Acts of the Apostles and the erroneous dating of the NT books

[Eli G]

Oh, I see. One comment by "Douglas J.D. claiming that "the spiritual gifts of power were “missing in the 2nd-century Church, the writers of those days speaking of them as a thing in the past" is your "proof" that they didn't exist past the apostolic age?...

There is a book by Warfield, B. B. titled "Conterfeit miracles" (or: "Miracles: Yesterday and Today: True and False") where he explains with arguments why he concluded the same.

On my part I can tell you: if gifts of the spirit really worked beyong John's death today we would have had many more inspired books written by later post-John Christians, telling us many of the deeds that would have been done to establish true Christianity... Wait ... What? If Christianity was already so well established that no Roman emperor could destroy it.

Tell me something: To whom, how, and for what were the gifts of the holy spirit given in the 1st century?

 

[Kathryn]

So many people speak in tongues. and yet hardly anyone has the gift of healing. I find that unusual.

 

[Eli G]

Now that it has been established that the apostolic age during which the books inspired by the holy spirit (same power behind the miraculous gifts) were written, culminated with the death of the apostle John around the year 100 C.E. ... then we conclude first of all that all the NT books were written BEFORE that year, as they must have been written by chosen anointed ones inspired by that same spirit.

Let's look at a summary of who are the normally accepted inspired writers of all the NT books that appear in our Bibles:

1. two half-brothers of Jesus: James and Jude;
2. three apostles out of the 12: Matthew, Peter and John;
3. two special collaborators who were also Jewish converts to Christianity shortly after Jesus' death: Mark and Luke;
4. Paul, as a special apostle.

Do you see the pattern? All eight of them were either close to Jesus like the three apostles (and two of his half-brothers), or joined Christianity shortly after Jesus' death, like Mark and Luke.

We also know that Jesus' brothers were unbelievers until his death, but that after the resurrection James became a column of the world congregation in Jerusalem, and Jude wrote a small letter to Christians.

And of Paul we know that he had his vision and conversion shortly after 33.

There was ABSOLUTELY no other Christian selected by God to record any other inspired book. That "gift" of the holy spirit did not spread to others. However, there was another gift of the holy spirit that contributed to the identification of what was inspired and what was not.

So we already have a time interval in which we can place the writing of all the 27 inspired Christian writings by their 8 inspired writers: after the 33rd C.E. at Pentecost, in which the apostles and 120 other disciples received the holy spirit from heaven (Acts 2), and before the death of the last anointed apostle, John, in 100 C.E.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your point is? Again, a single example of one group misunderstanding tongues (as you have) proves nothing. When you understand that speaking in tongues is speaking in an unknown language, we can continue this discussion. As I wrote in post #33, I have been speaking in tongues -- the unknown language given to me by God -- since 1973. It is irrelevant to me if you accept that or not.

There are ways to test that. Why hasn't anyone ever done so?

 

[jimb]

And can you write it too? Can anyone understand and translate it?

I don't know what mechanism your mind uses to make you believe that, but I'm sure that it doesn't help God to make you express sounds that no one understands.

If you read the New Testament, you will see that speaking in tongues is a perfectly valid means of communication with God. 1 Corinthians 14:14 explains it perfectly: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful".

Instead of trying to invalidate the gift that God gave me, why not try to understand it?

Read my "signature" below for a further explanation. Will you disbelieve Scripture also?

 

[jimb]

There is a book by Warfield, B. B. titled "Conterfeit miracles" (or: "Miracles: Yesterday and Today: True and False") where he explains with arguments why he concluded the same.

On my part I can tell you: if gifts of the spirit really worked beyong John's death today we would have had many more inspired books written by later post-John Christians, telling us many of the deeds that would have been done to establish true Christianity... Wait ... What? If Christianity was already so well established that no Roman emperor could destroy it.

Tell me something: To whom, how, and for what were the gifts of the holy spirit given in the 1st century?

Read my previous post (#45). There is no point in further discussing this with you.

 

[Eli G]

If you read the New Testament, you will see that speaking in tongues is a perfectly valid means of communication with God. 1 Corinthians 14:14 explains it perfectly: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful".

It was... to the anointed ones of the 1st century, which you are not, of course, since we are not living in the 1st century.

Instead of trying to invalidate the gift that God gave me, why not try to understand it?

I don't even know if that is happening to you or not. How or why wouId I try to invalidate that?

Read my "signature" below for a further explanation. Will you disbelieve Scripture also?

I know. Some people create their own world. I guess that's why atheists realize that most of the time people's beliefs are just some figments of their own imagination.

Not because someone says something on internet I'll believe it. I have read thousands of fake stories on the web, and guess what? None of those stories move one single nerve in me. People saying they're experts in something, that they were Christians and now not, that they experienced something, that God talks to them, that they went to the hell and saw the fire and even recognized some people there, ... Imagine whatever you want, and that I heard.

I guess you know what an influencer is. I am not the kind of person who is easy to be influenced by words alone.

Since you don't mind if I believe in your superpower or not, you don't have to try to influence on me with that any more; so, less effort for you. I'm being good to you.

 

[Sargonski]

Suddenly there are some atheists, evolutionists and other non-Christians interested in the dating of biblical books...
And that's good, because then we can clarify some things.

Let's talk about that here ... and let's start with this:
according to what you've been told: when did Luke write the book of Acts of the Apostles?

PS: Explain the reasons for such dating if possible. We would like to verify that you believe this not only because someone told you so, but because they gave you proofs to help you accept what they told you.

The dating range I get is from (80-130 AD) -- which is very large range compared to other Gospels.

The reason for this range is that this is what is given in "Early Christian Writings" - a site which gives the modern scholarship on the issue -- Book of Acts of the Apostles

This is just one of a large number of commentaries ..

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

 

[Eli G]

Only John's writings (96-98 E.C.) were writen after Jerusalem destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E.

Can you guess why I know that? Just think.

 

[Sargonski]

If you read the New Testament, you will see that speaking in tongues is a perfectly valid means of communication with God. 1 Corinthians 14:14 explains it perfectly: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful".

Instead of trying to invalidate the gift that God gave me, why not try to understand it?

Read my "signature" below for a further explanation. Will you disbelieve Scripture also?

LOL .. no dude .. you were not given "the Gift" nor the ability to communicate with god .. nor do you "speak Gods Word" ..usurping the position of the Logos -- although you claim as such - just as Jesus predicted when talking about the bad seed .. and how we know them by their actions .. claiming to prophesy in God's name .. claiming to speak Gods word .. as the snake charmers do.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!

"Speaking in tongues " is a heretical abomination as practiced by Fundamentalist Pentecostals -- and that is the Ruling of "The Church" so don't get mad at me.

Myself .. I think it is wonderful that you have direct communication with God .. were you to have such a thing.. absolutely amazing and am grateful you stopped by as I have a boatload of Questions for the most high...

Are you ready to provide answers to "Tough Questions" !

Now that it has been established that the apostolic age during which the books inspired by the holy spirit (same power behind the miraculous gifts) were written, culminated with the death of the apostle John around the year 100 C.E. ... then we conclude first of all that all the NT books were written BEFORE that year, as they must have been written by chosen anointed ones inspired by that same spirit.

The Apostle John is reputed to have died along with the others prior to the destruction of the Temple .. but for certain he did not pen the Gospel "John" .. in 100 - 120 BC .. dating range for this Gospel .

but .. we need not guess .. just need to ask Jimb when John died .. and any other questions .. such as .. why was God's beloved Son .. Ha Satan .. made chief God over the earth after the death of YHWH ?

KK Jimb your on stage .. please give us answers to these questions via your direct channel to God .. exciting stuff -- we await God's response.

 

[Eli G]

Yes I know. Now everyone wants to invent some hypothesis and become famous for the novelty. Only, for me to consider any discovery serious, it must have real evidence and not just be an attempt to change what is already known.

No one can change history, although they can fool some gullible people and make them believe that it was different from what it has been known for centuries. Some even daringly tried to make it believe that Jesus had never existed.

For example, all the non-inspired Christian writers of the 2nd century on, quoted from almost all the books written in the 1st century. We also know who are attributed the authorship of the books since others who alluded to them lived just a few years after they were written...

Who are we going to believe? You tell me.

 

[jimb]

It was... to the anointed ones of the 1st century, which you are not, of course, since we are not living in the 1st century.

I don't even know if that is happening to you or not. How or why wouId I try to invalidate that?

I know. Some people create their own world. I guess that's why atheists realize that most of the time people's beliefs are just some figments of their own imagination.

Not because someone says something on internet I'll believe it. I have read thousands of fake stories on the web, and guess what? None of those stories move one single nerve in me. People saying they're experts in something, that they were Christians and now not, that they experienced something, that God talks to them, that they went to the hell and saw the fire and even recognized some people there, ... Imagine whatever you want, and that I heard.

I guess you know what an influencer is. I am not the kind of person who is easy to be influenced by words alone.

Since you don't mind if I believe in your superpower or not, you don't have to try to influence on me with that any more; so, less effort for you. I'm being good to you.

Obviously, your mind is closed. Believe what you want; I don't care. I speak in tongues; obviously you don't.

And I notice that you didn't comment on the contents of my "signature" -- because you cannot. You're not "being good to me", which is pompous nonsense.

I am done discussing this with you. I have a gift from God which you obviously don't have. Your jealousy and/or denial doesn't change that FACT.

 

[jimb]

Yes I know. Now everyone wants to invent some hypothesis and become famous for the novelty. Only, for me to consider any discovery serious, it must have real evidence and not just be an attempt to change what is already known.

No one can change history, although they can fool some gullible people and make them believe that it was different from what it has been known for centuries. Some even daringly tried to make it believe that Jesus had never existed.

For example, all the non-inspired Christian writers of the 2nd century on, quoted from almost all the books written in the 1st century. We also know who are attributed the authorship of the books since others who alluded to them lived just a few years after they were written...

Who are we going to believe? You tell me.

Certainly not you. I pay attention to people whose minds are not distorted by pride.

 

[Spice]

The dating range I get is from (80-130 AD) -- which is very large range compared to other Gospels.

The reason for this range is that this is what is given in "Early Christian Writings" - a site which gives the modern scholarship on the issue -- Book of Acts of the Apostles

This is just one of a large number of commentaries ..

I just did the same on another thread concerning 1 Peter. ECW is a great site!

 

[Eli G]

Sometimes just reasoning is enough.

Only John's writings (96-98 E.C.) were writen after Jerusalem destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E.

Can you guess why I know that? Just think.

I can think of at least three easy-to-discover reasons why the New Testament writings should not have been written after John's death.

Can you think for yourself, reader, and discover any of them by yourself?

...or maybe you are one of those who forgot how much 2+2 is because you're always using the calculator?

 

[Sargonski]

I just did the same on another thread concerning 1 Peter. ECW is a great site!

What is the word ... Pseudepigrapha .. a brand of Pious Fraud so special it has its own category