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]

[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.

Because obviously, if he talks about the two years, it means that he is talking after Paul was free again. Actually at the end of the book (again) Luke says:

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.

So Luke assume everything ended with a "happy end"; evidently the rest of the events he didn't write hadn't happened yet. After Paul was released, he traveled to other places and wrote other of his letters.

About the expression "he remained there for an entire two years" in Acts 28:30, a note in our Study Bible says:

he remained there for an entire two years: During this two-year period, Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians (Eph 4:1; 6:20), to the Philippians (Php 1:7, 12-14), to the Colossians (Col 4:18), to Philemon (Phm 9), and apparently also to the Hebrews. His house arrest seems to have ended in about the year 61 C.E. when he apparently was tried—perhaps before Emperor Nero or one of his representatives—and pronounced innocent. After his release, Paul characteristically remained active. It could have been during this period that he made his planned trip to Spain. (Ro 15:28) According to Clement of Rome, who wrote in about the year 95 C.E., Paul traveled “to the extreme limit of the W[est],” that is, of the Roman Empire. Paul’s three letters dated to the years after his release (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) reveal that he probably visited Crete, Ephesus, Macedonia, Miletus, Nicopolis, and Troas. (1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 4:13; Tit 1:5; 3:12) Some suggest that it was in Nicopolis, Greece, that Paul was again arrested and that he was back in prison in Rome in about the year 65 C.E. This time, it seems that Nero showed no mercy. A fire had devastated Rome the year before, and according to Roman historian Tacitus, Nero falsely blamed the Christians. Nero then initiated a brutal campaign of persecution against them. When Paul wrote his second and final letter to Timothy, he expected to be executed soon, so he asked Timothy and Mark to come quickly. During this time, Luke and Onesiphorus showed great courage and risked their lives to visit Paul and comfort him. (2Ti 1:16, 17; 4:6-9, 11) It was likely in about the year 65 C.E. that Paul was executed. In both life and death, Paul was an outstanding witness to “all the things Jesus started to do and to teach.”—Ac 1:1.

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.
(...)
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.

It is not wrong to ask questions. It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda.

Jesus was 40 days appearing to his disciples before ascending. Paul talks about those appearances:

1 Cor. 15:3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Luke says in Acts:

Acts 1:3 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. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

[JoeyKnothead]

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 a very problematic way to try to prove one's position regarding biblical reliability or Truth(tm).

Notice the skeptic "goes overboard trying to find excuses to discredit it." Not "I have failed to convince the skeptic that biblical claims are truth."

Notice "their excuses only make them delude themselves". Not "I have failed to convince the skeptic biblical claims are truth."

Notice "or perhaps they lose their ability to think rationally because of their desperation in refusing to see reality." Not "I have failed to convince the skeptic that biblical claims are truth."

Notice "They try to make up conspiracy theories for which they have absolutely no proof and cling to those speculations as if they were fact." Not "I have failed to convince the skeptic that biblical claims are truth."

Notice "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." Not "I have failed to convince the skeptic that biblical claims are truth."

If my anecdotal history means anything, this is what happens when you teach that folks are "incapable of doing good", "enemies of God", or all that filth the Christian so readily hurls at anyone who doesn't buy into their claims.

Notice here the Christian blames others, maligns others, slanders others. It 'your fault' I can't convince you biblical claims are truth. It's 'your fault' I have to mean mouth and libel you when I fail to convince you I speak truth.


Take a look in the mirror, Christian, and understand why so many here reject your claims.


I propose if you don't want me to be an "enemy", YOU QUIT BEING ONE!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #31

It is not wrong to ask questions. It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda.

Jesus was 40 days appearing to his disciples before ascending. Paul talks about those appearances:

1 Cor. 15:3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Acts 1:3 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. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

You don't answer any of the questions I raised.

Can you?

And if you can't, does that automatically mean that I'm "going against facts just to follow an agenda"?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

i can understand your view that Luke only wrote up to the events of the 60's AD. because that's pretty much when he finished Acts, and that is the popular view, as well as Acts being considered more or less reliable. but even at the first time i read it, i had my doubts about it being true, in some parts, and it didn't help that the writer alters some aspects, like Paul writing of a rather private deal with James being turned into a full Nazorene court hearing with James the Judge finding for Paul and misquoting Micah on top of it. It was the gradual realisation that Luke had adapted material from Paul's letters and some events mentioned in Josephus that made me realise what Acts was and why it ended in AD 60. Not because Luke had not gotten around to writing what happened after that, but because that was all he had, and the final passage is just a nice little wrap up as formalised as 'And he live happily ever after to the end of his days'. Aside from the predictable finger pointing at supposed skeptic bias (as though the believers weren't biased) the explanation that Acts is a biographical novel loosely based on Paul's writing helped out by a bit of Josephus explains why it ends where it does, and a few other problems (generally not recognised by the experts, at least from what I have seen) rather better than the Bible apologists who do not tend to see, let alone address these problems.

So in short, your comments above at best give you an excuse to wave aside all and any doubts raised by others and keep the faith. Very well, but it doesn't do a thing to prove me wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Because obviously, if he talks about the two years, it means that he is talking after Paul was free again. Actually at the end of the book (again) Luke says:

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.

So Luke assume everything ended with a "happy end"; evidently the rest of the events he didn't write hadn't happened yet. After Paul was released, he traveled to other places and wrote other of his letters.

About the expression "he remained there for an entire two years" in Acts 28:30, a note in our Study Bible says:

he remained there for an entire two years: During this two-year period, Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians (Eph 4:1; 6:20), to the Philippians (Php 1:7, 12-14), to the Colossians (Col 4:18), to Philemon (Phm 9), and apparently also to the Hebrews. His house arrest seems to have ended in about the year 61 C.E. when he apparently was tried—perhaps before Emperor Nero or one of his representatives—and pronounced innocent. After his release, Paul characteristically remained active. It could have been during this period that he made his planned trip to Spain. (Ro 15:28) According to Clement of Rome, who wrote in about the year 95 C.E., Paul traveled “to the extreme limit of the W[est],” that is, of the Roman Empire. Paul’s three letters dated to the years after his release (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) reveal that he probably visited Crete, Ephesus, Macedonia, Miletus, Nicopolis, and Troas. (1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 4:13; Tit 1:5; 3:12) Some suggest that it was in Nicopolis, Greece, that Paul was again arrested and that he was back in prison in Rome in about the year 65 C.E. This time, it seems that Nero showed no mercy. A fire had devastated Rome the year before, and according to Roman historian Tacitus, Nero falsely blamed the Christians. Nero then initiated a brutal campaign of persecution against them. When Paul wrote his second and final letter to Timothy, he expected to be executed soon, so he asked Timothy and Mark to come quickly. During this time, Luke and Onesiphorus showed great courage and risked their lives to visit Paul and comfort him. (2Ti 1:16, 17; 4:6-9, 11) It was likely in about the year 65 C.E. that Paul was executed. In both life and death, Paul was an outstanding witness to “all the things Jesus started to do and to teach.”—Ac 1:1.

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.
(...)
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.

It is not wrong to ask questions. It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda.

Jesus was 40 days appearing to his disciples before ascending. Paul talks about those appearances:

1 Cor. 15:3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Luke says in Acts:

Acts 1:3 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. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

But that is not answering the problems, it is maintaining the claims and ignoring the problems. ". It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda." I couldn't have said it better myself.

Simply reiterating the end of Acts ignores that it also works if that is all that Paul has to say or suggest. The same with referring to I Corinthians, using that to to validate Acts when at best Acts appears based on Corinthians, which is a belief - serving circular argument. And that of course explains why Matthew totally contradicts it.

We can pretty much ignore the writings of the Church fathers on the matter as they simply discussed it based on what the Bible material told them anyway.

[brunumb]

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

Could you please explain to me exactly what the bold parts are referring to.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #31

It is not wrong to ask questions. It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda.

Jesus was 40 days appearing to his disciples before ascending. Paul talks about those appearances:

1 Cor. 15:3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Acts 1:3 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. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

You don't answer any of the questions I raised.

Can you?

And if you can't, does that automatically mean that I'm "going against facts just to follow an agenda"?

I won't answer questions non related with the topic.

This is the difference between relevance and pertinence: a relevant information or discussion can be related to a topic only indirectly but does not change the conclusion of the matter, but a pertinent information determines the conclusion, it is significant. I prefer to dedicate myself only to what is pertinent to the issues I deal with, and I always give an answer to that... if you don't like my answers, it's none of my business; my job here is to share information with everyone who reads, not to convince you of anything.

It could happen that some matter is irrelevant or not pertinent to me, and according to your point of view it is pertinent or significant for some conclusion. If you prove that it really is a pertinent issue and that it changes something said, then I'll answer it... otherwise I'm not going to let myself be entertained with off-topics.

PS: control your cheerleaders.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
It could happen that some matter is irrelevant or not pertinent to me, and according to your point of view it is pertinent or significant for some conclusion. If you prove that it really is a pertinent issue and that it changes something said, then I'll answer it... otherwise I'm not going to let myself be entertained with off-topics.

PS: control your cheerleaders.

Anyone got some of them pom pom things I can borrow? How about one of them outfits in a short and chubby?

I tend to be a bit jaded, but this sure reads to me like "I could use me an out. I know, the stuff I can't fuss about I'll just say it ain't pertinent, and complain about the short, chubby cheerleader."

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Eloi in post #31

It is not wrong to ask questions. It is wrong going against facts just to follow an agenda.

Jesus was 40 days appearing to his disciples before ascending. Paul talks about those appearances:

1 Cor. 15:3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Acts 1:3 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. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; 5 for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”

You don't answer any of the questions I raised.

Can you?

And if you can't, does that automatically mean that I'm "going against facts just to follow an agenda"?

I won't answer questions non related with the topic.

This is the difference between relevance and pertinence: a relevant information or discussion can be related to a topic only indirectly but does not change the conclusion of the matter, but a pertinent information determines the conclusion, it is significant. I prefer to dedicate myself only to what is pertinent to the issues I deal with, and I always give an answer to that... if you don't like my answers, it's none of my business; my job here is to share information with everyone who reads, not to convince you of anything.

It could happen that some matter is irrelevant or not pertinent to me, and according to your point of view it is pertinent or significant for some conclusion. If you prove that it really is a pertinent issue and that it changes something said, then I'll answer it... otherwise I'm not going to let myself be entertained with off-topics.

PS: control your cheerleaders.

Ermmm... You may think that the point here is to do whatever you need to convince yourself. It isn't. Nor is it my purpose to convince myself. It is to put forward the better case for anyone looking in and it doesn't matter whether you agree or not.

Facts. Matthew has an angelic message for the disciples to go to Galilee, and they do so

Luke starting with a changed angelic message to stay put in Jerusalem, do so and over that and Acts they stay put with Jesus over more than a month with no mention of going to Galilee or time to do so.

Fact based on what's there in the Bible, not anything in history or science or my Interpretation. Contradiction and text fiddling fair and square. Contradiction and far from the only one, but terminally corrosive to Gospel credibility. And you may deny evade and ignore that, it doesn't matter. If you tried to Explain it, well enough, but as the 40 days are linked, i doubt that you will be able to do so.

And I reckon you see it, too which is why you did that last post which is nothing but fingers in the ears denial and verging on abuse.

Fine i don't mind, it doesn't hurt our case, only yours.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Eloi in post #37

I won't answer questions non related with the topic.

Fair enough. We can take that one to another thread if you care to.

PS: control your cheerleaders.

It isn't my place to tell others what position to applaud.