Where does Jesus promise to return?

Cheers

originally posted by: jmdewey60
So there is no other "Stephen" to compare Act's version to.

We can compare him with the other speakers in Acts.
If everybody in a history speaks with a single voice, it is reasonable to suppose that it is the author's voice.
But if there is variation, then either the author is Shakespeare or there is the possibility that the variation reflects reality.
There is a progression in Acts from "Son of Man" being used to the phrase not being used.
There is no particular reason why Luke should invent such a progression. If the terminology was just reflecting his own viewpoint, we would expect him to plump for one version or the other.
If he depicts change and development in the expression of theology, there's a reasonable possibility that this reflects his awareness that there was change and development.
(I call him Luke as the simplest and quickest way of identifying him. The actual identity of the writer doesn't affect the issue)

a reply to: DISRAELI

If he depicts change and development in the expression of theology, there's a reasonable possibility that this reflects his awareness that there was change and development.

That's just basic to good story telling, what you might get told in the first week of a creative writing class.

a reply to: jmdewey60
The idea is anachronistic.
Not until the nineteenth century did people begin to think of progress as "normal", so the thought of inventing a development for the sake of the story would not haave occurred to him.

a reply to: DISRAELI

. . . the thought of inventing a development for the sake of the story would not have occurred to him.

It is forced onto the writer, since that would be the purpose of telling the story, to try to explain an already existing situation (the church), and where it came from.
It was not someone dreaming up a process, it was self evident that there had to be a development, that it did not instantly appear fully-formed like Aphrodite.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
it was self evident that there had to be a development, that it did not instantly appear fully-formed like Aphrodite.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
If he depicts change and development in the expression of theology, there's a reasonable possibility that this reflects his awareness that there was change and development.

We seem to have reached the point of saying the same thing.