The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

Thanks to my opponent for his opening arguments. I shall critique a few of them and then offer a few statements in support of a pre-A D 100 date. Remember, we are dealing with likelihoods and probabilities, the preponderance of the evidence - not far-fetched and remote possibilities founded on assertion.Con: "It follows that Acts has historical priority (comes before) over Luke."Con has evidently confused himself by attributing Acts 1: 1-3 to the Gospel of Luke, then drawing a conclusion based upon what appears to be a typo.Con: "Our earliest reliable mentions of the Gospel of Luke or Acts are from Irenaeus and Tertullian writing ~180AD, and ~ 208AD respectively. No reliable Luke-exclusive or Acts mentions predate this, which I expect Con will challenge later."I sure will. Here is what Iranaeus said: "Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him." (1) From whence could Iranaeus have learned this? "Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also by apostles appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also met in my youth ... most nobly suffering martyrdom, departing this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles ... " (2) But Polycarp (69- 155 AD) wrote,"... our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even death for our sins, whom God raised, having loosed the pangs of Hades ... Him that raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave unto him glory and a throne on His right hand." (3)Compare:"... the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up ... Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted ... God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2: 32-35)Is it not most probable that the passage from Polycarp, circa 110 - 140 AD, is a quotation of the second class from the 2nd chapter of Acts?Con: " 'most excellent Theophilus' is most naturally referring to someone of power ... "That would be true. However, applying the descriptor "most excellent" to a minister, deacon, or elder is quite a stretch. Such terms as "most excellent" and "most noble" were generally reserved for judges, governors, senators, i. e. political leaders.Con: " IF it can be shown that The Gospel of Marcion has historical priority (came ‘prior’) over Luke then of course Acts (which follows Luke) must also be a second century work."Yes, but you cannot come close to showing that. The Gospel of Marcion was condemned as a perversion - called by Tertullian a manipulation and an adulteration - of the Gospel of Luke. (4, 5)"Certainly that is why he (Marcion) has expunged all the things that oppose his view, ... on the plea that they have been woven in by his partisans; but has retained those that accord with his opinion." (5)Con: "The Geneology is also not found in the other Gospels, indicating it is a Luke-exclusive addition, demonstrating an invention on Luke’s part."A genealogy back to Abraham is given in Matthew -and such records were extant prior to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Many first-century Jews could trace their lineage back to Abraham through several different lines, and the genealogy given in Luke from Abraham back to Adam is easily reconstructed from Genesis. Your own argument turns against you because extensive, closely-guarded genealogical records existed prior to AD 70. Unless Luke totally fabricated the Jewish portion of the genealogy, a post-AD 70 date is impossible.Con: "There is no reason for Marcion to remove these narratives"Marcion had every reason to remove a genealogy tracing back to Abraham: Marcion wished to purge Christianity of all things Jewish, and an Abrahamic line of descent is exactly that. He retained his own perverted version of Luke because Luke was closely associated with Paul.Con: "The earliest possible date for the Book of Acts is 70-71 AD. This is due to the references to the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21."That would be true if the destruction of Jerusalem were stated as an accomplished fact in Luke - or in Acts, for that matter. To the contrary, the temple is always depicted as still standing and fully functioning in the entire New Testament. 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.Con: "... Luke includes references to the non-Christian world of affairs."The is not surprising since Luke addressed his gospel account particularly to the Gentiles. That is why he, unlike Matthew, continually explained Palestinian geography and Jewish customs. Con: "Almost every incident of this kind that he mentions turns up somewhere in Josephus' narratives."So? The reverse is true, as far as it goes. For all you or I know, Josephus had access to Luke/Acts. Or both Luke and Josephus had access to a common written or oral source or sources. There are also vital differences, even disagreements, between Luke/Acts and Josephus. In fact, these same skeptics point out the discrepancies, throw up their hands, and claim that Luke/Acts is not historically reliable! Where there's a will, there's a way, I suppose. To hear our skeptic friends tell it, Luke was an incompetent third-rate plagiarist on top of being blatantly dishonest: he borrowed from Josephus, but demonstrated an uncanny ability to still get the facts wrong. Clement of RomePaul wrote to the Phillippian church most likely from Rome, "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers" (Phil 4: 3)Clement of Rome (d. circa AD 100) commends the Phillippian church saying, in part, "Ye walked after the ordinances of God", then gives as an example "(ye were) more glad to give than to receive, and content with the provisions which God supplieth." (6)Whether the Clement of Phil 4: 3 is the same as Clement of Rome, I will not pause to argue; however, I will simply point out that the only NT reference to "It is more blessed to give than to receive" is from the book of Acts (Acts 20: 35), and Clement of Rome refers to the statement as dogma, or ordinance, or decree. (7) Again, is not the most likely scenario that the statement from Clement is a quote of the second class from the book of Acts?Clement also wrote:"Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you." (I Clem 13: 2)The whole passage may be reproduced from Matthew and Luke, with the exception of "Give, and it shall be given to you" which is found only in Luke. (Luke 6: 38) Dinner, Movie, and Sex - But Skip the OrgasmThe last few chapters of Acts contain Paul's legal issues and imprisonment:1. Paul's appeal to Caesar, which broke off his trial before Festus2. Festus is puzzled concerning what report should accompany the prisoner to Rome3. Festus consults Agrippa and brings Paul before Agrippa. Paul gives his defense.4. Voyage to Rome5. Two years' "imprisonment" in RomeIf Paul's trial before Caesar had taken place when Acts was completed, whether it resulted in acquittal or conviction, it is unaccountable that the book terminates without a word on the subject. It would reflect the omission of the culminating fact to which a long series of events led. My opponent's position is that the book of Acts is about like stopping sex before the orgasm - and on purpose, at that: possible, but inexplicable to normal people. What if an historian published a work on Jodi Arias and worked his way through her childhood, teen-age years, jobs, various courtships, relationship with Travis Alexander, the death of Mr. Alexander, her arrest, her charges, her indictment - then shut the whole production down before the trial and outcome? That is my opponent's position on Acts. It is remotely possible, but highly unlikely.Some of the defining moments for Christianity in the first century include: (1) The martyrdom of James the Just in AD 62 (8), (2) The Neroean persecution in AD 64 (9), (3) The probable deaths of Peter and Paul in the late 60's (10), (4) The siege of Jerusalem in AD 66-70, and (5) The destruction of the temple in AD 70. Not a one of them is mentioned in the entire NT, including Acts. Why not? If this be merely an argument from silence (a form of argumentation which my opponent apparently endorses), then I'd say it's a pretty compelling one. (His "argument from silence" is that the book of Acts was not called "the book of Acts" before about AD 180. That may be true, but what of it? Nobody is maintaining that the current title - or any title - existed before AD 100.) "We" and "Us"The author of Acts claims multiple times to have been a companion of Paul. I counted at least 34 such references beginning at Acts 16: 11 and continuing to Acts 28: 16. The terms "we" and "us" are constantly employed. "And from thence the brethren, when they heard of us, came to meet us ... and when we entered into Rome, Paul was suffered to abide by himself ..." (Acts 28: 15-16) Is my opponent's contention that the author was a pretender who fabricated his companionship with Paul? Was the writer truthful? If so, a post-AD 100 date is extremely unlikely, and this "response-to-Marcion" theory is impossible. 1 Against Heresies, Iranaeus, 3: 12 Against Heresies, Iranaeus, 262, 2633 Letter to Phillippians, Polycarp, Lightfoot's Translation, 1: 2, 2: 14 Adv. Marc., Tertullian, Book IV, 1, 15 Ibid., Book IV, 6, 1-26 Epistle to Corinthians, Clement, 1: 3, 2: 17 https://www.blueletterbible.org...8 Antiq., Josephus, 20: 99 Annals, Tacitus, 15: 4410 Hist. Eccl., Eusebius, 2: 25