amount of raw data before him, most of which was oral traditions about the activities of the apostles. He did not have mechanically recordings of speeches nor did he worry about copyrights, but he certainly had to edit sermons to fit the page. When he did this, he was guided by his theological agenda and literary methods (as well as the Holy Spirit!)  Just as the filmmaker left out a great deal of the story, so too Luke leaves out details that simply do not serve his agenda. Obviously we cannot look at the original transcripts and fact-check Luke, since those no longer exist, but all ancient history has the same problem with reported speeches.

It is possible to read Luke as generally accurate about the expansion of early Christianity into the Roman world, the story he chooses to tell. Luke necessarily selected the stories which helped him tell his story and ignored those which did not. Does this make him a “dishonest historian”? Are there other factors (theological, cultural) which may have influenced Luke’s telling of the story of the early church?

19 thoughts on “The Book of Acts as History

  1. It seems that Luke’s main goal when writing Acts, was to present the facts he was given in a beneficial and true way. Did he take creative liberties? Most likely, yes. However, do not most authors do that when they are sharing a narrative of others’ lives? It is important that we still take his words at face value, and accept them as truth. “He speaks of real people, places, cities, events, religions, and philosophers. His consistent concern with historical verisimilitude indicates his desire to accurately report the events he claims to describe” (Jipp 9). Luke paid attention to the facts, and then clearly depicted them in Acts. It is obvious that he would have had to pick and choose what information he included in the text. Imagine receiving a multitude of eye witness accounts and then having to sort through them. Luke was an intelligent man, so he most likely sorted through all of the information given to him and found consistent points and story lines and portrayed those. He was also lead by the Spirit when writing the scriptures, so that is another indicator that Acts contains truth. Luke is not a “dishonest historian” simply because he had to pick through the accounts he was given, and choose what was shared in the book of Acts. He chose the stories and teachings that best represented the events in the life of Jesus and His disciples. In verse one, Luke states that he has formerly written of Jesus and His disciples’ lives in his other book, Luke, and in this book, the book of Acts, he would continue documenting them (Acts 1:1). This is important because in Luke 1:3-4 he explicitly states that he was writing an “orderly account…so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” He documented the stories of Jesus in a way that was Spirit lead and fact filled. Because of his writings, readers have had great insight into Jesus’ life for years.

    Like

  2. Being that Acts is only 28 chapters, it is clear to see that Luke left out certain parts of history that he did not feel lead and/or were not important enough to be included in the book. Looking at the situation from a human standpoint with no mindset of Christianity and/or religion he could have left certain details and stories out because it is impossible to remember everything said/done in certain situations such as a sermon, argument, or extravagant event that take place. However, in this situation, we are discussing whether Luke placing certain stories in Acts while rejecting others made him a dishonest historian. After careful research, I do not believe Luke leaving out certain stories/details in Acts makes him a dishonest historian.
    The first reason I believe Luke’s telling’s in Acts were an accurate depiction of the expansion of early Christianity into the Roman world is because Luke was led by the holy spirit when writing scripture. 2 Peter 1:20-21 explains how no prophecy of scripture was a man’s own interpretation but rather it was the Holy Spirit speaking the word of God to the men (Piper, n.d.). 2 Timothy 3:16 also proves that all scripture is inspired by God (Piper, n.d.). “…whatever stands in Scripture is from God, written by men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (Piper, n.d.).” Being that Luke was led by the Holy Spirit while writing Acts he did not leave out important parts of history to help his storyline. One can see that God does not do this by reading other books in the bible such as in Luke with Judas or with King David in Psalms. God does not erase the messy in the Bible to make himself look better; he invites it in, messy is found throughout the Bible. This proves that Luke wrote what was accurate and did not leave pieces out because he was afraid it would not line up with the story of the church. He simply added what God lead him to write.
    The second reason Luke was not a dishonest historian is that with the timeframe and technological resources he had Luke included the important information needed for history. For example, look at the Watergate scandal that happened with President Nixon. Can anyone honestly say he knows every piece of important information regarding that piece of history? Certainly not. It would be impossible to document everything that went on and that was with the use of technology. This was the same for Luke keeping in mind that all the information Luke gave in Acts was from memory and manually copied on a manuscript. Although at times he may have left out certain stories or forget details he wrote the information needed for those to learn from it later in history just as we see others have done time and time again in the past and present.
    The third and last, reason I believe Luke was not a dishonest historian is because his work resembles both biblical and Greco-Roman historiography (Jipp, 2018). For example, Acts showed connection between historical events and pervaded ancient historiography writing (Jipp, 2018). By using certain historiographical features, Luke was proving that what he was writing was taking place.
    References

    Jipp, J. W. (2018). Reading Acts. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

    Piper, J. (n.d.). The Holy Spirit: Author of Scripture. Retrieved from https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-holy-spirit-author-of-scripture

    Like

  3. I don’t think when you apply the modern historical method within the contexts of ancient literal does not fabricate an author’s accuracy and integrity. When we read the book of Acts we can notice its historical expansion of Christianity chronologically which can be historically proven outside the Bible. Luke mentions many geographical places with accurate location names, and accurate well-known characters like Augustus, Herod, Pilate, Gallio which correspond to ancient world history. One example I can give is, when I do drama at our church for the Youth on New Year Eve, as a director and editor, I have to writes scripts that are about more than 15 pages which are 40 minutes of drama. But, the requirements were 30 minutes, and as a director and editor, I have to cuts, edits the scripts, and exclusively chose the main crucial events that are necessary for the actors and audiences. The whole point is, it does not has to be written in every single detail. I cannot guarantee myself that every historical event Luke points out to be fully accurate, but one thing we can’t deny it, it’s not historically inaccurate either.

    Like

  4. I think it is a very bold statement to say that Luke would be considered a “dishonest” historian since we believe and know that the word was God-breathed as stated in, 2 Timothy 3:16 which states, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” If we believe this is true then we need to believe that what Luke said was of truth, honesty, and from the Lord. We could also word it as God using Luke as a vessel to write the book of Acts. So, even though we say that Luke picked and chose various passages that were what overall God wanted. Overall, we need to go back to the pointing truth that all scripture is God-breathed, and no matter who the human author was, the overall writer of the Bible was purely God. I think also that Luke if inclined with the Lord’s will; prayed before he chose what stories, historical facts, etc. because he wanted to do his very best to bring honor and glory to God and the kingdom. I think overall it is important that we ask questions when reading the Bible and really dig into what it says, but when it comes to questioning the author and his intentions I think we need to be careful because overall the BIble is 100% true and God would not allow false information. I think another excellent piece of scripture to look at is 2 Peter 1:20 where it states, “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” This again reiterates that scripture was from God, but used people as vessels to carry his word out; to share with others throughout the world.

    Like

  5. The question on whether Luke is a “dishonest historian” when he chooses stories and ignores others, does not make him a dishonest historian. When we read the ESV Introduction of Acts, we see, “The Primary purpose of Acts was to give an account of how and where the gospel spread, rather than to be a defence of Paul’s Ministry” (ESV pg 2073). If that is the purpose, then we can trust and rely that leaving out certain stories and replacing them with other stories that gives the purpose of Acts a stronger story is perfectly fine. As you have mentioned already, Luke wrote Acts, but with the help of the Holy Spirit. We know this to be true from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, and rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. Knowing this, we know that Luke leaving behind certain stories or shortening speeches, or altering stories a little that were handed down, is not the work of a dishonest historian, but a tool that the Holy Spirit worked through him to get his main theme of the book across, along with the theological agenda he was writing from. As you have already pointed out, along with many other religious scholars and historians, many of Luke’s writings have been fact checked to an extent, and have been proven accurate. Like his mentioning of Augustus, Herod, Pilate, and Gallio. The use of geological locations and the description of these places all seem to be accurate in the 1st century AD. These along with other examples can contribute to the accuracy of Luke’s writings. Yes, he may have left parts out, and edited sermons, but he did this with a purpose and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

    Like

  6. As with any author or storyteller, Luke appears to not be dishonest but rather is writing his narrative with a goal and purpose in mind. It would be impossible to fit every detail into 28 chapters without losing both the goal of the writing as well as the audience’s interest. As I was reading the post it recalled the book Unbroken by Lauren Hildebrand. A true account of the life of Louis Zamperini, this book was so intriguing that it was eventually made into not only a movie, but also an abridged book for middle grade/teens. This abridged version kept to the main theme and details of Zamperini’s life yet left out some of the details that might be disturbing to younger readers. Because this book was marketed to a specific audience in mind, it was necessary to omit some content, however this does not make it a dishonest or untruthful account. Polhill states that “out of a large body of available data, storytellers select the details that fit their design and purpose” (2077). I think it is so important to remember that not only did Luke have a specific purpose in writing Acts, but that purpose was inspired by the Holy Spirit and entrusted to Luke to write. As a result, we should not question the validity or truthfulness, but rather read it as the inspired word of God that it is.
    Reference
    Polhill, J.B. (Ed.). (2008). The Acts of the Apostles. In ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles.

    Like

  7. The fascinating thing about scripture when looking at it from a historical perspective is that, because most of the books are written by different people, that the authors show their own perspectives according to how the events took place. The same would go for Luke and the books that he wrote about Jesus’s time on earth. Like any other historian would, he left out the boring, non-relevant details as noted in this article. The Bible does not need to have all the details of every miracle, sermon, journey, or gathering to accurately depict the gospel message that is trying to be conveyed. The Bible is not supposed to be a history book, but rather a book on the creation, fall, and redemption of the world and how God is calling everyone back to him with grace. As an accurate historian, Luke makes his case enough just by naming geographical places and people who were involved in the historical accounts of Christ or were alive during that time. The story of Acts not only lines up well after the four gospels, but also intertwines with them (each an individual perspective), and accurately continues all of them while still reaching back to tie in the Old Testament. In the ESV Study Bible, Polhill notes that while Acts has themes that tie it to the other gospels, it is unique as its purpose is to show now how the events of the Apostles reflect the ministry of Jesus (2075). To say that Luke is an inaccurate author with his history, and to still have his writing line up with other personal perspectives and Old Testament prophecy so well, makes it clear to me that those who claim his inaccuracy are reading the book of Acts for the wrong reasons.

    Like

  8. The book of Acts and Luke was written to create an orderly account of the events experienced by eyewitnesses (ESVSB, 2076). The text’s prologue is quite similar to other historical documents of the time, acknowledging generally known figures and events of the time period. However, modern critics question the accuracy of the book of Acts. This phenomenon is often caused by the use of modern methods of historical evaluation to an ancient author, whose methods were not as stringent nor solely primarily motivated by historical purposes. As Long notes, often the book of Acts is guided by theological purposes, which can cause concerns of Luke concealing information or only presenting certain events to further an agenda. While it should be noted that the book of Acts is primarily driven by theological pursuits, major concerns of historical unreliability should be met with an understanding of how ancient authors often wrote. For example, one issue taken with the modern film Selma is the limited number of historical events presented throughout the film. Many people thought certain events were important to include, yet obviously, the director did not think so. This is a contemporary allusion to the ancient literary style of Luke’s writing, which compiled a vast amount of raw information provided from the oral tradition and apostolic events that fit his theological narrative and themes. This process allowed Luke to use events and oral traditions that matched with the purpose and design of the book of Acts (ESVSB, 2077). Furthermore, Luke did not have access to modern recording technology nor concern for contemporary standards of plagiarism or copyright. This resulted in Luke editing the sermon to fit the pages of the text and to make literary and verbal sense, which was a common occurrence in the ancient world. Overall, the book of Acts fulfills the state purpose of Luke (Luke 1:1-4), but it should be understood the primary motive of the text is not always historical details but theological messaging. This does not mean that Luke twists information or inaccurately represents recorded events within the book of Acts. Rather, similar to the contemporary film Selma, it focuses on certain aspects of the time period which fit the design and purpose of the author. This means certain events are left out or deemed irrelevant to the overall intentions of the text, while others are deemed important and noted promptly.

    Like

  9. I personally believe that the book of Acts is accurate with what it says. Like Selma and many other movies that are based on true stories, not everything is going to be exactly the same in the film as they were when they actually happened. There simply is not enough time to include everything. To me, this appears to be the case with the book of Acts. Similar to the end of the Gospel of John (John 20:30-31), there may have been too much that had happened during the time of Acts to write everything down. I believe that the most important information that we needed to know was included, but some of the other details were left out because they were not necessary for us to understand what Luke was trying to teach us about the history of the early church. There are always going to be people who doubt that the book of Acts is not completely accurate because they were not eye-witnesses to all of the events that occurred during that time. With that being said, this is where faith comes in. We can have faith that the entire Bible is accurate because it is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Also, like the blog talks about, there are many historical pieces of evidence that can help to provide proof that the book of Acts is truthful, such as certain events and locations that are known about now or can be found being mentioned in other historical artifacts. Overall, I think that there is more than enough evidence that proves that the book of Acts is history.

    Like

  10. The book of Acts is certainly one that Luke took the liberty to write selectively, recording only the facts, stories and dialogue that he believed to be the most valuable to whom he was writing to. Does this make him a “dishonest historian”? I would say that his style of writing does not earn him that title, but perhaps he was more of a creative writer, seeking to get across the points that he believed to be valuable and best portrayed the growth of the modern church of his time. Every individual person has their own style of writing, and Luke may have had more of a “one-track-mind” when it came to how he wrote, in regards to the topics of the early church, early Christians, and various miracles (Polhil). As stated in the blog post, Luke had a theological agenda to carry into his writings, and I believe that he wrote rather selectively because he was trying to stay on “topic” about the early church and his experience as a follower of the Christian faith. Readers can also see that Luke tended to write in a way about the early church’s progress that helped it stand out among other things. Polhil states that “Among the unique features of Acts are the frequent summaries, where Luke provides a broad generalization about the life of the church at a particular time or place, such as the common life after Pentecost the early Christians sharing of goods, and the apostolic miracles” (2075). It is clear that Luke had particular events and points that he wanted to drive home, without the chance of readers getting distracted by other events that may have been occurring at the time. Much like any book, the book of Acts has a theme, or rather, a genre that it follows. Again, this would not make Luke a “dishonest historian,” but rather an author who wrote down things following a “genre” or two. Pohil backs up this idea by stating “The book of Acts os a small anthology of individual literary genres. The list includes hero story, adventure story, travel story, conversion story, and miracle story” (2076). If Luke would stray from these topics, reading the book of Acts would be confusing and full of too many topics to process or put together to make a collective point. Much like any author, Luke sticks to the pressing topics of his “genres” so that readers will understand the theological points that he is striving to get across.

    References:

    Crossway Bibles. (2016). Esv Study Bible: English Standard Version.

    Like

  11. I have a confession to make. And it is one I am not exactly proud to admit. I cannot completely quote my pastor’s sermon from this morning. I am glad to get that off my chest. But, while I am making confessions, I would like to also admit that I cannot completely quote any sermon I have heard in my lifetime. It is also very likely that even if I were to listen with the intention of quoting a sermon at a latter date, I still would not be able to do so. This phenomenon, which I sincerely hope is not exclusive to me, is I believe, the source of some of the off details in the book of Acts. The author, it is Luke, claims to have gained their information from eyewitnesses, and likely did so, but their attempt to produce an accurate report would still be somewhat hindered due to the passage of time itself. It seems unlikely to me that all the information contained within Acts is the product of flawless recollection on the part of Luke and his eyewitnesses. As such, it seems reasonable to me that the accounts in Acts and Luke are likely simply general summaries of what had happened and are likely true to the spirit of what happened, but are not accurate word for word. Unless of course, Luke’s witnesses happened to be diligently writing everything down word for word as it happened. Which is possible, but unlikely. The ESV Study Bible dates Luke to AD 70 or some year very close to this time (2074). This means that Luke is likely describing events that happened over a nearly 40-year span, and that some of these events, such as Paul’s time in Rome would have been relatively recent events (2074). It seems to me therefore, likely that much of Luke’s information is accurate, but simply summarized to make up for faded memories.

    Like

  12. Nowadays, most influential people have their integrity questioned at some point, to debate whether their work is true and honorable. Luke wrote Acts as accurately as he could, within the narrow space of the twenty-eight chapters that he had. All of Luke’s locations were accurate and tied into the stories accurately. Luke was in charge of writing the book of Acts and like any writer he has to look out for fitting as much of the entirety of the story as he can, while simultaneously keeping his readers tuned in. However, as Christians, we know that the whole Bible was inspired and breathed by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So even if Luke did change a couple of words or choose certain stories that helped fulfill the goal of the books of Acts, that does not make him a ‘dishonest historian’, since his words are coming from the Lord he is telling the truth of events. We also do not know exactly what the culture was like when Luke was writing Acts, we can read about it but it is different to live in it. Luke was writing from the mindset of the culture he was living in, he was telling the story through words that were common back then, and including things that were relevant to their current culture. This may mean that Luke left out some of the stories that may help us today but back then they didn’t fit into his agenda for the culture he was in.

    Like

  13. The book of Acts is written with many literary features, themes, and genres. This blog post highlighted the book of Acts written as history, which ultimately provides evidence for the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Each key theme of Acts was related to an “eyewitness” account to some degree, supporting the evidence to Christ’s ascension and the beginning developments of the early church (Polhil, 2076). A part of the author’s (Luke) intentions was to have an account for the “things being accomplished”, such as the ministry of Jesus and the start of the early church, which in turn required eyewitnesses to record data for future readers. This theme of witnesses starts in Acts 1:7 when Jesus sent the disciples into Jerusalem to spread the gospel until the Holy Spirit came upon them. In this commission to the disciples, we see the geographically focused history within the intention to send these witnesses throughout the world for the purpose of spreading the gospel and expanding the church. Around the middle of the book of Acts, Paul had started performing miracles through the work of the Holy Spirit. The eyewitnesses to these miracles provides the theologically focused history, based on the fact that there was evidence of the Holy Spirit’s power. Because Luke followed his own theological agenda (and the Holy Spirit), similarly to the filmmaker, he left out some pieces of the script that lacked to collaborate with the rest of the historical presentation of the ministry of Jesus and the development of the early church. While there are skeptics in every area of production, I think to answer the question about the reliability of Luke is based on the faith and knowledge of the reader. I personally believe that Luke wrote accurately according to history, while leaving out some parts that may not have aligned with his theological agenda. After all, ultimately it was the Holy Spirit guiding Luke’s writing of Acts.

    Like

  14. I do not believe that Luke was dishonest with his writings at all. He had to choose what he was going to put into the book of Acts and as anyone would, we would leave at the embarrassing parts that took place. Although he may have left parts out this does not make Luke dishonest. He has so many eyewitness accounts that he takes into account and the fact that scripture is God breathed as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, we cannot say that he was dishonest. With scripture being God breathed the Lord was working through him therefore we have gotten the full truth. Just because the way Luke wrote does not line up with the way we think of history today does not take away from the fact that the Lord was writing through him. Luke was intentional with how he was writing and wrote with how he thought it would best serve the people for generations to come. The main purpose of Luke writing Acts was to show how the Holy Spirit was working to expand the Christian faith and the Church which is the point he got across. Like I stated previously he had eyewitness accounts that he had to use but not nearly as many as he did when he was writing the book of Luke which could also contribute to people believing that he did not give us all the information. Overall, Luke got the point across with the resources that he had available along with God guiding his hand as he wrote.

    Like

  15. The connection to the movie Selma was very interesting but it left me thinking. If not all parts of the movie are true or changed for cinematic effect, can we claim it as factual and accurate? If this same method is applied to the Luke and Acts, then are we able to claim it as both true and factual if details are changed for “effect”? You did point out that Luke may have been bent a little more towards the dramatics and may have over blown some things or left things out for the purpose of simply story telling. This would be different than adding information that would be read as fact other than adding to the overall story of Luke and Acts. We know Luke most likely did not have a direct first-hand account to the life of Jesus but rather was hearing it from someone who did. What they would have told him and what he then would have taken out as significant or not as crucial, may have been different just like Bob Dylan was significant to you but not to the writer of Selma. In all history books a certain perspective is taken. Even if it does include another cultural angle it’s still from the perspective of the culture who wrote the book. Does this mean that the history is wrong? No, there may be just more to it than what we are given. In Luke’s case, the other parts aren’t necessary to knowing the story of the Gospel and the continuation of the story of Jesus and scripture in Acts.

    Like

    • By “dramatic” I was thinking things like, “The whole town came out to hear Paul” (Acts 13:44). This is hyperbole, since a town of 25,000 could not pack into the local synagogue to hear Paul preach.

      Like

  16. I think that a great starting point to engage this topic is looking at 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This passage speaks on the Divine primary participation and authority behind everything in the whole Bible. It is possible to look at Acts as a historical account, but it would be inappropriate to treat it solely as historical as well as scrutinize it with the same standard expected from historical accounts in the present. Not that we should be lax on what can be accept as accurate, but that historical accounts at the time had their own context and their own way of doing things. As for the author’s role, there is only so much any historical account can contain about the event. It would be exhausting to present and study an exhaustive, unabridged version of every event ever. Long mentions that the way Luke wrote his historical accounts is very similar to was done at the time and Long also gave an example of other non-biblical accounts that also suffer from omitting certain true events that are part of the story but that represent the agenda of the author. I think it is unfair to apply such rigorous criticism over Luke’s isolated account (even though there are several historical and geographical mentions that are verifiable, and check out), while not applying the same criticism to other non-biblical account of the same status. Beyond that, Luke is not the sole author, and the book of Acts is only one piece of the masterpiece that is the Bible. While Luke might have his agenda, there is God also piecing this account into the Biblical narrative. Luke had the greatest fact-checker has and will ever experience. I would only call him a dishonest historian if he failed to portray in his account what he initially proposes he would, according to the pool of accurate information he has available.

    Like

  17. I believe that the book of Acts is very true with what it says for the most part. It is just like a movie that is based on a true story or those real life series you see on Netflix it almost has 90-95% of the truth but not everything. I just feel like it would be very hard to say and put everything that goes on in the Act but I feel like most of the things put in there are very truthful. It reminds me of the Gospel of John. But I do believe that we need to know everything that happens so it wouldn’t be a grey area for people that want to believe in God. I believe no matter what, there will always be a group of people that don’t believe in the word because they simply don’t want to face the facts that God is the best ever and will never leave us. I believe you have to have faith to know what’s truly going on and to understand. I believe that you have to have faith in order to understand. I believe that the bible is real and gives you the keys to life. That is why you see a bible almost in everyone’s house even if they just put it there for decoration because they believe the blood of Jesus will cover us and our household and families at all times.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.