The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

First of all, I hate to squander 3,000 characters correcting blatant errors, but lest someone be led down the wrong path, I shall do so. Factual errorsCon: "Con doesn’t challenge that Luke 21 is an explicit reference to the Olivet Discourse, an event that with virtual historical certainty took place in 70AD"We both can't be "con", but I'll "let that slide. " Certainly I will challenge that the Olivet Discourse was "an event that with historical certainty took place in A. D. 70. " How in the world would you set about to prove that the Olivet Discourse occurred with "historical certainty" in AD 70? Your fellow atheists/agnostics would love to know. *****Con: "The Book of Acts . .. most importantly doesn’t reference Paul as an apostle, which is one of Paul’s most important theological positions. ""But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out" (Acts 14: 14) I'd stay off of that "rejectionofpaschalswager" site. The writer is ignorant and is leading you into making silly claims. *****Con: "The Book of Acts portrays Paul as a miracle worker, yet such references are absent from the Pauline letters"References are absent? Where do you come up with this stuff? "For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed in the power of signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God . .. I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ" (Rom 15: 18-19)"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (I Cor 14: 18)Pro is again depending upon sources who are woefully ignorant. *****Con: "Luke never claims to be an eyewitness to any of the events he purports, and he is explicit in his prologues. "Huh? The prologue to Acts is anything but explicit. There is neither confirmation nor denial of eyewitness accounts in the Acts prologue, but as we read the book we discover that the writer was indeed an eyewitness of many of the later events beginning at about AD 50. *****Con: "Nowhere does he mention in either account that he witnessed anything. "Yes he does. "And when we had come in sight of ( after sighting) Cyprus, leaving it on the left hand, we sailed unto Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days. " (Acts 21: 3, 4)Here the author of Acts claims to have been sailing with Paul, seeing Cyprus by boat, landing at Tyre, then finding fellow disciples at Tyre. And that's just one instance of many. Surely you are not saying that the author of Acts said, "I didn't witness anything", then flipped and repeatedly indicated the opposite. RebuttalCon: "Con attempts an ad hominum attack by stating I am biased, but if Con is going to approach this subject honestly, then she must adopt historical methods"LOL You sit there and practically admit bias and complain when someone points it out, then issue a papal bull in which you decree which tools are admissible. Your argument is basically:1. Luke portrays Jesus as accurately predicting the fall of Jerusalem.2. "I've decided that such a prediction is impossible. "3. "The 'prophesies' in Luke must be vaticinium ex eventu. "4. "I will date the book of Luke after AD 70 based, in part at least, upon that notion. "5. "Since Acts post-dates Luke, then Acts must have been written post AD 70. "Nobody is going to fall for that - and I had already said, "Con decided beforehand that no one could have so accurately predicted the fall a decade before the fact, and has constructed an argument based upon his own bias. " All you've done is confirm it. We are not debating the proposition of "Is miraculous prophesy possible? ", and your little opinion on that subject is not the gauge by which date ranges are determined. Nor is mine, either, for that matter. If you'd like to debate "Does the Bible contain supernatural prophesy? " sometime, I will be glad to, but for now you can't just petitio principii your way into it. Another thing: Con's edict, "She must adopt historical methods" is just another way of saying, "I can't come up with a decent refutation of the internal evidence because it is all against me, so I'll make a case by denying the miraculous. " I can employ the historical-critical method as one tool, and a limited tool at that. I need not limit myself to it, however, just as I do not limit myself to internal evidences. *****Con: "Simply put, no such event occurs verifiably today, despite there clearly being many prophetic claims today. I only need to cite the vast number of (failed) doomsday prophecies to make my case to this end. ""Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. " (I Cor 13: 8-10)In the passage, Paul is predicting the end of supernatural knowledge, prophesies, and tongues when that which is complete (referring to the final revealed word of God) has come . We have "that which is complete" today, and con has graciously confirmed that there are no miraculous supernatural gifts, including prophesy, today. *****Con: "She needs to actually affirm why we would expect the author of Acts to include these events. "Oh, I did - and Con offers no plausible explanation otherwise. His position is, "She needs to explain why the author of an historical narrative who knew the conclusions of THE major events of the AD 60's - Paul's trial, Neroian persecution and siege/fall of Jerusalem - would bother to mention them. " I'm expected to explain why a historian could be expected to include the climactic events of his narrative? That quibble falls under its own weight. I might expect such from Saint Brad or MadCornish, but they are both certifiably crazy. I'm a little surprised by it here. *****Con: "Also she ignores other explanations, for example hypothesis for the Gospel of Mark’s abrupt ending start as simple as a “missing page” in the Gospel. Even assuming the premise it was a historical account yields other explanations, such as Luke simply not knowing that happened to Paul (since he was imprisoned), etc. "#1 What other explanations? #2 There is plenty of manuscript evidence that the last page of Mark was lost. (1) There is ZERO evidence anywhere that a supposed last page of Acts was lost. Con made it up and declared it a very reasonable explanation. Actually, it is far-fetched and unworthy of critical examination. #3 Is the notion that Luke simply did not "know" that . .. (1) James was martyred, (2) Jerusalem was besieged for 3 1/2 years, (3) the temple was destroyed, and (4) Paul was either convicted, acquitted, or martyred . .. a reasonable "other explanation"? Con offers this as a reasonable possibility - and it is - if the book was written around AD 64! However, it is far-fetched if a post-AD 100 date is under consideration. Thus, his objection is actually in my favor. *****Con: "The epistle (I Clement) is internally anonymous and there is no basis for this attribution assumption, since the internal and external evidence have no specific interpretation. "The book most likely either describes the Neroian persecution of AD 64, or the Dominitian persecution of the AD 90's. It is addressed to the same people who received a letter from Paul, and was without exception attributed to Clement, a leader in the church in Rome. *****Con: "Thus, it seems much more likely that these are a separate account/writing that was later incorperated, since we would expect much more first-person accounting than is observed. "Ummmm . .. . nobody is asserting first-person reporting prior to Acts 16. In the next twelve chapters, however, there are at least THIRTY-FOUR claims of first-person reporting. There is not an iota of any sort of evidence that these narratives were "later incorporated". No internal evidence. No external evidence. Zilch. Con is just winging it, i. e. making it up as he goes. AffirmativeLuke offered tedious explanations to his Gentile audience when he assumed a lack of contemporary familiarity with certain terms and customs: as a rule, he avoided Jewish terms such as "rabbi" and "scribe", deferring to the Gentile terms and identified familiar Jewish customs:"According to the custom of the priest's office" (Luke 1: 9)"Brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law" (Luke 2: 27)"They went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast" (Luke 2: 42)Contrast this with the lack of explanation when he assumed a contemporary familiarity with his terminology, even when employing ambiguous and confusing terminology:"Herod, the king of Judaea" (Luke 1: 5)"Herod being tetrarch of Galilee" (Luke 3: 1)"Herod the king" (Acts 12: 1)"Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat . .. the angel of the Lord smote him (Acts 12: 21)"King Agrippa" (Acts 26: 27)The point is that Luke offered tedious explanations when he surmised that his intended audience might be confused; however, he offered absolutely no explanation at all when employing very confusing terminology concerning Jewish kings and herods. Why not? The most likely reason is: Luke knew full well that his intended audience, although Gentile, knew who the leaders - the herods or kings - of the Jews were. My opponent must conclude that Luke used terminology that my opponent himself cannot understand without help (nor could I), and that Luke used such confusing terminology 50, 60 or 70 years after the fact when nobody else could understand them either. I guess that is possible, but is it likely? Thank you, and I await my opponent's response. (1) Warren-Ballard Debate, National Christian Press, 1953, 104-108. Also see Dean Burgon's book on the subject, "A Vindication of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark. "