A visit to Qumran National Park is another possibility when taking a Masada and Dead Sea Tour regardless of your religious affiliation. This national park set in the desert mountains stands as one of the biggest in both religious and general Middle Eastern history. https://holylandprivatetours.blogspot.com/2020/02/masada-dead-sea-tour-amazing-experience-in-israel.html

Hey guys! Im leaving on a jet plan to Israel tomorrow! Do you guys have any tips or cautions or general advice for being in Israel?
EDIT: places I plan on going: The mount of beatitudes, Galilee, Cana, Capernaum, Nazareth, Caesarea, Qumran national park, Jericho, Bethlehem, Mount of olives, Garden of gethsemane, The garden tomb, Masada, And the dead sea.

• Makaboteng

Mythology: The god and guardian of deer & wild hogs
Nature: Bio-Fertile or Bio-Ecological
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Ahukawakawa Swamp, Egmont National Park, Taranaki, New Zealand

• Maylupa (Meylupa)

Mythology: The Crow Master of the Earth.
Nature: Bio-Ecological
Behavior: Neutral
Location: San Juan Island, San Juan Islands, Washington, U.S.A

• Biaku

Mythology: The magic bird who furnished the clothes and beads initiated by Minaden. When a neighboring people attacked the Teduray to take wealth, Biaku fled.
Nature: Bio-Atomic or Bio-Ecological
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Mussau Island, St. Matthias Islands, Papua New Guinea

• Bumingi

Mythology: It’s in charge of worms. One of the 11 beings importuned to stamp out rice pests.
Nature: Bio-Fertile or Bio-Laspikinetic
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar

• Batala (Salaksak)

Mythology: A kingfisher deity that was known as the father sky. Batala was swallowed by Dapu, where he was dissolved & his 2 souls came out, bursting out of Dapu’s belly.
Nature: Bio-Atomic
Behavior: Protector
Location: Daintree National Park, Far North Queensland, Australia

• Ulilangkalulua

Mythology: It was a giant snake that could fly and the enemy of Bathala, the Supreme God & Creator Deity. It was killed during their combat.
Nature: Bio-Atomic
Behavior: Destroyer
Location: Sierra Madre Oriental Pine-Oak Forests, Mexico

• Intumbangol

Mythology: It’s a pair of serpent deities who support the earth from the underworld; one is a male, the other is female. Their movement, breathing, and panting causes earthquakes, winds, & violent storms.
Nature: Bio-Geological or Bio-Meteorological
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Africa

• Pilipit

Mythology: It’s a divinity whose statuette looks like a cat, where solemn oaths are made in the deity’s presence.
Nature: Bio-Sonic or Bio-Barometric
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Tampere, Pirkanmaa, Finland

• Sawa

Mythology: It’s a deity who assumed the form of a giant snake when he appeared to a priestess in a cave-temple
Nature: Bio-Geological
Behavior: Neutral
Location: Qumran Caves, Qumran Archaeological Site, Judaean Desert, Jerusalem, Israel
/END/
Irl note: This post is like the “data” I created before.

Album
TL;DR: places in Israel to visit if you like ancient/old coins.
We visited Israel over the Christmas vacation, and managed to see quite a lot of the country.
While I'd be glad to share experiences and travel tips, I thought the people of /Coins could benefit from some numismatic experiences and recommendations.
The land the State of Israel is on has been under the rule of almost every empire in history: Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Crusaders, Muslims, Turkey, British have all ruled the country at one point in time. Interspersed in between are Israeliates, and then Jewish kings, and finally Israelis again. This leaves tons of interesting archaeological findings all over the country, and a lot of coins from every era and dynasty - some are still being found as we speak.
I'd like to mention 3 places you could see some of those interesting coins and findings. Even if you're not interested in ancient or old coins per-se, they tell the history of the country, the region, the nations and the personalities who ruled here - which I found fascinating.

1 Israel Museum, Jerusalem

In the middle of Jerusalem, right next to the Knesset (Israel's parliament) you can find the best museum in Israel (IMHO). There are tons of art exhibitions, and a lot of historical items, including some mummies. And they have coins from almost every era, strewn around in display cases: bronze, copper, silver and gold. Drachmas, Dinarius, ancient Shekels etc. In huge quantities. If you like ancient coins, this is your #1 stop. After touring the museum, save time to visit the Shrine of The Book (included in the ticket), where you can see the Qumran scrolls, and over 2000 years old bibles. If you have time left, try to take a tour of the Knesset.

2 Kadman Numismatic wing at the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv

Just one of the wings of this interesting museum. Shows the coinage of the country from pre-coin days (how much should I charge for an authentic bamboo cane, filled with salt?) through every era of the country, until today. The plaques are enlightening, explaining the meaning of each coin, the significance of the head featured, and the historical events in the are at the time. I was fascinated by Maccabees' coins, featuring the names of all the persons I already knew from Hanukkah stories, and saw how the coins evolved in the area: from coins showing absolutely no heads (due to the 2nd commandment), to local kings who adopted the Greek and Roman ways, and started minting coins with their effigy.

3 Caesarea Harbor

Part of the Caesarea national park (half way between Tel Aviv and Haifa - less than an hour drive from TA), the harbor was the most modern harbor of the ancient world. It was originally built by King Herod, and was subsequently ruled by Rome, Christians, Muslims, Crusaders, more Muslims etc. You can see the hippodrome and the amphitheater, and even take part in actual archaeological work (if you have the time and the inclination). They are still excavating the site actively, and lately even found a hoard of gold coins in a wall of a house (link). The most interesting find from a numismatic POV, was a hoard of 7.5 KG of 24K gold coins - thousands of them - on the sea floor, right outside the harbor. Originally found by some amateur divers, a marine archaeologist was called in, and they managed to get thousands of those thin coins (see photos in album). I heard an interview with the professor, and other than the sheer archaeological find, the coins have huge significance for a minority religion called the Druze. Turns out the Druze religion believes one of their founders, the Kaliph al-Hakim, disappeared near Cairo during the 11th century CE. The Shia Muslims managed to erase his name from history, as part of the greater effort to claim all Druze are heretics. This is the first proof ever that this man existed, and was indeed a ruler who minted his own gold coins in Egypt (see coin on the left in photo). The Druze in Israel now consider these coins holy, and an award was given to the original divers (link to horrible Google translation of article in Hebrew). Cool story IMHO.
​
I also managed to score some old Prutah coins (pre- and post-State of Israel), that were later replaced by Agorot. I'm planning on offering them, along with some current Shekel coins on /Coins4Sale, if anyone is interested (see last 2 photos in album for the Prutah coins).
If you're ever headed to Israel, hit me up for some tips on what to see, and where to look for interesting stuff.
Cheers!

Shalom Israel! My family and I are going to be in Israel for Channukah this year and I wanted to try something new: this won't be our first time in Israel, and I realized that we never really saw much of the West Bank/Judea & Samaria. Can anyone recommend any interesting and fun activities to do there? We have little kids with us but we're an active bunch and enjoy hikes and other outdoor activities. A few interesting things that I've found already are the Psagot winery, Herodion National Park and Qumran/Kalya on the Dead Sea.
Thanks!

A few days ago I finally told my parents that I do not believe in god. I also shared a few links that I found this is his response.
I am not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument pitting my list of “internet experts” against your list. In the end that just results in a continuous argument. Instead I will simply state why I take my stand in the matters you have raised. C14 dating: In theory C14 dating seems sound if all the parameters are known. When those parameters ar known, i.e. the concentration and ratios of C14/C12 at the start, then I believe that C14 dating can be relatively accurate as compared to that standard. For instance by taking an organic item of an establish age, via non C14 means, scientists are able to determine what the C14/C12 ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. It has been well established, on both sides, that, for various reasons, the C14/C12 ratios in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly over time. That being said many of these ‘touch stones’ would be needed to reliably date items across the arc of human history. Unfortunately, there are actually very few such artifacts that truly exist that meet those criteria. This leads us to dendrochronology (using tree rings to establish a time line). There is a lot of argument about this methodology for various reasons. I find it suspect myself primarily because of circular logic. As no living tree exists whose life spans all of know history no single standard exists. Therefore, a model has to be built. To build that model C14 dating is used to compare the rings a living tree to those of a dead, presumably uncontaminated, sample from a bog or some other site. Where they find a pattern match between the samples it is presumed their lives crossed. The process is repeated with similar, presumably uncontaminated, samples from the bog or site to establish a “pristine” C14/C12 ratio timeline where C14 dating is used to provide a standard for C14 dating. Talk about circular logic. Hence, several of these timelines have been proposed and withdrawn over time. It should also be noted that “micro climates”, google “marine reservoir effect” or “freshwater reservoir effect”, exist when it comes to C14/C12. It is also known that the North and South poles have different ratios. Islands seem to differ from contents possibly due to the volume of water by which they are surrounded. Therefore, for any radiometric touchstone to be accurate it would have to account for these local variability’s. Though little attention has been paid to the temporal variability Further not all living systems are at equilibrium with the atmosphere when it comes to C14/C12. Take as an example the mollusk in your own reference. Complicating things further, various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C14 proportions would be dated older than their true age. Attempts, like dendrochronology, are often made to index C14/C12 proportions. While this may be somewhat useful to eliminate the uncertainty of atmospheric proportions, it does not compensate for local conditions such as which plant species are in the diet and how much they may have altered the animals biology. That said this can be found in document used for Calibration of Radiocarbon Age to Calendar Years document at www.radiocarbon.com “Important Note: The correlation curve for organic materials assume that the material dated was living for exactly ten or twenty years (e.g. a collection of 10 or 20 individual tree rings taken from the outer portion of a tree that was cut down to produce the sample in the feature dated). For other materials, the maximum and minimum calibrated age ranges given by the computer program are uncertain. The possibility of an "old wood effect" must also be considered, as well as the potential inclusion of younger or older material in matrix samples. Since these factors are indeterminant error in most cases, these calendar calibration results should be used only for illustrative purposes. In the case of carbonates, reservoir correction is theoretical and the local variations are real, highly variable and dependent on provenience.” In other words Finally, it is assumed that radioactive decay is a constant. This is in fact the more and more is in question. So this too could introduce variability into C14 Dating. – https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-beconstant-after-all/#75d34ecd147f. Since this statement likely seems salacious check out this site - http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XperDecRat.html None of this takes into account the fact that absolutely no artifact is found in a vacuum. They are always found exposed to the elements. Meaning that they can and are exposed to contamination, including fossils embedded in rock. In either case they can be exposed to contamination over ages. Water can be C14 dated, because it absorbs C14. Rock and soil are porous. As water passes through soil or rock what is to keep if from removing or depositing C14 in the artifact or fossil much less any other dissolved organic (c14 containing) contaminate? Given that it is impossible to truly know all the variables required to reliably date an item. I do find that there is ample reason to suspect the accuracy of C14 in practice. This inaccuracy has been borne out as follows: (this is just a sampling) Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years. – Dr. Alan Zindler – NYT 5/31/1990 Deviations found in C14 Dating of up to 3,500 years on samples dated to about 20,000 – Dr. Alan Zindler – NYT 5/31/1990 Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the Christian era (CRSQ , 1969, 6:2, p.114). Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259). In a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned - Reed, G.A., Science, 130, 11 Dec. 1959, p. 1630 Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago. - Baxter, M.S. A. Walton, Nature, 225, 7 March 1970, pp. 937-938. Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000 years old, because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust (CRSQ , 1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). p.19). Seals freshly killed have yielded an age of 1,300 years and mummified seals dead only about 30 years were dated at 4,600 years.- Brown, R.H., "Interpretation of Carbon-14 Age Data," Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda Univ., Loma Linda, CA, unpublished paper, 1981. Here is a remarkable example of C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press published in 1967. Six C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500
Many of these references are old but the associated dates are still referenced by publications like Scientific America or even the National Park Service so are still considered relevant. Interestingly, it should be noted that when C14 dating fails, either due to those inaccuracies or some other reason, it is often necessary to use alternate methods to try and date fossils. Take as an example the attempt to date the fossil skull, KNM-ER 1470, discovered by Richard Leakey in northern Kenya. In the case of 1470, after failure to achieve concordance through a number of different dating techniques on four different occasions, the final determination of the date for 1470 was based on yet another more subjective methodology, “biochronology comparison”. “For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.” For a site with only a unique species how can such a comparison be made? Highly subjective at best. The biggest problem I have with all of this is that despite these glaring limitations is that the dates released by these researchers are stated with confidence as absolutely accurate. Often to be altered again and again. i.e. KNM-ER 1470. Given all of this could there be an alternate explanation? Yes there could be. Fossil record: I have to admit there are things about the fossil record that I do not understand. However, there are a lot of things I don’t understand. To me again this falls into the category of methodology and evidence. For instance take Orrorin Tugenensis as of 2007 20 specimens including the posterior part of a mandible in two pieces; a symphysis and several isolated teeth; three fragments of femora; a partial humerus; a proximal phalanx; and a distal thumb phalanx. These specimens were found at least 4 different sites and different layers yielding different ages. Yet with so little information a fully fleshed out image of a Orrorin Tugenensis was derived. Really how can anyone state with certainty anything based on isolated fragments from multiple sites with no other external evidence. In particular the only thing they have from the skull are a few teeth and a fraction of a jawbone yet they associate a fictitious image with adamant statements of fact leading the naïve to believe it is fact. Another case is that of Australopithecus anamensis which they state climbed trees. Yet they have no evidence of such activity. In fact they later state that “Although the excavation team did not find hips, feet or legs, Meave Leakey believes that Australopithecus anamensis often Then you have Ardi, Ardipithecus kadabba. Ardi the Smithsonian states with certainty and their full authority that she lived from 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago. Yet as point of fact “Radiometric dating of the layers of volcanic ash encasing the deposits suggest that Ardi lived about 4.4 million years ago.” Others even doubt that date. “Fleagle and Kappelman suggest that the region in which Ardi was found is difficult to date radiometrically, and they argue that Ardi should be dated at 3.9 million years.” This practice of data manipulation and authoritative statement of fact runs rife in the field. The Neanderthal was once declared authoritatively to be the “missing link” later it just disappeared with no fanfare and redefined as a human. Then you have the Piltdown Man which was a total fabrication all together. Add to that the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Man, the Archaeoraptor and others. In point of fact the total number of potential fossils Daniel: A good deal of what is considered biblical scholarship on the book of Daniel assumes that Daniel 7–12 was written after 165 B.C during the Macabean period (164 B.C. – 63 B.C.). In reality this is very difficult to reconcile with the actual historical evidence. The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, dated to the “late second century BC” (Cross 1961:43). Those who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis put it at about the middle of the second century BC. According to this theory that means that 4QDanc was produced “only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel” (Ulrich 1987:17). Other scrolls found at Qumran (the Dead Sea) suggest that Daniel had already been added to the Hebrew Cannon. Canonicity is supported by the 4QFlorilegium fragment that employs the quotation formula “written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to “Daniel the prophet.” Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? In as much as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had to have had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. This is further supported by the fact that the book of Daniel was embraced throughout the Judaism an, whereas other literature produced during the period proposed by the Maccabean Hypothosis was only embraced by particular groups within Judaism, an unlikely feat given the religio-political climate of the day. In fact the latest studies indicate that much of the Qumran literature that depends on Daniel can be dated to before 150 B.C. This would indicate that by the time of the Maccabees Daniel had clearly already been accepted as Scripture. Therefore, the writer of Daniel could not have been contemporaneous with the Maccabees and the writers of the Qumran material. Additionally Jewish Talmudic teaching that the book was written and included in the canon of Scripture by the Great Synagogue before it ceased to operate during the time of Simon the Just (circa 300 B.C.). The most important point to ask in dating the book of Daniel is when it began to be regarded as Scripture. It is clear that by the early first century A.D. Daniel was commonly accepted within the canon of Scripture. Matthew’s Gospel refers to Daniel both as a prophet and as a part of the Hebrew Scriptures (Matthew 24:15). At the Council at Jamnia, held after the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem to discuss whether certain books should be maintained as Scripture, the place of Daniel was clearly secure.Arguably the most telling statement about Daniel is the fact that his record was accepted by Jesus Christ and the apostles. Clearly it was accepted by them and seen as prophetic. The number of references and allusions to Daniel in the New Testament make it one of the books most used. It should also be noted that if Daniel 7–12 was written after 165 B.C as a mere book of history then why would it contain prophesies yet unfulfilled. One in particular was of great interest to the Essenes, the likely inhabitants of Qumran. That prophecy is of the 70 weeks of years contained in Daniel chapter 9. Their interpretation of the seventy weeks is first found in the Testament of Levi and the Pseudo-Ezekiel Document (4 Q 384–390), which probably means that it was worked out before 146 B.C.” That same prophecy continues on to record the history of kingdoms that would rule right down to “the time of the end.” Another piece of historical evidence from the Jewish Antiquities that has to be addressed is that of Josephus. Flavius Josephus describes an event that he presents as having taken place in 332 BC :
“. . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city. Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .”
Two things to note here: first, Josephus clearly regarded Daniel to be the author of the book of Daniel, “the book of Daniel . . ., in which he had declared . . .” Second, Josephus placed this event in 332 BC, so Josephus believed that the book of Daniel had been written by then. Most detractors will argue that this is merely legend and can’t be factual. They generally base that opinion on two main arguments 1) Alexander is shown a book that was not yet written. 2) The story is a bit too good to be true. The first argument has already been addressed. Since the Maccabean Hypothosis is not plausible then we can safely assume that the book of Daniel would have been available then. The second hardly seems worthy of consideration. A statement like “It’s too good to be true” hardly seems “Scholarly”. Yet it must be addressed. Basically the see it as the Samarians, who hated the Jews, besmirch the Jews and get permission to build a temple of their own, Alexander visits Jerusalem, understands that he owes everything to the God of the Jews, allows them the privilege to live according to their ancestral customs and behaves rather unkind towards the Samarians. They claim that if a Jew in the second century BCE were to invent a story, he would write something along these lines. In looking at the whole account one would see that the Samaritans are allowed to keep their temple: not exactly something a Jew would invent, and in fact a plausible punishment for the Jewish refusal to send soldiers. Also, Alexander gives the Jews no privileges at all: everything he grants the Jews, had already been granted to them by the Persian kings. This was, in point of fact, Alexander's usual policy.
The most unlikely is the idea that Alexander had had a vision in which the God of the Jews, whom he conquered and humiliated, played an important role is just too incredible to be invented: everyone knew that Alexander claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Ammon. Nobody would invent a special link to the Jewish God. The easiest explanation is that Alexander did indeed sacrifice to the God of the Jews. There are other points of contention but I think these should be sufficient to establish that the argument that “It’s too good to be true” is just plain childish. Cult: If we define a cult as "a religious entity that is insular, reclusive, that exerts power over the individual so that the individual is forced to submit him/herself to the cult (rather than, say, the deity in question), that engages in dangerous rituals, etc." then one might be able to say that just about any religion, or organization for that matter, could be defined as a cult. The only facet of that definition that could come close to defining us might be insular. If you took one of the secondary definitions of the word, “relating to or from an island”, and expanded to apply to our keeping ourselves separate from the world then maybe any group who sets themselves apart as different is insular. Sororities, Fraternities, any club, even a business could be insular.In fact the Interpreting the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constitution and American Pluralism By Bette Novit Evan lists several religious groups, 4 in particular, as being insular yet not one of them could or was considered a cult. No other part of that definition can apply to us as Witnesses. We are not a cult. In fact I would consider that definition dangerous. As it is far too broad and could be twisted to fit just about any organization one chose to attack. A more accurate and reasonable way to determine what a cult is would be to use the following. Review it and you will find it doesn’t apply to us or for that matter just about any major religions as opposed to the definition above. The 11 commandments of cults vs. religions. (as taken from quora) 1) CULT: Single, unquestioned leader who makes all the rules, with no accountability to peers, a presbytery, a chapter, or co-leaders. RELIGION: Plurality and hierarchy of leadership, accountable to one another with a charter or church constitution including a mechanism in place to remove leaders who abuse their power. 2) CULT: Cohabitation. Members often live in a group or commune, often with the leader. RELIGION: Members have their own lives and homes and come together to worship or socialize, then go back to family homes. 3) CULT: Isolation. Members are often not allowed to interact/socialize with outsiders, and frequently are required to separate from their friends and families. RELIGION: Respect the friends and family of their adherents, almost always encouraging family relationships, even with family members not part of the religion. 4) CULT: Coercion. Coercive recruitment methods, often including sleep deprivation, withholding of food or bathroom breaks, locking the initiate in a room with a succession of people hammering in the group's ideas. Essentially, these are classic brainwashing techniques. RELIGION: Members, including new members, are free to come and go as they please. It does not take a genius to see the difference here. Atheists often claim that all religions "brainwash" others, especially their children. If brainwash means teaching your kids what you believe, then everyone does it, not just people of faith. It is often claimed that because most people of faith grew up with that faith, that is evidence of "indoctrination." Not by the definition of how cults do this. Furthermore, most Democrats grew up in Democratic families, and Republicans in conservative families, Boy Scouts are more likely to be boy scouts if their fathers were, and even atheists are more likely to be atheist if raised byatheistic parents. We don't often see these other groups accused of "brainwashing." This is just anti-religious rhetoric and has nothing to do with real brainwashing. Anyone who has gone through true brainwashing would surely reject the definition given by anti-religionists. (Note: I did not grow up with the faith I now hold) 5) CULT: Repetition. Members are told what to believe on a daily basis, with intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to hold members. The few items that distinguish that cult are repeated endlessly. RELIGION: Teaching and study groups are mutually encouraged with all members free to contribute insights. A variety of subjects are discussed. 6) CULT: Exclusiveness. Initiates are often told that only "select" members of the cult will reach the ultimate goal. This is incentive to stay and to be more dedicated to the cult. RELIGION: All have the same requirements and opportunities for advancement, leadership positions and participation. 7) CULT: Bread trails. The dogma is fed to the initiate in small pieces, and gaining more knowledge about the dogma requires a greater commitment to the organization. RELIGION: Typically all beliefs are publicly available with no effort made to keep some beliefs secret. 8) CULT: Alienation. Adherents are encouraged or even bullied into thinking in terms of "us versus them" with total alienation from "them." RELIGION: Members are encouraged to quietly show themselves as exemplary among their peers in secular workplaces and in public. Yes, okay, some are not very good at this, and those are usually the ones you notice. Still, it's a far cry from the above. 9) CULT: Seclusion. Members are often not allowed to leave the cult or even the cult compound. Even temporary excursions among outsiders are done in pairs or in groups with a trusted member always present. RELIGION: Gatherings are held at regular intervals with members free to come or skip as they please. 10) CULT: Totalitarian. Cults ask significantly more time and money from their adherents, often asking for a person's life savings to progress in the organization. They are usually totalitarian and demand that the individual give themselves up to the organization or theology. RELIGION: The tithe (10% of income) is a good example of what a religion may ask of its adherents, and rarely will anyone check up on members to make sure they are doing this. In pretty much all churches, this is strictly voluntary. 11) CULT: Secretive about the workings, the leadership, and the finances. No one but the leader and perhaps a trusted member are aware of where the money goes. RELIGION: Respect individual freedom and ask for a commitment typically less than a person devotes to their work and family. There is no secrecy over the leader's activities, typically these are very transparent, with the congregation knowing the salary their tithes pay the clergy members, the amount going to building upkeep, and how much goes into helping the needy, community charity, etc. Financial statements are typically available to church members.
I know this is long and I'm sorry if the formatting is incorrect.

1
The Chronology of the Ascension Stories in Luke and Acts

Chapter 1	verse
1	Deborah Thompson Prince, "'Why Do You Seek the Living among the Dead?' Rhetorical Questions in the Lukan Resurrection Narrative," 123-139; ARIUS DIDYMUS AND LUKE-ACTS
2	Mikeal C. Parsons, "The text of Acts 1:2 reconsidered," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50.1 (Jan. 1989): 58-71; ARIUS DIDYMUS AND LUKE-ACTS
3	The Chronology of the Ascension Stories in Luke and Acts
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	Peter-Ben Smit, "Negotiating a New World View in Acts 1.8? A Note on the Expression ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς," 1-22; Daniel R. Schwartz, "The end of the ge (Acts 1:8): beginning or end of the Christian vision?" Journal of Biblical Literature 105.4 (Dec. 1986): 669-676.
9	s
10	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	A Note On Acts 1:14
15	Succeeding Judas: Exegesis in Acts 1:15–26; Acts 1:15-26 and the Craft of New Testament Poetry, Matthew G. Whitlock;
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s

2
The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 1: The Clearest Evidence G. K. Beale; The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 2: Corroborating Evidence G. K. Beale; Donald H. Juel, "Social dimensions of exegesis: the use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43.4 (Oct. 1981): 543-556.

Chapter 2	verse
1
2	Johan C. Thom, "Don’t Walk on the Highways": The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Christian Literature," Journal of Biblical Literature 113.1 (Spring 1994): 105, citing Pieter W. van der Horst, "Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles (2.1-47),' JSNT 25 [1985] 49-60, esp. pp. 49-50).
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	Gary Gilbert, "The list of nations in Acts 2: Roman propaganda and the Lukan response," Journal of Biblical Literature 121.3 (Fall 2002): 497-529.
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	D. P. Moessner, ‘Two Lords ‘at the Right Hand’? The Psalms and an Intertextual Reading of Peter’s Speech (Acts .–)’, Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson (ed. R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, ) –.
15	s
16	s
17	C. M. Blumhofer, "Luke's Alteration of Joel 3.1–5 in Acts 2.17–21," 499-516; F. Mußner, ‘In den letzen Tagen (Apg ,a)’, BZ  () –
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	Blumhofer
22	s
23	Taking up and Raising, Fixing and Loosing: A Chiastic Wordplay in Acts 2.23b-24
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	Robert F. O’Toole, "Acts 2:30 and the Davidic covenant of Pentecost," Journal of Biblical Literature 102.2 (June 1983): 245-258.
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	Acts 2:38 in Light of the Syntax oflmperative-Future Passive and Imperative-Present Participle Combinations (Paul Elbert)
39	s
40	s
41	Douglas A. Hume: “Sharing All Things in Common”: Narrative, Alienation, and the Friendship Ethos in Acts 2:41–47 and 4:32–35; Gregory E. Sterling, "Athletes of Virtue": An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16)," Journal of Biblical Literature 113.4 (Winter 1994): 679-696; Eschatological Failure as God’s Mystery: Reassessing Prophecy and Reality at Qumran and in Nascent Christianity
42	A Survey of Κοινωνία and Its Cognates in Documentary Sources
43	s
44	Alan C. Mitchell, "The social function of friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37," Journal of Biblical Literature 111.2 (Summer 1992): 255-272.
45	s
46	s
47	Mitchell

Chapter 3	verse
1	Dennis Hamm, "The Tamid service in Luke-Acts: the cultic background behind Luke's theology of worship (Luke 1:5-25; 18:9-14; 24:50-53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65.2 (April 2003): 215-231; Mikeal C. Parsons, "The character of the lame man in Acts 3-4," Journal of Biblical Literature 124.2 (Summer 2005): 295-312.
2	s
3	s
4	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	Further Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s

Chapter 4	verse
1	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	Chris Keith, "The Oddity of the Reference to Jesus in Acts 4:13b," 791-811
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	Douglas A. Hume: “Sharing All Things in Common”: Narrative, Alienation, and the Friendship Ethos in Acts 2:41–47 and 4:32–35; Gregory E. Sterling, "Athletes of Virtue": An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16)," Journal of Biblical Literature 113.4 (Winter 1994): 679-696; Alan C. Mitchell, "The social function of friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-37," Journal of Biblical Literature 111.2 (Summer 1992): 255-272.
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	Mitchell

5
The Improper Temple Offering of Ananias and Sapphira; Divine Judgment against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: 1–11): A Stock Scene of Perjury and Death

Chapter 5	verse
1
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	Being found fighting against God: Luke’s Gamaliel and Josephus on human responses to divine providence; ‘Hanging on a Tree’: Deuteronomy 21.22-23 and the Rhetoric of Jesus’ Crucifixion in Acts 5.12-42 Timothy W. Reardon; Gregory E. Sterling, "Athletes of Virtue": An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16)," Journal of Biblical Literature 113.4 (Winter 1994): 679-696.
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	Sterling
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s

Chapter 6	verse
1	Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1-7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif; F. Scott Spencer, "Neglected Widows in Acts 6:1-7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56.4 (Oct. 1994): 715-733.
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	Thomas L. Brodie, "The accusing and stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8-13) as one component of the Stephen text (Acts 6:9-14, Acts 7:58a)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45.3 (July 1983): 417-432.
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	Brodie
15	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
16	s

Chapter 7	verse
1	s
2	Rewriting Abraham and Joseph: Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish Exegetical Traditions
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	Whitenton
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s
43	s
44	s
45	Dennis D. Sylva, "The meaning and function of Acts 7:46-50," Journal of Biblical Literature 106.2 (June 1987): 261-275.
46	s
47	s
48	s
49	s
50	s
51	s
52	s
53	s
54	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
55	Phillip B. Munoa, III, "Jesus, the merkavah, and martyrdom in early Christian tradition," Journal of Biblical Literature 121.2 (Summer 2002): 303-325; STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
56	Munoa
57	Smith
58	Thomas L. Brodie, "The accusing and stoning of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:8-13) as one component of the Stephen text (Acts 6:9-14, Acts 7:58a)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45.3 (July 1983): 417-432.
59	s
60	s

Chapter 8	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	The Sources of the Account of the Mission to Samaria in Acts 8:5-25
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	Dickerson
26	Brittany E. Wilson, "‘Neither Male nor Female’: The Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.26–40," 403-422
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	The Running Prophet (Acts 8:30)
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s

Chapter 9	verse
1	Dale C. Allison Jr., "Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel," 807-826; Brittany E. Wilson, "The Blinding of Paul and the Power of God: Masculinity, Sight, and Self-Control in Acts 9," 367-387
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s
43	s

10
Walter T. Wilson, "Urban legends: Acts 10:1-11:18 and the strategies of Greco-Roman foundation narratives," Journal of Biblical Literature 120.1 (Spring 2001): 77-99.

Chapter 10	verse
1	s
2	s
3	Dennis Hamm, "The Tamid service in Luke-Acts: the cultic background behind Luke's theology of worship (Luke 1:5-25; 18:9-14; 24:50-53; Acts 3:1; 10:3, 30)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65.2 (April 2003): 215-231.
4	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	Διακρíνεσθαι in Mt. 21:21, Mk. 11:23, Acts 10:20, Rom. 4:20, 14:23, Jas. 1:6, and Jude 22—the “Semantic Shift” That Went Unnoticed by Patristic Authors
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	Hamm; Some Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament, 68
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	The Imperial Authority and Benefaction of Centurions and Acts 10.34-43: A Response to C. Kavin Rowe Justin R. Howell
35	s
36	Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way Through the Conundrum? C. Kavin Rowe
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s
43	s
44	s
45	s
46	s
47	s
48	s

Chapter 11	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s

Chapter 12	verse
1	Robert W. Wall, "Successors to "the Twelve" according to Acts 12:1-17," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53.4 (Oct.1991): 628-643; Susan R. Garrett, "Exodus from bondage : Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52.4 (Oct. 1990): 656-680.
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	Wall
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s

13
Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13; Paul's Pisidian Antioch Speech (Acts 13). By John Eifion Morgan-Wynne.

Chapter 13	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	Soham Al-Suadi, "Magie und Apokalyptik im Zentrum lukanischer Geschichtsschreibung – Historizität am Beispiel von Apg 13.6–12," 482-504
7	s
8	s
9	Small Change: Saul to Paul, Again (pp. 390-391); STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
10	s
11	s
12	Al-Suadi
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	Thomas M. Finn, "The God-fearers reconsidered," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47.1 (Jan. 1985): 75-84.
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	Eschatological Ignorance and the Hafṭarah
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s
43	s
44	s
45	s
46	s
47	s
48	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
49	s
50	s
51	s
52	s

Chapter 14	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	Dean P. Béchard, "Paul among the rustics: the Lystran episode (Acts 14:8-20) and Lucan apologetic," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63.1 (Jan. 2001): 84-101.
9	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	Béchard
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s

15
The 'Apostolic Decree': Tradition and Redaction; Moses Has His Interpreters: Understanding the Legal Exegesis in Acts 15 from the Precedent in Jubilees

Chapter 15	verse
1	,,Bevor einer von Jakobus kam . . .": Anmerkungen zur textkritischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2,12
2	s
3	s
4	Drawing Ethical Principles from the Process of the Jerusalem Council: A New Approach to Acts 15:4-29 Hyung Dae Park
5	The Pharisee Heresy: Circumcision for Gentiles in the Acts of the Apostles
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	Reardon, Cleansing through Almsgiving in Luke-Acts: Purity, Cornelius, and the Translation of Acts 15:9
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	Terrance Callan, "The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20,29, 21:25)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55.2 (April 1993): 284-297.
21	s
22	s
23	Friedrich Avemarie: The Apostolic Decree and the Jewishness of Luke’s Paul: On the Narrative Function of Acts 15:23–29; Cilicia: The First Christian Churches in Anatolia Mark WILSON
24	,,Bevor einer von Jakobus kam . . .": Anmerkungen zur textkritischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2,12
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	Callan
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	Ryan S. Schellenberg, "The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts," 193-213 (all the way through to 20:16)
36	Apologetische Erzählstrategien in Der Apostelgeschichte — Ein Neuer Blick Auf Acts 15:36-19:40
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s

Chapter 16	verse
1	Christopher Bryan, "A further look at Acts 16:1-3," Journal of Biblical Literature 107.2 (June 1988): 292-294; Shaye J.D. Cohen, "Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3): patristic exegesis, rabbinic law, and matrilineal descent," Journal of Biblical Literature 105.2 (June 1986): 251-268.
2	s
3	Bryan
4	s
5	s
6	The Route of Paul's Second Journey in Asia Minor: In the Steps of Robert Jewett and Beyond; "Accepting Prophecy: Paul's Response to Agabus with Insights from Valerius Maximus and Josephus" Kylie Crabbe Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2016; 39:188-208
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	The Narrator as "He," "Me," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles
11	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows
12	Fellows
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s

Chapter 17	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	“Examined the Scriptures”?: The Meaning of ἀνακρίνοντɛς τὰς γραφάς in Acts 17:11
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16–34 as Both Critique and Propaganda; Reading the Areopagus Speech in Acts 17 from the Perspective of Sacral Manumission of Slaves in Ancient Greece Andries G. van Aarde; Implied Audiences in the Areopagus Narrative Patrick Gray
17
18	Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32)
19	s
20	s
21	Athenian Curiosity (Acts 17:21)
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32)
33	s
34	David H. Gill, "Dionysios and Damaris: A Note on Acts 17:34," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.3 (July 1999): 483-490.

18
H. Dixon Slingerland, "Acts 18:1-18, the Gallio inscription, and absolute Pauline chronology," Journal of Biblical Literature 110.3 (Fall 1991): 439-449; H. Dixon Slingerland, "Acts 18:1-17 and Luedemann’s Pauline chronology," Journal of Biblical Literature 109.4 (Winter 1990): 686-690.

Chapter 18	verse
1	s
2	Der Aufenthalt von Priska und Aquila in Ephesus und die juristischen Rahmenbedingungen ihrer Rückkehr nach Rom
3	Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle's Tentmaking and Social Class
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows
8	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows; Fellows, ‘Renaming in Paul’s Churches: the case of Crispus-Sosthenes revisited’, TynBul 56.1 (2005); Myrou, ‘Sosthenes: The Former Crispus (?)’;
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, "Paul and Gallio," Journal of Biblical Literature 112.3 (Summer 1993): 315-317.
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows; Fellows, ‘Renaming in Paul’s Churches: the case of Crispus-Sosthenes revisited’, TynBul 56.1 (2005); Myrou, ‘Sosthenes: The Former Crispus (?)’;
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	"The Extra Words in Acts 18:21" (34 [1992] 247-9).
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	Further Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament
27	s
28	s

Chapter 19	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	Ryan S. Schellenberg, "The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts," 193-213
22	s
23	A Tale of Two Riots: The synkrisis of the Temples of Ephesus and Jerusalem in Acts [] Jeffrey M. Tripp; Robert F. Stoops, Jr., "Riot and assembly: the social context of Acts 19:23-41," Journal of Biblical Literature 108.1 (Spring 1989): 73-91.
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s

Chapter 20	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	"Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts," Richard G. Fellows
5	The Narrator as "He," "Me," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles
6	s
7	"THE USE OF SUNDAY FOR MEETINGS OF BELIEVERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT": A RESPONSE
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype Jerome H. Neyrey
21	s
22	Ryan S. Schellenberg, "The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts," 193-213
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	John J. Kilgallen, "Acts 20:35 and Thucydides 2.97.4," Journal of Biblical Literature 112.3 (Summer 1993): 312-314.
36	s
37	s
38	s

21
Devin L. White, "Confronting Oracular Contradiction in Acts 21:1-14," 27-46

Chapter 21	verse
1	Accepting Prophecy: Paul's Response to Agabus with Insights from Valerius Maximus and Josephus Kylie Crabbe Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2016; 39:188-208
2	s
3	s
4	! Especially Accepting Prophecy: Paul?s Response to Agabus with Insights from Valerius Maximus and Josephus Kylie Crabbe Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2016; 39:188-208
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	Callan
26	A Tale of Two Riots: The synkrisis of the Temples of Ephesus and Jerusalem in Acts 19–23 Jeffrey M. Tripp
27	Dean P. Bchard, "The disputed case against Paul: a redaction-critical analysis of Acts 21:27-22:29," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65.2 (April 2003): 232-250.
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s

Chapter 22	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	Dale C. Allison Jr., "Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel," 807-826
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
23	s
24	s
25	The Roman Base of Paul's Mission E. A. Judge
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	Bchard
30	s

23
David Daube, "On Acts 23: Sadducees and angels," Journal of Biblical Literature 109.3 (Fall 1990): 493-497.

Chapter 23	verse
1	STRANGE STARES: ΑΤΕΝΙΖΕΙΝ IN ACTS
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	Benedict Viviano, "Sadducees, angels, and resurrection (Acts 23:8-9)," Journal of Biblical Literature 111.3 (Fall 1992): 496-498.
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s

Chapter 24	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
26	s

Chapter 25	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s

Chapter 26	verse
1	s
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	s
12	Dale C. Allison Jr., "Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel," 807-826
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	esp. Dale C. Allison Jr., "Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel," 807-826
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	Daniel Lynwood Smith, "Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts," 177-191
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s

27
Aquatic Display: Navigating the Roman Imperial World in Acts 27

Chapter 27	verse
1	Susan Marie Praeder, "Acts 27:1-28:16: sea voyages in ancient literature and the theology of Luke-Acts," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.4 (Oct. 1984): 683-706.
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	James M. Beresford, "The Significance of the Fast in Acts 27:9," 155-166
10	s
11	s
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s
32	s
33	s
34	s
35	s
36	s
37	s
38	s
39	s
40	s
41	s
42	s
43	s
44	s

Chapter 28	verse
1	John J. Clabeaux, "The story of the Maltese viper and Luke's apology for Paul," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67.4 (Oct. 2005): 604-610.
2	s
3	s
4	s
5	s
6	s
7	s
8	s
9	s
10	s
11	Knut Backhaus, "Paulus und die Dioskuren (Apg 28.11): Über zwei denkwürdige Schutzpatrone des Evangeliums," 165-182
12	s
13	s
14	s
15	s
16	s
17	s
18	s
19	s
20	s
21	s
22	s
23	s
24	s
25	s
26	s
27	s
28	s
29	s
30	s
31	s