Thank you for this series on the book of Acts, it shows how faithful Luke is. If he did not lie about the Acts of the Apostles, he certainly did not lie about his gospel. Especially because he could interview the people he wrote about personally because they were still alive. No doubt Luke knew what he was writing about.
I'm just guessing here, but that could be even more evidence that they believed in the Resurrection. It's a sign that they unanimously understood Christ's "take down this temple and I'll rebuild it in 3 days" as referring to His Resurrection that they knew took place. So when the temple fell they were like meh, we know it was a metaphor and what it was about. So, they didn't expect the temple to be rebuilt in 3 days because it had already happened with another temple.
@@TestifyApologetics do you have a video where you go through your estimates for dates and locations of the writings of the NT books? Or just the Gospels / Acts?
Could you do a video on the order the gospels were written in? Most Christians accept that Mark came first, because that is what a majority of scholars believe. However, I've always understood that that belief is based on the assumption that the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses and simply copied each other's work, with Mark's being the first because it is the shortest and least detailed. In this video you seem to accept the idea that Mark was the first one written, while clearly rejecting the idea that the authors were not eyewitnesses and simply copied one another. I would love to hear a breakdown of the different views on the order of the gospels and where you land on that question!
Wait, I got a serious question since I prefer the early dating of the Gospels since it seems more logical but now a thing is confusing me. Since Paul wrote Colossians in prison and sending his regards from Artichistus who also was arrested. Since this happend during Pauls imprisonment that must mean Acts MUST have been written after Colossians atleast since it mentions the imprisonment of Aristarchus which it really cant do if it havent happend during the period I believe Acts were written (before 55AD) and must mean it must be later than Colossians since Paul was imprisoned after 62AD?
Paul was in prison for about 4 years, that we know of: two years in Caesarea and 2 years in Rome. That is where Acts ends so the earliest date would be around 62 for Acts to be written. Interestingly as the video pointed out the epistles show Luke and Mark together during some point in this. I imagine this was a great time for Luke to start work on his gospel and church history
@@chadwesterholm1730Except Acts isn’t a history in the classical sense. This is why arguments for dating it to around 62 AD. Fall somewhat flat for me. I have no problem dating it to some time in the 60’s or even the 70’s. However, I think we need to abandon the notion that Acts of the Apostles is a classical historiography of the likes of Herodotus, Tacitus and Polybius. It just does not possess the literary features of such histories.
There is quite popular view among scolars here (to which I also personally subscribe), that Paul's imprisonment mentioned in Colossians, Philemon, and Phillipians, did not take place in Rome, but in Ephesus, at some point during his 3 year stay there, mostly for reasons of reach (Paul saying to Philemon "prepare to offer hospitality to me, for I am going quickly" being one of them) and the fact that Paul's imprisonment in his letters seems harsher than the one mentioned in Acts happening in Rome, it being more of a house imprisonment. What would be your insight to that?
@@TestifyApologetics It would make sense, "Mark", from "Marcus", would be his Greek use-name (like "Paul"). As opposed to all of the other John's running around at the time.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [TEASER MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VC689EgdSIw/mqdefault.jpg)
God bless you, Erik. Keep doing work that glorifies God.
all im glad for is that paul put the beef aside 🫡
This series is so legendary 10/10
Thank you for this series on the book of Acts, it shows how faithful Luke is. If he did not lie about the Acts of the Apostles, he certainly did not lie about his gospel. Especially because he could interview the people he wrote about personally because they were still alive. No doubt Luke knew what he was writing about.
man, you're doing the Lord's work, these videos are doing something to my heart that I can't really explain.. but it is cool.. thank you
You are so underatted. Keep up the good work ❤
Thank you for digging deep and getting these great nuggets of knowledge out.
Love these inside stories of the apostles
Thank you
Thanx for this series!!
loved the slip of the tongue @3:11 where you say "Adamantium". Intentional X-Men reference, or an undesigned coincidence?
Why is it that nothing seems to be written of the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD?
The common understanding is all the NT Scriptures were originally written before AD70
@@kangtnicolas John, his letters, and Revelation seem to be written later though
I'm just guessing here, but that could be even more evidence that they believed in the Resurrection. It's a sign that they unanimously understood Christ's "take down this temple and I'll rebuild it in 3 days" as referring to His Resurrection that they knew took place. So when the temple fell they were like meh, we know it was a metaphor and what it was about. So, they didn't expect the temple to be rebuilt in 3 days because it had already happened with another temple.
Keep it up brother!
What time would you date Acts to have been written? I'm trying to have a more holistic view of the chronology.
Before Paul's death, probably 62, while he was imprisoned in Rome for the first time still.
@@TestifyApologetics do you have a video where you go through your estimates for dates and locations of the writings of the NT books? Or just the Gospels / Acts?
Thanks for making these videos.
Could you do a video on the order the gospels were written in? Most Christians accept that Mark came first, because that is what a majority of scholars believe. However, I've always understood that that belief is based on the assumption that the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses and simply copied each other's work, with Mark's being the first because it is the shortest and least detailed. In this video you seem to accept the idea that Mark was the first one written, while clearly rejecting the idea that the authors were not eyewitnesses and simply copied one another. I would love to hear a breakdown of the different views on the order of the gospels and where you land on that question!
"Nah Ya boi is soy" 😂😂😂😂
Paul made a sick burn XD
Wait, I got a serious question since I prefer the early dating of the Gospels since it seems more logical but now a thing is confusing me. Since Paul wrote Colossians in prison and sending his regards from Artichistus who also was arrested. Since this happend during Pauls imprisonment that must mean Acts MUST have been written after Colossians atleast since it mentions the imprisonment of Aristarchus which it really cant do if it havent happend during the period I believe Acts were written (before 55AD) and must mean it must be later than Colossians since Paul was imprisoned after 62AD?
Paul was in prison for about 4 years, that we know of: two years in Caesarea and 2 years in Rome. That is where Acts ends so the earliest date would be around 62 for Acts to be written. Interestingly as the video pointed out the epistles show Luke and Mark together during some point in this. I imagine this was a great time for Luke to start work on his gospel and church history
@@chadwesterholm1730Except Acts isn’t a history in the classical sense. This is why arguments for dating it to around 62 AD. Fall somewhat flat for me. I have no problem dating it to some time in the 60’s or even the 70’s. However, I think we need to abandon the notion that Acts of the Apostles is a classical historiography of the likes of Herodotus, Tacitus and Polybius. It just does not possess the literary features of such histories.
There is quite popular view among scolars here (to which I also personally subscribe), that Paul's imprisonment mentioned in Colossians, Philemon, and Phillipians, did not take place in Rome, but in Ephesus, at some point during his 3 year stay there, mostly for reasons of reach (Paul saying to Philemon "prepare to offer hospitality to me, for I am going quickly" being one of them) and the fact that Paul's imprisonment in his letters seems harsher than the one mentioned in Acts happening in Rome, it being more of a house imprisonment. What would be your insight to that?
That was pretty awesome!
"John called 'Mark'" is the Gospel writer, correct?
I think it's probable
@@TestifyApologetics It would make sense, "Mark", from "Marcus", would be his Greek use-name (like "Paul"). As opposed to all of the other John's running around at the time.
3:10 Is that where Wolverine is from.....?
Caught that too! Came to the comments looking for it. :D
If I could produce similar examples of undesigned coincidences with early mormon miracle accounts would you review them?
I'd be interested to hear them. Good luck 👍
This is a Christian page tho? Why bring mormonism here?