THIS got me thinking :)

[Root of Jesse]

Why not read Acts? Much closer to the Source of the early church.

We don't know that Acts is really earlier than the Didache or the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There's an 80-100 year swing between opinion of that. They are pretty contemporary.

 

[Albion]

We don't know that Acts is really earlier than the Didache or the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There's an 80-100 year swing between opinion of that. They are pretty contemporary.

Acts was most likely written between AD60 and 70; the Didache was probably written at about the same time or a few years later.

 

[ebia]

We don't know that Acts is really earlier than the Didache or the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There's an 80-100 year swing between opinion of that. They are pretty contemporary.

The bulk of opinion these days would put Acts around AD80. Some still try for the early 60s, but that's not sustainable in my view. But very few still go as late as 100 anymore, where as Ignatius is definitely somewhere around 110. The Didache is very hard to date because there really isn't much to go on.

 

[Anoetos]

All this will cost money. Several buildings...full time elders...

It may seem odd, but I'd probably just be inclined to direct you to a history of the church as well. There is a reason why the contours of western Christianity are so consistent. The model is essentially the same whether you're in a Lutheran or a Presbyterian or even a Catholic church. Contrary to what the world may say, it's worked for quite a long time and it's only been in the last fifty years or so that people have been really screwing around with it on a large scale.

If your thoughts here are prompted by a dissatisfaction with church as you've encountered it, you may want to look elsewhere before reinventing the wheel, or trying to fix what, in many cases, isn't broken.

 

[WinBySurrender]

We don't know that Acts is really earlier than the Didache or the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There's an 80-100 year swing between opinion of that. They are pretty contemporary.

Well, maybe you don't, but the rest of us do. It was written by Luke to Theophilus, the same Roman official he wrote his gospel to. That was about 60-62 AD. No way it was written any later than that. For one thing, Luke uses the first person plural "we" throughout the work. As he wrote of Paul's three missionary journeys and his arrest and transfer to Rome, he was speaking of Paul and his fellow missionaries on those journeys as the other part of "we."

I find it unfathomably bizarre that you and your church can claim to be the very foundation of Christianity and yet you openly question the very works upon which our faith is presented, proven, tested and accepted. Doesn't sound like a foundation to me. Sounds more like stability along the same lines as Tom Hanks boat in "Castaway." Or maybe the guy Jesus talked about who built his house upon the sand.

 

[ebia]

Well, maybe you don't, but the rest of us do. It was written by Luke to Theophilus, the same Roman official he wrote his gospel to. That was about 60-62 AD. No way it was written any later than that. For one thing, Luke uses the first person plural "we" throughout the work. As he wrote of Paul's three missionary journeys and his arrest and transfer to Rome, he was speaking of Paul and his fellow missionaries on those journeys as the other part of "we."

Even if we assume that the "we" sections indicate that the author was actually present (and there are other possible explanations for them), that doesn't force a date that early. On the other hand Markan priority means there isn't a snowballs chance that Luke's Gospel was written much before about 75 and therefore Acts a little after that.

Still a quarter century before Ignatius' letters but probably contemporary with the Didache.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, it's not exactly definitive when it was written. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition. But that's not my point. In fact, I think Luke/Acts were written earlier. But the Didache was also written around the same time, making them contemporary writings.

 

[Percivale]

The mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke only points to it's being written after AD 70 if you don't believe Jesus could foretell it, right? Acts was probably written about 62 AD because of how it ends--Luke was telling the story of Paul, and just stops, like he had come up to the present time. If he had written later he would have told of Paul's martyrdom or continuing travels (whichever happened).

 

[Anoetos]

If Luke's source material is Mark, then his inclusion of the fall of Jerusalem was probably simply an effort to be faithful and complete in reference to his source.

There is no tradition I know of which says that Luke was an eyewitness to our Lord's life and discourses.

Your point about the death of Paul not being recorded in Acts is something to think about though. It ends with him in is own rented house, which may or may not refer to his house arrest. That said, it is difficult to imagine Luke ending his story with Paul's beheading, even if he'd known of it.

 

[ebia]

Acts was probably written about 62 AD because of how it ends--Luke was telling the story of Paul, and just stops, like he had come up to the present time. If he had written later he would have told of Paul's martyrdom or continuing travels (whichever happened).

Um, no. Acts is a highly structured narrative that very carefully ends where it does. It is not "everything you might want to know about up till now".

It ends with the gospel reaching Rome, the symbolic end of the earth, following a "death and resurrection" of Paul in the form of his ship-wreak off Malta.

 

[Albion]

Um, no. Acts is a highly structured narrative that very carefully ends where it does. It is not "everything you might want to know about up till now".

It ends with the gospel reaching Rome, the symbolic end of the earth, following a "death and resurrection" of Paul in the form of his ship-wreak off Malta.

Hmm, this is the first time I can remember Rome--the center of Empire, the place to which all roads lead, the Eternal City--described as 'the end of the earth,' symbolically or any other way.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke only points to it's being written after AD 70 if you don't believe Jesus could foretell it, right? Acts was probably written about 62 AD because of how it ends--Luke was telling the story of Paul, and just stops, like he had come up to the present time. If he had written later he would have told of Paul's martyrdom or continuing travels (whichever happened).

Jesus did fortell the destruction of Rome...in Revelation.

 

[Albion]

Jesus did fortell the destruction of Rome...in Revelation.

Is Jesus quoted there speaking of the destruction of Rome?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is Jesus quoted there speaking of the destruction of Rome?

Did I say that?

 

[ebia]

Hmm, this is the first time I can remember Rome--the center of Empire, the place to which all roads lead, the Eternal City--described as 'the end of the earth,' symbolically or any other way.

It's the opposite "end" to Jerusalem, not the full completion of Acts 1:8 of course, but it's literary representative for the shape of the story as Acts tells it.

 

[seekertruth72]

There has to be something missing there - you can't operate at a deficit forever. Unless the church is a giant ponzi scheme.

Thats true.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There has to be something missing there - you can't operate at a deficit forever. Unless the church is a giant ponzi scheme.

Name a charity that takes in profit.

There's a big difference between having cash flow and having cash reserves. The Vatican does not make a profit.

Do you think the Anglican Church operates at a profit? I don't.

 

[seekertruth72]

Name a charity that takes in profit.

There's a big difference between having cash flow and having cash reserves. The Vatican does not make a profit.

Do you think the Anglican Church operates at a profit? I don't.

If they have cash reserves then they are not working a deficit are they? Isn't that called surplus?

 

[Albion]

The Vatican does not make a profit.

You mean that the Vatican spends all it takes in, that's all.

 

[seekertruth72]

Nothing wrong with turning a profit with Gods money as long as all the profit go to charity and ministry as it was originally intended when it was given, and if it isn't gambled away on risky business, and it should be an honest and clean profit too, of course.


I always wondered why churches didn't start businesses that would bring in a renewable source of revenue to support ministry and charity.

Maybe there is a reason that im not aware of though.