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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

That doesn't work. If (as is indicated by material adapted from Paul's letters and bits of Josephus, like the revolts of Judas and Theudas and the death of Herod Agrippa) Acts is a made -up tale to explain how the apostles did not preach to all nations, and only Paul and his followers did, quoting passages of it is evidence of nothing.

Luke, being a dabbler in historical records, knew (or supposed) that Paul had gone to Rome about AD 60. Why would he cover the Jewish war before it had broken out? It was not part of the narrative up to that date.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #21

Actually, Jesus spent 40 days appearing to his disciples and the manifestation in Galilee was only one of the times that he did so.

According to Mark and Matthew, his appearance to them in Galilee was supposed to be his first appearance to them. According to Luke and John, it wasn't the first. Matthew even has some of them still doubting when he appears to them in Galilee.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #21

Actually, Jesus spent 40 days appearing to his disciples and the manifestation in Galilee was only one of the times that he did so.

According to Mark and Matthew, his appearance to them in Galilee was supposed to be his first appearance to them. According to Luke and John, it wasn't the first. Matthew even has some of them still doubting when he appears to them in Galilee.

Indeed. The presentation of the 40 days scriptural lecture is only in Luke. it is not in Matthew who had Jesus telling the disciples (through the Marys) to go to Galilee where they will see him, and that they do. Luke has them staying in Jerusalem because the angelic message tells them to. So far as Luke is concerned there is no trip to Galilee and no need for it.

Now I know that the believers will disagree. That doesn't matter. What matters is what the evidence points to.

Mark The angel tells the disciples to go to Galilee where they will see him. Leave aside that apparently the Marys say nothing to anyone about it.
Matthew also has that and has Jesus repeat the message as though he couldn't have a chat with the disciples right there. The trip to Galilee makes no sense even without Luke's contradiction where the angel tells them to stay in Jerusalem which, so far as Luke has it, is what they do after Jesus turns up that night and appears for a series of scriptural lessons before ascending. Luke and Acts pretty much covers all that time, so there is no room for a trip to Galilee anyway.
What is the explanation? The clue is in Paul's letters which (Acts makes clear) Luke saw, but none of the other writers did. Which is why Luke has Jesus appear to Simon first of all but doesn't describe it. Instead he shifts the scene to Emmaus, so he is excused from recounting the event. Then he writes a linking sequence to the church founded in Jerusalem and Paul taking over the mission with the approval of James, because Luke knew that was what Paul had written.

John of course has no angelic message at all, so there's a refutation right away. He does have both an appearance that night and a trip to Galilee where they see Jesus, though I have read claims this is a later addition. But I do have an explanation for that as well as some other oddities in John. 'Floating stories' which were little story claims that John picked up and worked into his gospel but in contradictory ways (1).

So despite the Usual Explanations of fiddling a pointless trip to Galilee to see Jesus when he's been lecturing them in Jerusalem for over a month, and the Believers refusing to admit that it makes no sense, I can only point to just how much it makes no sense and let the reader, browser, Lurker and anyone with an open mind ask which way the evidence really points.

(1) it is a bit hypothetical, but could explain why John has a healed paralytic taking up his pallet and walking - but in Jerusalem, not in Galilee; and thus perhaps why he has no Bartimaeus healed of blindness in Jericho, but a blind man is healed in Jerusalem. Thus it might also explain Lazarus. A young man is raised from the dead in both John and Luke, Lazarus in Jerusalem in John and the son of Nain in Galilee in Luke. And ..the thing that got me wondering, why no walking on water in Luke? If a 'floating story', John could have picked it up as well as the writer of the Mark/Matthew gospel they used, but not Luke. And thus, if so, it would explain why we have Jesus turning up Sunday night and John also having the disciples going to Galilee (with a sorta reason for them to do so) with the miracle of the net of fish, which Luke also has but attached to the calling of disciples, and even Matthew has it as a sort of parable (13.47). Speculative? Hypothetical? Perhaps, but it explains what we have - all the problems, though such problems are generally ignored.

[Eloi]

Again:

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.

This topic is not about what information did Luke include in his account of the ministry of Jesus or not. Luke was not a direct follower of Jesus while he was alive, but he became Christian after his death.

On the other hand, Luke was in close association with Paul, accompanying him on many of his travels (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), so he didn't need to research about what he was experiencing. He was a first hand witness of whatever he knew and recorded about Paul. It is ridiculous to compare what Luke said about Jesus and what he said about Paul, as much as ridiculous is saying that Luke needed to read Josephus to know about Paul's life.

Reading all the stupid things that are posted on the internet become insulting to intelligence and rational thinking, especially when some people talk just to follow an agenda without even looking for additional information to verify what they post...

[JoeyKnothead]

This topic is not about what information did Luke include in his account of the ministry of Jesus or not. Luke was not a direct follower of Jesus while he was alive, but he became Christian after his death.

Cool.

On the other hand, Luke was in close association with Paul, accompanying him on many of his travels (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), so he didn't need to research about what he was experiencing. He was a first hand witness of whatever he knew and recorded about Paul. It is ridiculous to compare what Luke said about Jesus and what he said about Paul, as much as ridiculous is saying that Luke needed to read Josephus to know about Paul's life.

Makes me wonder who James MacGillivray was travelling with.

Reading all the stupid things that are posted on the internet become insulting to intelligence and rational thinking, especially when some people talk just to follow an agenda without even looking for additional information to verify what they post...

The bulb in your projector is dim.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #24

Reading all the stupid things that are posted on the internet become insulting to intelligence and rational thinking, especially when some people talk just to follow an agenda without even looking for additional information to verify what they post...

You don't have to look far for information on how inconsistent the gospel accounts are.

Why would Jesus instruct the women, as he does in Matthew, to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see him and then turn around and appear to them in Jerusalem instead just hours after the message is delivered? And isn't it interesting that the two gospels----Luke and John----which have him appear in Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection don't have any of the angelic messengers giving any instruction about going to Galilee?

That supports the hypothesis that the first two gospel writers wanted the movement centered in Galilee while the second two wanted it centered in Jerusalem, each of them writing justification for his position into his narrative.

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.

A book doesn't have to be written in the time in which it's set. JFK's assassination is an important subject, but it wouldn't have to be mentioned in a modern book about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again:

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.

This topic is not about what information did Luke include in his account of the ministry of Jesus or not. Luke was not a direct follower of Jesus while he was alive, but he became Christian after his death.

On the other hand, Luke was in close association with Paul, accompanying him on many of his travels (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), so he didn't need to research about what he was experiencing. He was a first hand witness of whatever he knew and recorded about Paul. It is ridiculous to compare what Luke said about Jesus and what he said about Paul, as much as ridiculous is saying that Luke needed to read Josephus to know about Paul's life.

Reading all the stupid things that are posted on the internet become insulting to intelligence and rational thinking, especially when some people talk just to follow an agenda without even looking for additional information to verify what they post...

The problem is that nobody knows who the writers of the gospels actually were. In fact it doesn't matter, since the gospels themselves prove that they were written either by those who were not eyewitnesses or fiddled the story anyway, or both.

Never mind the daft mobile star or absurd zombies shambling around jerusalem, The wrong translation of 'babes and sucklings' proves this is not something jesus could have said, nor is the Two donkeys the work of an eyewitness.
Luke fiddling the rejection at Nazareth, the invention of the penitent thief and the angelic message shows he is not to be trusted.

John of course is known to differ, but his refutation of the angel's message at the tomb is enough to bring the case for the resurrection down.

I won't comment much on your last remarks other than to observe that a persistent refusal to see the actual evidence or deny it when it is presented isn't too bright, either.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Eloi in post #24

Reading all the stupid things that are posted on the internet become insulting to intelligence and rational thinking, especially when some people talk just to follow an agenda without even looking for additional information to verify what they post...

You don't have to look far for information on how inconsistent the gospel accounts are.

Why would Jesus instruct the women, as he does in Matthew, to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see him and then turn around and appear to them in Jerusalem instead just hours after the message is delivered? And isn't it interesting that the two gospels----Luke and John----which have him appear in Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection don't have any of the angelic messengers giving any instruction about going to Galilee?

That supports the hypothesis that the first two gospel writers wanted the movement centered in Galilee while the second two wanted it centered in Jerusalem, each of them writing justification for his position into his narrative.

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.

A book doesn't have to be written in the time in which it's set. JFK's assassination is an important subject, but it wouldn't have to be mentioned in a modern book about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Yes. The attempt to validate Acts by it not mentioning the Jewish war (which a later writer would have known about) is very weak, since the internal evidence (in Acts - an indeed in Luke's gospel) of reliance on Paul's letters and Josephus (1) indicates that the writer knew very well about the Jewish war and the ruination of the Temple, but to put it into a gospel supposedly narrating events before then would hardly refer to them unless in the form of prophetic utterances, which (in the Gospels at least) it does.

(1) I watched a vid with apologetics that it was Luke's account predated Josephus. I can't disprove that, but the fact is that the story of the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts reads just like thjat in Josephus, except that an owl as a symbol of doom is changed to an angel in Acts. Neither are believable by any rational person, but I would rather credit Luke altering an Owl to an angel in Acts just as he adds an angel to the garden scene and alters the angelic message inhis gospel, rather than Josephus would change an angel (of God) to an owl.

Thus I would also go with the order of history in Josephus, the revolt of Judas the Galilean (associated with the 6 AD census) was before the revolt of Theudas, put down by a later procurator, (Felix Alexander or something - I'll check (2) rather than Theudas and afterwards Judas, as in Gamaliel's speech in Acts. Thus the indications are that Luke/Acts was both later than Josephus, and wrong.

(2) no darn it, Cuspius Fadus - I keep making that mistake. My Memory is shot.
THEUDAS:
By: Wilhelm Bacher, Schulim Ochser
1. Pseudo-Messiah, who appeared during the consulate of Cuspius Fadus and succeeded in winning a large number of adherents. In proof of his Messianic mission he is said to have promised to lead his followers across the Jordan after dividing its waters simply by his word. Regarding this as indicative of open rebellion against Rome, Cuspius sent a division of cavalry against Theudas and his followers, who were almost entirely annihilated (comp. Acts v. 36). Theudas was decapitated, and his head was carried to Jerusalem as a trophy of victory.Bibliography: Josephus, Ant. xx. 5, § 1; (Jewish Encyclopaedia)

[Eloi]

If a person writes a biography of another in 16 chapters and finishes his story before that person dies, it is natural to think that when the story ended the person had not died yet.

The book of Acts ends with Paul being confined to house arrest for two years. By this time, the trial before the emperor for which he had been brought to Rome in the first place had not taken place. After that, Paul was imprisoned for the second time about the year 65 CE and after that he was assassinated by Nero. It is reasonable to think that none of these events happened when Luke finished the book of Acts.

The enemies of the Bible go overboard trying to find excuses to discredit it; their excuses only make them delude themselves, or perhaps they lose their ability to think rationally because of their desperation in refusing to see reality. They try to make up conspiracy theories for which they have absolutely no proof and cling to those speculations as if they were fact. Anyone outside of that hostile environment to the Bible realizes that their theories are vain and that they are forcing others to believe their excuses only to deceive them as they deceive themselves.

This is the end of the book of Acts by Luke:

Acts 28:30 So he remained there for an entire two years in his own rented house, and he would kindly receive all those who came to him, 31 preaching the Kingdom of God to them and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with the greatest freeness of speech, without hindrance.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #29

"So he remained there for an entire two years...."

If the Luke/Acts author is writing an up-to-date running narrative at this point, why doesn't he write, "So he remains there to this day"? Something happened to Paul after those two years, and the author plainly knew about it.

And given the sketchiness of that author's writing in general, there's no telling how he would put something together. Did Jesus ascend into heaven on the evening of the resurrection? That's how things are crammed into Luke 24.

The enemies of the Bible go overboard trying to find excuses to discredit it; their excuses only make them delude themselves, or perhaps they lose their ability to think rationally because of their desperation in refusing to see reality. They try to make up conspiracy theories for which they have absolutely no proof and cling to those speculations as if they were fact. Anyone outside of that hostile environment to the Bible realizes that their theories are vain and that they are forcing others to believe their excuses only to deceive them as they deceive themselves.

Is it going "overboard" to ask critical questions?

Why doesn't John have Mary Magdalene see the angel who opens the tomb in Matthew, who says that Mary was present as [or immediately after] the tomb was opened?

Did Peter run to the tomb before being told about the resurrection (John 20:3) or after being told (Luke 24:12)?

Did Peter first meet Jesus in Galilee (the Synoptics) or in Judea (John)?

....and so on.

Those who ask critical questions aren't going "overboard" just because those questions force you to come up with outlandish ways to rationalize them away.