The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

This is actually more of a debate over an AD 64 date versus an AD 170-180 date, whereas the proposition says "AD 100", but that's fine.Con: "Pro attempts to dismiss my argument here as philosophical"I dismiss your arguments against the early date as purely philosophical. I dismiss your arguments about AD 180 and "addressed to Theophilus of Antioch" on other grounds. You can't even tell us what would be gained by a writer in 180 AD employing a deceptive literary device in which he pretends to be an eye-witness.*****Con: "Pro has dropped ... Pro has dropped ... Pro has dropped ... Pro has dropped."Do not assume that because I chose to correct some of Con's many, varied, and blatant factual errors and gross assertions, that certain other points were "dropped".. Con basically spent his time perusing various atheistic/skeptics' websites and incorporating their factual errors into his own arguments without actually verifying them. Some, or most, of these were corrected along the way. Others I simply ignored.*****Con: “Pro’s only defence against this are polemecists writing in the third century with docetic works.”Con apparently does not know the 2nd century from the 3rd. I have cited precious little from the 3rd century.*****Con: "Pro attempts to reduce these mundane explanations to incredulity, but ignores that I was drawing a parallel to her alternative, and what is more likely in principle"Con's explanations are borderline incredible, and the author’s principle for prophesy/fulfillment is laid down in Acts 11: 28,"And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."Thus, the principle - at least with the author of Acts - is: (1) set forth the prophesy then (2) point out the fulfillment. Unfortunately, the principle does not apply if the book concluded before the fulfillment ever occurred.“More likely in principle” is simply Con’s way of saying “more in accord with Con's own bias”. Con’s mindset is, “When all else fails me, I’ll deny the supernatural.”*****Con: "The terminus ad quo is at least 70 AD."Correction: the terminus ad quo is the date of the last scene depicted in the book, which is AD 63/64. Con’s position of, “There ain’t no miracles now, and there weren’t no miracles then” has a tendency to rear its head when other arguments fly the coop.*****Con: "Virtually all of Pro’s arguments here are arguments from silence and traditional attribution. I am not impressed."Yet Con is "impressed" with his own contention that a 140-yr-old man who pretended to be a companion of Paul wrote Acts and succeeded in passing off the ruse upon the majority of Christendom? Con characterizes this as "as a deliberate stylistic device as a deliberate deception” (whatever that is). Well, the only person here deceived by it is ... Envisage.*****Referring to Luke 22: 44-45, Con says, "Most likely explanation? Justin Martyr was not quoting (and could not have been quoting) Luke, since the verse did not exist in his Gospel at that time."1. But the statement/question was,"That's a "Luke-exclusive" quote in AD 150 or so - and if not, will Con please advice us as to its source?" Surely it had a written source, for Justin wrote,"In the Memoirs which, as I have said, were drawn up by the apostles and their followers, it is recorded that sweat fell like drops of blood". Of course, I knew when I asked the question that Con (1) had to deny that the passage was in Luke, just as I knew that he (2) would never tell us exactly where or when it was written. And he didn’t. He can’t. He just “knows” that Justin didn’t cite Luke. It leave that for what it is worth.2. There are very good and proper critical reasons that Luke 22: 44-45 is included in 99% of Bible translations: One will note that the absence of the passage traces to one family of manuscripts (the Alexandrian group), whereas its presence is confirmed by a variety of manusripts from different families (Western, Eclectic, Byzantine, and Egyptian), quotes from early Christians, and early versions (translations). Again, we are examining the preponderance of the evidence, and Con is basing his entire argument on the exception. If Justin quoted from Luke, then Con’s entire theory is down the drain.3. Justin was born in Flavia Neapolis in about AD 100 and died in Rome in AD 165. Thus, his main exposure was to the Western family of manuscripts, not the Alexandrian.*****Con: “Mentions of this verse (Luke 22: 44-45) do not start until Sinaiticus which itself was marked by correctors at that time as doubtful.”Blatantly incorrect, as can be seen in the chart above. Con makes the mistake of thinking that our only sources for texual criticism are manuscripts, and even if that were true (which it isn't), the evidence is still against Con's claims.*****Con (concerning 1 Clement): "Pro is blatantly shifting the burden of proof."No, I merely stated that if Con would like to dispute the unanimous voice of early Christians, including the near-conclusive writings of Dionysius, as well as any internal evidences that he is welcome to do so - and give his reasoning. Con chose not to do so.1. Ancient writers, without a doubt or an exception, assert the letter to have been written by the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil 4: 3, although I did not affirm or deny that position. Envisage says, 1900+ years later, "I don't know who wrote it."2. Dionysius (c 100 - 171 AD), bishop at Corinth states that "it (1 Clement) had been wont to be read in that church (the church at Corinth) since ancient times." (1)3. If we had another round, perchance Con would enlighten us as to what "since ancient times" would mean to a man born in the late 1st/early 2nd century.4. The only objection Con could conceivably offer is, "Who quoted whom?" The evidence is in favor of "Clement quoted Luke", not vice versa.*****Con: "The fact that the level of use of “us” and “we” is relatively minor compared to the bulk of the narration really doesn’t raise many problems to the Theophilus of Antioch hypothesis."No, it doesn't. Con is correct on that point, so Con can rightly say, "Pro has dropped". It raises only one problem: it makes Con's "addressed to Theophilus of Antioch" theory impossible - and ridiculous, to boot. The original recipient(s) would have branded the Book of Acts a fantasy and sought to commit the author to a 1st-century mental ward. Con styles it a "deliberate deception", yet no one was deceived. The truth is that the entire 2nd half of Acts is riddled with dozens of first-person references. Con asserts that this may be a "deliberate stylistic device". Pray tell, what did the author hope to accomplish by employing this proposed "device"?****Con: "Thus it would be unsurprising for the author of Luke-Acts to redact existing sources at that time"Redact existing sources, yet address the works to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in AD 170, and forget that the author is claiming to have been a companion of Paul from AD 50-64? Con has repeatedly claimed that the author of Luke/Acts was an anti-Marcionite apologist, and now we find that this "apologist" presented himself as 140 years old at the time.Another thing: con has presented that Tertullian and Iranaeus were not “contemporary” to my proposed date (AD 64) of the composition of Acts. That’s true. The kicker is that they were both contemporary to his proposed date (AD 170-180) - and they both testify that Con’s theory is wrong, of course. Every contemporary character states that Con's theory is wrong.***** Concerning internal evidences and arguments from silence, Con states, "She will need to include good reasons why the author would include such events"Pfffffft. I have stated the reasons twice: the martyrdom of a leading Christian, the brother of Jesus, was an event of great importance, so great that it is mentioned by Josephus. Con, on the other hand, would ask us to believe that Luke (1) plagiarized from Josephus, but (2) left out the martyrdom of the Lord's brother. Believable? Then he just claims that the passage in Josephus is spurious.The ultimate judgment of God against Jerusalem and the Jews was THE major Judeo-Christian event of the latter first century. Warnings of such impending judgment abound throughout the entire New Testament. Yet Con insists that I should somehow "prove" that this was important? At the very least, the synoptic Gospel writers would have pointed to the fall of Jerusalem as a Christian evidence, and a grand one at that.*****Con: "at least four of the Pauline epistles and the other Gospels falsely attributed which Pro has dropped, and even 2 Clement"Why, II Clement hasn't even been mentioned by either one of us. How can I "drop" something that I never "held". It seems that Con confuses what he wishes was said with what actually was said.*****Con: "why would we expect a story set about the early Apostles contain later references."Sir, we would expect an historical narrative which builds ... and builds .. and builds, with the last three chapters devoted to accusations against Paul, Paul's trials, Paul's appeal before Caesar, and even his trip to Rome to at least include the result of that appeal. How did it go? What happened to Paul? What did he say before the ruler of the world? It is ... ummm ... a little far-fetched for you to sit there and beg the question and complain that I did not offer the most appropriate scenario. Con seems to think that the author pulled a Lorena Bobbit, i. e. just whacked it off.*****I will close it out with a few characters yet remaining. I want to think Envisage for his time and participation, and hopefully some useful information was presented by both parties. I firmly believe that if all bias is laid aside, the evidence tilts squarely in favor of an AD 63/64 date of composition for Acts, with Luke probably being around AD 58-60.(1) Paley, Evidences of Christianity, edited by Whately, p. 123