Paul couldn't take the same things for granted that he could with a Jewish audience. For example, Paul said "raised him from the dead" to his Athenian audience and Luke immediately turns around and calls it "resurrection of the dead" to his Christian audience. The Athenians had not been exposed to the idea of a physical resurrection after death. Similarly, Paul couldn't just start throwing the name of Jesus around right off the bat.
I think the narration that we have in Acts 17 is typical of a writting style that has already dealt with Jesus as being that "Man" who is the Savior. Acts 4:12. So Luke possibly chooses to be implicit in the mention of Jesus's name. But it is obvious if one is reading this account, there is only ONE conclusion to whom Paul is making a reference to.
Again, I don't think Paul's discussion was restricted to just this, and most likely after his introductory comments, made things more explicit.
Paul couldn't take the same things for granted that he could with a Jewish audience. For example, Paul said "raised him from the dead" to his Athenian audience and Luke immediately turns around and calls it "resurrection of the dead" to his Christian audience. The Athenians had not been exposed to the idea of a physical resurrection after death. Similarly, Paul couldn't just start throwing the name of Jesus around right off the bat.
StormTrek 1 year ago
I think the narration that we have in Acts 17 is typical of a writting style that has already dealt with Jesus as being that "Man" who is the Savior. Acts 4:12. So Luke possibly chooses to be implicit in the mention of Jesus's name. But it is obvious if one is reading this account, there is only ONE conclusion to whom Paul is making a reference to.
Again, I don't think Paul's discussion was restricted to just this, and most likely after his introductory comments, made things more explicit.
hamy72 1 year ago