Rethinking Luke & Acts: Interview with Michael Bird

Подписаться 157 тыс.

Просмотров 8 тыс.

50% 1

Ever wondered what the books of Luke and Acts teach us about God, Jesus, and the early church? How do they relate to each other, and what do they mean for us today? Michael Bird dives deep into these questions, providing an accessible and compelling introduction to the narrative of Luke-Acts in his book: A Bird's-Eye View of Luke and Acts: Context, Story, and Themes. We'll chat with Michael and discuss his insights.
In his book, Bird unfolds the cohesive narrative about Jesus, the Church, and the mission of God, offering insights with implications for our lives today. Situating both books in their historical and literary context, Bird explores their central theological themes and concludes with reflections on their relevance for contemporary social issues.
Don't miss this insightful conversation that goes beyond the pages and brings ancient wisdom into our modern world.
Michael Bird's RU-vid Channel: ‪@earlychristianhistorywithm8684‬
A Bird's View of Luke and Acts: www.amazon.com/Birds-Eye-View...
#remnantradio #bookofluke #bookofacts #christianbooks
🌐📧 Visit our Website & Subscribe to our Newsletter: www.theremnantradio.com

Опубликовано:

26 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 47

@AllDayML Месяц назад

Just finished The Story of God Bible Commentary’s book on Romans authored by Michael Bird, and let me just say that it was fantastic! Highly recommend. Praise God!

@Steve-wg3cr 7 месяцев назад

Dr. Bird is unique in that he adds a great sense of humor to NT scholarship. A pretty rare thing in my experience.

@shellnfaith 7 месяцев назад

Josh you crack me up!!! I am 100% blessed by your sense of humor. 😂Love you guys - keep up the good work!! 🙏🏻

@user-mk3tq6jz1n 7 месяцев назад

Loved this interview. A wonderful combination of intellectual humility, humour and theology.

@barryjohnson436 7 месяцев назад

The book of Acts is describing what happened. Theres a novel way of looking at that book, that so many over look. Just read it descriptively and not necessarily prescriptive.

@BrianLassek 7 месяцев назад

I generally agree. But it gets sticky because it describes what happens with spirit filled new testament followers of Christ over a timeframe of about 30 years. How far do we take descriptive verses prescriptive? Should we read the gospels as only descriptive or should it apply to our life? Is the bible full of exceptions or examples?

@barryjohnson436 7 месяцев назад

@@BrianLassek Well again the four Gospels up to the death of Jesus are still Old testemant. ( matt 27) We have to take on board verses where Jesus says he's come not but for the lost sheep of Israel and commands the diciples to not go to the gentiles. What happens is verses get applied without realising the context. It's the same with Acts. Peter and the diciples have no clue about preaching to none but Jews only all the way up to Cornelius. We should realise this as we go through Acts. Why not treat Acts 2.38 and the laying on of hands for the samaritans the same way on which Paul was knocked to the ground and blinded. Why not Insist that being blinded and hearing audibly from Jesus as the normative experience for today? Should a mighty rushing wind occur today? The problem is in the way some read scripture. They read it as if every verse applies directly to them.

@BrianLassek 7 месяцев назад

@@barryjohnson436 you are correct that proper hermeneutics seek first to understand original context and meaning to native audience. But many also miss read scripture by looking at it and seeing special exceptions that do not or can not happen today. We are to be doers, and not hearers only. Not "they did miracles, so I can too", but rather "they lived in unity with the spirit and God provided His power to bless and call His people. They partnered with God's kingdom and I can too". I am highly suspicious both of communities that never see miracles, and those that demand them like something they are owed. Cheers brother,

@bealivingmiracle 7 месяцев назад

"You've got to be prepared to live with ambiguity." - Michael Bird... Well said about the Holy Spirit's leadership in the Church. Under the umbrella of orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit as Luke presents Him is not predictable or "harnessable." 1. The Apostles were saved during the ministry but filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 2:4). 2. Saul was healed and filled with the Spirit before he was water-baptized, after he was already converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:6), but there is no mention of tongues or prophecy (Acts 9:17; 1Cor 14:18). 3. The Samaritans were saved first and then water-baptized, but were filled with the Holy Spirit later when the Apostles came to Samaria and laid hands on them (Acts 8:17). 4. The eunuch was saved and water-baptized by Philip, but no mention of being filled with the Spirit (Acts 8:35-38). 5. Cornelius was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit at the same time before he "accepted" Christ and was then water-baptized (Acts 10:44-45,48). 6. The Ephesian encounter with people who presumably were saved with the limited light from John the Baptist's baptism. After Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus, they were filled with the Spirit (Acts 19:3-6).

@thinktank8286 7 месяцев назад

Is there a link to that copy of the Common Book at 54:00

@chad_stewart 7 месяцев назад

Doggone Josh, I had to pause the video and clean up the mess after you made me spit out my food! I'd like to apologize to all babies on Josh's behalf.

@ryanwilliamsonjesusisking2691 7 месяцев назад

Could Luke have been writing to the judge or legal person over Paul's case?

@rolandmeyer7309 7 месяцев назад

The legal person (Theophilus) is one recipient view. I find it persuasive especially considering Luke's continued insertions of Paul being found innocent by Roman authorities. This would provide precedent for when Paul stood before the emperor.

@Logic807 7 месяцев назад

Yes, it seems quite likely. I understood this from David Pawson (deceased) videos. The possibility is there.

@aperson4057 7 месяцев назад

I think this impresses stronger on me the idea that the early church was very dynamic which is an idea I've been toying with very recently. The gospel was clear to the early church and there was some sort of structure but than it just seems they were very pragmatic with some things like the structure. Pretty much all the terms for ministers for example are borrowed language from the surrounding culture. Even many of Paul's instructions (like his household codes) are Christianized versions of what was already commonly accepted. Another thing that I think that will be highly controversial among some Christians today is that the early church leaders weren't theologians or scholars though they for sure had statements that would relate to those topics. It could very well be that the apostles would not be able to answer many of our theological debates today as we'd be more knowledgeable than them on it. This isn't at all to say we shouldn't have theological positions or denominations, but I also think maybe we've made this more complex than how it started.

@emanuel5640 7 месяцев назад

why does everybody sing in the book of Luke? why his lineage is different from that of Matthew? how come that Jesus and John did not met before the baptism since Mary knew Elisabeth and they journed every year to Jerusalem? especially when both had babies in miraculoas way. the story with Lazarus is a bit different from that of John. were the priest so powerful that they could just arrest anyone and trow in jail under the roman nose? what proves do we have of the persecution of the first church? the fact that they sold their properties expecting the soon returnig of Jesus isn't the same as what the adventists did in 1844? why God allowed them to be deluded (opus Jeremiah 29)? etc

@teedub888 7 месяцев назад

35:00 Acts 10:2 - "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Doesn't sound like an idol worshipper to me

@BlastHardcheese194 7 месяцев назад

I’ve been wondering how Luke missed some big things that seem like they would have been helpful to Paul. That the lamb of God would take away sins, and that the Holy Spirit would help the Apostles remember, and show them things to come. And that John was the Apostle that Jesus loved. Between Matthew 1 and the end of Acts, at what moment was it clear that the Holy Spirit was one of a Trinity?

@user-mh2md4te9i 7 месяцев назад

Matthew 1:21 makes it clear that Jesus will save people from sin. The fact that Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity is abundantly clear in Acts where Ananaias lied not to men but to God.

@user-mh2md4te9i 7 месяцев назад

Synoptic Gospels make it clear that Peter, John and James (sons of Zebede) are his closest diciples. Jesus clearly favoured them out of twelve. Beloved Diciple can't be Peter, he is different character. It can't be James, he died in 44 AD (Acts 12:1-2) Therefore it probably John. Given that there is no overriding tradition than John, we can conclude that it is him.

@BlastHardcheese194 7 месяцев назад

@@user-mh2md4te9i but for John to say it about himself sounds like bragging. Did he need to prove something to Paul’s converts in Ephesus?

@BlastHardcheese194 7 месяцев назад

@@user-mh2md4te9i Luke’s account makes it universal, which would have been an arrow in Paul’s quiver, and that it would happen through his sacrificial death. In Matthew it still could have been through the expected way. If the Trinity was so abundantly clear when Luke wrote Acts, why did it take the church centuries longer to work it out? Why did not something so foundational deserve a single, clear explanation somewhere in an Apostolic teaching passage or in the teachings of Jesus himself?

@user-mh2md4te9i 7 месяцев назад

@@BlastHardcheese194 John didn't brag, given that he didn't write his name explicitly. Trinity is doctrine that makes sense of what was written. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called God, but God is only One. Therefore, plurality in Godhead - Trinity.