Acts is a pile of shit. BTW, there were lots of different "Acts" books...most of them too stupid even for early xtians to accept.
https://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_His...ok_of_Acts
Xtain wishful thinking aside, we have no manuscript evidence for any xtian writings in the first century. The true believers keep trying to push this shit earlier but the scholars keep coming up with 2d and 3d century dates.
Of course, believers will believe anything if it suits them.
https://www.academia.edu/3305696/The_His...ok_of_Acts
Quote:All in all, the book of Acts was written for a different purpose than what we areasking. It was not written to show literal, realized history in the sense that we think of today.Luke was writing apologetically in defense of his own tradition. With this realization we canmove forward and test the text verse by verse and compare it to other sources of the sameperiod. In many instances it can be shown that Luke took the story and smoothed it out tofulfill his apologetic needs of depicting a fully unified church which has been led by Godthrough divine inspiration
Xtain wishful thinking aside, we have no manuscript evidence for any xtian writings in the first century. The true believers keep trying to push this shit earlier but the scholars keep coming up with 2d and 3d century dates.
Of course, believers will believe anything if it suits them.
