Hi Buzz!
Part of your quote from
http://www.errantyears.com:
>It is highly unlikely that a history of the early church would leave out
>the above three historically very significant events, unless it was
>actually written before the above events occurred. This would date the
>writing of Acts to about 62 A.D.
There's no reason for a narrative about a period ending around 62 AD to mention events of a decade later. What's more, the author of Luke and Acts was intent on making the narrative appear to have been written close to the described events, and so carefully avoided giving hints about the fall of Jerusalem, though he wasn't fully successful.
3. Your date of 70 AD for Luke is bogus anyhow, for the following reasons:
A 70 AD date is not Paul's date nor the evolutionist's date. The most widely accepted datings for Luke are all later than 70 AD. For example, this is from
Studying the Synoptic Gospels by E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies:
Scholars disagree a bit about when each gospel was written, but most would propose no earlier than CE 65 for the earliest - usually thought to be the Gospel of Mark - and no later than CE 100 for the latest - probably Luke.
Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton Mack, though it doesn't date Luke specifically, says:
Somewhere in the Aegean around the year 120 C.E., a great two-volume work appeared that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called the Acts of the Apostles.
The Britannica is the kindest I can find to your suggested dating:
The Gospel bearing his name and the Acts of the Apostles were probably written during or shortly after the Jewish revolt (AD 66-73), although a somewhat later date is not inconceivable.
I'm not trying to make claims of who is right or wrong, only trying to point out that dates later than 70 AD are the conclusion of most of Biblical scholarship, and are not Paul's dates or evolutionist's dates.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
