It can be expected that many who take this course will be familiar with the material in most of the segments: as with NT281, this course was very helpful in its comprehensive approach and identifying and filling in many gaps, but perhaps primarily in clarifying the significance of some less well understood facts and concepts, especially in relation to Acts.
There are only a couple of minor points in the course that I would tend to disagree with and would seek additional evidence to support:
1. The statement that taking the Gospel to the “ends of the earth” could have meant taking the Gospel to Rome. It is understood that the Romans and of course anyone in the Roman political sphere would have thought Rome to be the center of the world: Jews and Christians of course would disagree and hold that the centre of the world is in Jerusalem (in the Greek Orthodox part of the Church of the Resurrection if my memory serves me correctly). While taking the Gospel to Rome was indeed important, my understanding was that the commission to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth had Paul thinking of Spain once he was done in Rome and that other apostles had been sent outside the Roman Empire, south and east to India (Thomas) [following the line of conquests by Alexander], and also south into Africa well beyond Egypt.
2. The idea that while after the Resurrection Jesus told his disciples to go to Galilee, and Gospel accounts tell of post Resurrection appearances there, and Luke focusses on them staying in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon them, that these stories can be reconciled by them taking the initiative to go back home to Galilee to collect belongings they would need for their missions to take the Gospel to the “ends of the earth”. While we may in hindsight know how long it was between the Resurrection and Pentecost, it seems unlikely that the Apostles would have had an understanding of this timeframe. Although it may only take a few hours to get from Jerusalem to Galilee in a car or bus on modern roads, this was not a journey to be taken lightly back when these events occurred. It would have been a tiring journey of several days each way, plus the time to talk with family and friends about their mission!
Two additional points would support this being unlikely:
a. They were far from rich and would have had little if anything still at “home” to collect that would likely have been suitable for their mission
b. They had previous experience of those sent out by Jesus on missions not being required to take anything with them!
It would appear more likely that the details of the post Resurrection appearances in Galilee were simply missed out in Luke as he had no direct experience of them and perhaps had not heard about them or understood their significance, given his primary association with Paul rather than the other Apostles who had experienced them.
One final, and again minor point related to Gnosticism: I still have trouble understanding why it is referred to as “Gnostic Christianity” when it appears to be quite a different religion with little in common with Christianity. From its roots in a pagan creation story through its core beliefs and attempts to fabricate Gospel accounts to subvert and undermine Christianity as we know it, it has more the appearance of an entirely separate religion attempting to explain and exploit the “popularity” of the true Gospel story. On the face of it, Islam seems as close or closer to Christianity than Gnosticism.