Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Why not read Acts? Much closer to the Source of the early church.
Acts was most likely written between AD60 and 70; the Didache was probably written at about the same time or a few years later.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.
Root of Jesse said: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."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.
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.WinBySurrender said: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."
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".Percivale said: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.
Jesus did fortell the destruction of Rome...in Revelation.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).
Did I say that?Is Jesus quoted there speaking of the destruction of Rome?
Albion said: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.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?