About the book of Acts of the Apostles.

[Eloi]

Let's talk about that here.

Since the book of Acts had the same writter than the gospel of Luke, it is evident that the gospel was written some time before Acts.

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Acts 1:1 The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus started to do and to teach 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given instructions through holy spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After he had suffered, he showed himself alive to them by many convincing proofs. He was seen by them throughout 40 days, and he was speaking about the Kingdom of God.

To what year do the scholars date the book of Acts, and what are the reasons why they do it?

[Eloi]

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke. He begins the gospel account claiming to have "traced all things from the start with accuracy" and then makes no mention in his nativity narrative of the flight to Egypt found in the Matthew account. If he could see fit to omit such a significant detail of that story [assuming that it actually happened], the death of Paul would have been even easier for him to overlook.

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death? That argument to dismiss that Lucas not-speaking of the death of Paul is a proof of the pre-66 writing of Acts, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

The author of the book of Acts, Luke, neither speaks of the death of Peter (66/67) nor that of James the brother of Jesus (62) but he does speak of the death of James the apostle by Herod (44) in Acts 12:1,2.

By the way, most critics who postpone the writing of Acts to a year after 70 AD don't even assume that Luke wrote the gospel that bears his name, so to take him as the author just to present this ludicrous argument is pretty much nothing short of dishonest.

[Difflugia]

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke.

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death? That argument to dismiss that Lucas not-speaking of the death of Paul is a proof of the pre-66 writing of Acts, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

No, it's proof that the death of Paul wasn't part of the story that the author wanted to tell. The historical fantasy And Less than Kind by Mercedes Lackey and Roberta Gellis is the final book in a fun series about Queen Elizabeth I. It ends before the death of Queen Elizabeth. Does that mean that the series was completed prior to 1603? Is it ridiculous and laughable to suggest otherwise? Or is the subject perhaps not quite as simple as you'd wish us to believe?

The author of the book of Acts, Luke, neither speaks of the death of Peter (66/67) nor that of James the brother of Jesus (62) but he does speak of the death of James the apostle by Herod (44) in Acts 12:1,2.

And Less than Kind does speak of the death of Elizabeth's sister Mary in 1558.

By the way, most critics who postpone the writing of Acts to a year after 70 AD don't even assume that Luke wrote the gospel that bears his name, so to take him as the author just to present this ludicrous argument is pretty much nothing short of dishonest.

You're either not reading carefully enough or you're being dishonest yourself. Athetotheist didn't claim that Luke actually wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts, only that the same author wrote both.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #11

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death?

Mark and Matthew both say that the disciples were to go to Galilee to see Jesus, and did the "accurate" author of Luke forget to mention it?

[Eloi]

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke. He begins the gospel account claiming to have "traced all things from the start with accuracy" and then makes no mention in his nativity narrative of the flight to Egypt found in the Matthew account. If he could see fit to omit such a significant detail of that story [assuming that it actually happened], the death of Paul would have been even easier for him to overlook.

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death? That argument to dismiss that Lucas not-speaking of the death of Paul is a proof of the pre-66 writing of Acts, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

The author of the book of Acts, Luke, neither speaks of the death of Peter (66/67) nor that of James the brother of Jesus (62) but he does speak of the death of James the apostle by Herod (44) in Acts 12:1,2.

By the way, most critics who postpone the writing of Acts to a year after 70 AD don't even assume that Luke wrote the gospel that bears his name, so to take him as the author just to present this ludicrous argument is pretty much nothing short of dishonest.

I didn't open this topic to chit chat with you.
Good bye.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #14

I didn't open this topic to chit chat with you.
Good bye.

And you're closing it by rehashing your claims, ignoring my rebuttals and insinuating that I'm "dishonest".

Don't get personal.
Thank you.

[Eloi]

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke.

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death? That argument to dismiss that Lucas not-speaking of the death of Paul is a proof of the pre-66 writing of Acts, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

No, it's proof that the death of Paul wasn't part of the story that the author wanted to tell. (...)

Who who writes a book, being its last 16 out of 28 chapters biographical, decides not to write even a note about the death of that person if it had already happened before?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Eloi in post #14

I didn't open this topic to chit chat with you.
Good bye.

And you're closing it by rehashing your claims, ignoring my rebuttals and insinuating that I'm "dishonest".

Don't get personal.
Thank you.

P1: Here's the topic for debate.
P2: Debate.
P3: No, not that way!

God called him some to preach, and others he called to debate.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #16

Who who writes a book, being its last 16 out of 28 chapters biographical, decides not to write even a note about the death of that person if it had already happened before?

Apparently the same person who neglected to mention that the disciples were to meet Jesus in Galilee and had him appear to them in Jerusalem instead.

[TRANSPONDER]

The author of Acts not mentioning Paul's death isn't much to hang your hat on, especially he also being the author of Luke.

All chapters from 13 to 28 of the book of Acts refer to events in Paul's life, and did the writer forget to tell about his death? That argument to dismiss that Lucas not-speaking of the death of Paul is a proof of the pre-66 writing of Acts, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

No, it's proof that the death of Paul wasn't part of the story that the author wanted to tell. (...)

Who who writes a book, being its last 16 out of 28 chapters biographical, decides not to write even a note about the death of that person if it had already happened before?

The same person who writes that Jesus appeared to Peter on resurrection Sunday, but doesn't describe it. The author of Luke doesn't describe it because he doesn't know. Now in Acts (by the Luke author - on evidence) Acts ends with Paul in Rome around 60 A.D and leaves it there. Two explanations -

(a) Luke wrote it at the time and didn't know what happened afterwards
(b) he lived after the time of Paul (reputedly) going off to Rome, but knew nothing of what happened, because Paul's letters (his only source) don't say.

Either are possible and you opt for the first explanation.

I opt for the second because the lack of a description of the appearance to Simon (Peter) Luke 24.35. makes no sense if Luke knew what, where and how it had happened. But it makes perfect sense if he had read it in Paul's letter I Corinthians 15.5. But it says nothing about it other than Jesus appeared to Simon, apparently first in the order. That explains why only Luke and none of the others has it and why he can't describe it. He has sight of Paul's letters and the other didn't.

Thus if Luke was written after the other gospels and relied on Paul for his material, it explains why Acts ends in AD 60 even if Acts was written a hundred years later.

[Eloi]

The author of the book of Acts, Luke, was not simply a collector of testimonies about the events that happened to Paul and that he narrates from chapter 13 to the last, 28, of his book of Acts of the Apostles. In the penultimate chapter of his book, he is included in the account as Paul's companion at the time, as he does in many of the accounts of him throughout the book:

Acts 27:1 Now as it was decided for us to sail away to Italy, they handed Paul and some other prisoners over to an army officer named Julius, of the unit of Au·gusʹtus. 2 Going aboard a ship from Ad·ra·mytʹti·um that was about to sail to ports along the coast of the province of Asia, we set sail; Ar·is·tarʹchus, a Mac·e·doʹni·an from Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, was with us. 3 The next day we landed at Siʹdon, and Julius treated Paul with kindness and permitted him to go to his friends and enjoy their care.

In the 70 Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. The city was already uninhabited and in ruins and all its inhabitants were scattered to different parts of the empire. However, in Acts 25 the city is still standing and the Roman rulers visit it (and Caesarea) in connection with their political duties and the accusation of the Jews against Paul, which concerned the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem, and the trial of Paul who had appealed to Caesar, preceding the journey he had to make as a prisoner to Rome for stand trial before Nero.

According to those who deny the writing of the book before 70, the writer forgot to say something as important as the fact that at the time he finished the book the Jews who harassed Paul so much, if survived, had been taken out of their city in ruins and the temple was not any more.

The ridiculousness of the argument that just as Luke excluded saying that Jesus appeared in Galilee to some disciples after rising from the dead and only said that in the end he had also appeared in Jerusalem, Luke would have "neglected" to include Paul's death, is demonstrated in the fact that Luke had to investigate the facts related to Christ because he was not a follower of Jesus by the time, but those related to Paul he lived in his own flesh because he was his companion.

Actually, Jesus spent 40 days appearing to his disciples and the manifestation in Galilee was only one of the times that he did so. The last apparition before ascending was in Jerusalem, which Luke does include. The gospel accounts are four for a reason: they all complement each other and narrate different aspects of the life and work of Jesus. The reader of the Bible does not focus only on one of them but on all the inspired writings in order to have a more or less complete idea of the events. The life of Jesus is not recorded in the Bible in all its details; expecting some of the writers to include all aspects of his life is unreasonable. In fact, the differences between the accounts of the good news about Jesus are the strongest proof that the theory that they copied each other is wrong.