What happened to the suicide thread? Did anon actually off himself?

hi, i'm new to christianity so i've got a few questions how did Satan rebel if all angels have perfect will? and how come God uses angels at all instead of doing it himself? also i'm kind of confused about sin and such, God made us and knew exactly how things would go down, so how come he allows people to sin and get condemned to hell and such? i feel like i have an intuitive reason as to why, but i can't put my finger on it thanks in advance

>>11098 >how did Satan rebel if all angels have perfect will? angels dont have perfect will, they have free will much like humans. >how come God uses angels at all instead of doing it himself? to my knowledge He only uses angels when its more convenient >God made us and knew exactly how things would go down, so how come he allows people to sin and get condemned to hell and such? good question, and one few people know how to answer. In order to find out youll have to first understand the "Philosophy of God" or "Balance Theory" which is basically the idea that God is a perfect balance of many positive yet conflicting virtues. For example Justice and Mercy, its impossible to have 100% of both at the same time so therefore they must be balanced. Long story short, God loves humanity thus He created us but He also knows that not all humans will love Him back so He needs a way to get rid of those who dont, but at the same time He still loves them and this is where Hell comes into play and also where things become blurry because we dont actually know for sure what Hell is. In my opinion it is not a eternal punishment but rather a eternal destruction of the soul. This theory not only coincides with the beliefs of the early Church fathers (to my knowledge) but it also doesnt contradict the morality of God. So basically God destroys the souls of the non-believers which balances things out.

>>11098 >how did Satan rebel if all angels have perfect will? They don't. AFAICT from scripture, they aren't the same in 'free' will as us humans are. They are servants of the Most High. That's why there's no salvation for Satan and the 1/3 of the angels who rebelled with him against God -- they usurped their estate. >and how come God uses angels at all instead of doing it himself? I don't find that to be nearly as interesting a question as the more fundamental one IMO: >How come God uses human beings at all? Plainly, God is entirely self-sufficient. He has perfect society and love among Himself, and he has no lack of anything whatsoever. Apparently, He's pleased to use 'these jars of clay' to perfect His will on Earth. https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-7.htm I think it's a sovereignty thing personally. 'Adam' literally means clay. >tl;dr Man has authority on the Earth God fashioned him from and gave to him to rule over. >God made us and knew exactly how things would go down, so how come he allows people to sin and get condemned to hell and such? Very deep, very fundamental question Anon. Free will is like that. Having a robot that repeated I love you! whenever you clicked the remote wouldn't be real love now, would it. OTOH, since he means to take us Believers out of this 'playpen' (to wit; this life, this universe) and help us stand up straight, it's important that we pass the test in this life by this most powerful creature Satan, first. That way in the New Heavens and the New Earth, it will be literally impossible for us to sin again after we've been test with this life, and with the refining furnace of Jesus Christ's own judgement and cleansing. I hope that helps Anon, cheers.

>>11098 Because they rather do their wills than do God's. Knowing the consequences doesnt change anything, plenty of people also know the consequences and they still choose hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_eTbkrR-g

I'm deciding on visiting a church. I'm not sure of all the denominations, but the Catholic doctrine is perhaps closest to my heart (out of all that I know of), Orthodox coming second. Does denomination matter, if so, which is the true church? Then touching on Catholicism itself, there are many smaller organizations in the Church itself: Benedictines, Franciscans, Norbertines, etc. What's with that? A Norbertine church is the closest to me, should I start attending and get baptized there? One thing I don't like and fear about Catholic churches is their worship of the Pope, and even worse of the Pope of this age, who I believe is a heretic, then again I've heard some interesting opinions that the current few Popes weren't the real Popes, but "anti-popes" of the end times fulfilling the prophecies (vaticancatholic.com and mgr.org). Could Anons share their knowledge on the matter with me and enlighten me?

>>11146 >Benedictines, Franciscans, Norbertines, etc. What's with that? Those are monks.

how do i fast when i work a physically demanding job with long hours, without depriving myself of energy and nutrition

>>11153 I don't know the answer to your question but i'd say to ask your doctor because you can get permanent issues from fasting incorrectly.

I've had it with god and his shit. I told him to stop being such a niggerfaggot and to start helping me. Undoubtedly he won't, because he's very incompetent, with the iq of a nigger. I've had it with his shit.

How can god tell us he'll punish us, when it's him that created us, and him that created this hell-earth instead of a proper planet to learn on, and it's him that created non-whites and women. Why should we be scared of him, when it's him committing all the evils against us. he is the one abusing us.

Why follow god's laws, if he can't even have the slightest courtesy of shining some light into your life. Why doesn't he follow MY laws instead of being such a nigger.

If we need physical stuff to survive, then why doesn't god provide any to me? Why has he taken away everything I had(job, house, money, health, appearance, and everything else)? Even Job had a happy ending. But apparently none for me.

I'm done talking to god until he stops being such a faggot. The ONLY thing I asked of him is to shine a little bit of his light in my life. But he never does. Everything is always shit.

God will help you. You just have to take your meds schizo.

>>11190 Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Everything good comes from God, so if there is anything good in your life then God has blessed you. For example your lively hood is a blessing.

why is God a trinity i still dont get it? like why not a duality or a quaternity or such

>>11254 There's no necessity in God. He doesn't 'have' to be any way whatsoever. He is triune because that is what He has chosen to be since eternity, and this is what is revealed in the sacred Scriptures.

>>11254 Because there are only three distinct persons described in the bible, if there were only two it would be a duality.

>>11268 >use Tor >go to the Israeli site like anon wants >ACCESS DENIED I suppose their paranoia is well-earned tbh.

>>11268 I'll believe it when I see it. No doubt this is a sign of the times though.

People fall away from God, because He doesn't shine any of His light in their lives. They struggle and follow God's laws, and understand them, but then God just sends the world and it's demons after His sons. This makes them believe that He either doesn't exist, is incompetent, or is somewhat evil. I curse God every day. I didn't ask for any of this, and I revoked His permission to keep me on Earth. But still, He never speaks to me or does anything positive in my life. I'm not asking for material things - I just want Him to show me that He exists, and that all of this is still part of His plan - but He never answers. I'm completely alone, but I suppose it's better to believe in the possibility of God's existence and that He's looking after me, than to have to face the reality of the world being cold and brutal and realistic.

>>11271 >I just want Him to show me that He exists, and that all of this is still part of His plan maybe this is apart of His plan.

are there any other non-cannon books that talk about the end times like Revelation?

>>11271 Stop cursing and blaspheming the God that loves you and created you, and maybe things will go better for you.

>>6836 What does the word "violence" mean in the bible?

>>11279 2 Esdras

>>11298 do you mind giving me the run down?

>>11303 >II Esdras (or IV Esdras) was written in Hebrew, but only various translations from a lost Greek version are preserved. The Latin version (in which chapters 1–2 and 15–16 have been added by a Christian hand) at one time was printed at the end of the Latin Bible. The book consists of six visions attributed to the biblical Ezra (who is, at the beginning of the book, erroneously identified with Salathiel, the father of Zerubbabel, a leader of the returning exiles from Babylon). The tragedy of his nation evokes in the heart of the author questions about God’s righteousness, the human condition, the meaning of history, and the election of Israel; “Ezra” does not find consolation and full answer in the words of the angel who was sent to him, which also contain revelations about the last days. In the fourth vision “Ezra” sees a mourning woman; she disappears and a city (the New Jerusalem) stands in her place. In the fifth vision a monstrous eagle appears, the symbol of the Roman Empire, and a lion, the symbol of the Messiah. The final victory of the Messiah is described in the last vision of the man (Son of man) coming from the sea. https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/II-Esdras-or-IV-Esdras

Bible books in order of completion. [[Enoch]] Job Genesis Exodus [[Jubilees]] Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua [[Jasher]] Ruth Judges I Samuel / I Kings II Samuel / II Kings I Chronicles Proverbs [Wisdom / Wisdom of Solomon] Song of Songs Ecclesiastes I Kings / III Kings Obdias / Obadiah Joel Amos Jonas / Jonah Osee / Hosea Michaeas / Micah [Tobit] Esaias / Isaiah Naum / Nahum [Judith] Sophonias / Zephaniah Ambacum / Habakkuk [Prayer of Manasseh] II Chronicles II Kings / IV Kings Psalms [Baruch] Jeremias / Jeremiah Lamentations Jezekiel / Ezekiel Daniel Aggaeus / Haggai Zacharias / Zechariah Esther [I Esdras] [[II Esdras]] Ezra Nehemiah Malachias / Malachi [Sirach] [III Macabees] [II Maccabees] [IV Maccabees] [Maccabees] Matthew Mark Luke John James [[Didache]] I Thessalonians II Thessalonians I Corinthians Galatians Romans / I Romans II Corinthians Acts Ephesians / I Ephesians Philippians / I Philippians Colossians Philemon I Timothy I Peter Titus II Timothy II Peter Hebrews Jude I John II John III John [[Barnabas]] [[III Corinthians / Clement]] [[II Ephesians / I Ignatius]] [[Magnesians / II Ignatius]] [[Trallians / III Ignatius]] [[II Romans / IV Ignatius]] [[Philadelphians / V Ignatius]] [[Smyrneans / VI Ignatius]] [[Polycarp / VII Ignatius]] [[II Philippians / Polycarp]] Revelation [[Diognetus]] [[Sheperd of Hermes]] [I Martydom / Martyrdom of Ignatius]] [[II Martyrdom / Martyrdom of Polycarp]]

Revelation should come before Clement.

Oh I guess I didn't even bother sorting the 4 good news accounts. Well it's a work in progress but I do want to sort the Bible into a better chronological order than how we usually have it. It should be sorted by the end date of each book. So even if it was written later wherever it ends that's the priority yeah.

Not a question but good news: >The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works! >per someone at Bible Hub they hope to have the digital edition ready by early 2023. https://archive.ph/Lzs02

Letter of James to the Jewish diaspera 45 AD The letter written by "James the Just" brother of Jesus to Jesus-believing Jews scattered around. Written around a decade after the death and resurrection of Jesus. John writes that Jesus' own brothers did not believe in him, however Paul writes the resurected Jesus later appeared to James. James was a major leader along with Peter in the Church at Jerusalem. This letter was written before the council of Jerusalem 50 AD mentioned by Luke in Acts of the Apostles. The council confirmed that Jesus was saviour for the gentiles and Jewish traditionalism was not needed for salvation and both Jews and gentiles were made equal and capable of receiving God's Spirit. Peter says circumcision and the law of Moses are not burdened to the gentiles. James' letter is therefore still very traditionalist in works and law as related to salvation though does not contradict Christianity but statements were made clearer by Paul's later letters. The letter is a message from a major Church leader to the rest of the church which at time was reletivly small and vastly Jewish. Written to those who had known Jesus over the 3 years he taught and 10 or so years since as believers and Apostles with the divine gift speaking other languages preached and sent out the Good News. James' loosely references many of Jesus' parables and teachings before any of the established accounts were written but likely small basic sayings and events of Jesus may have been written down by the Church to be remembered at this point. in 54 AD Paul references Jesus' death and resurrection for sins as being in writings. James does not mention the death and resurrection of Jesus but does however refer to himself as a servant of God and Jesus who he calls Lord rather than Messiah and alludes to his return indicating he clearly saw Jesus as divine. The letter along with the first half of the book of Acts represents the early period of followers of Jesus before Paul's missionary Journeys which began 47 AD. The fact the religion survivded those 15 years proves how real the ressurection was. If they all lied about the resurection and if Jesus performed no miricles you'd think the whole thing would die out pretty quickly. The alternative reality is these people kept meeting together lying to one another, agreeing to all be in on a lie for years and years while being attacked and loving a man who apparently mislead them for 3 years. But the truth is James like the others were assured at last Jesus was Lord by his resurrection, as a simple healing here or there could easily be dismissed as it was by his enemies surely it's hard to call a human healer the God known to the Jews, the great invisible supreme God nor was Jesus what many Jews demanded in their cultural way at the time from the Messiah. Jesus' did not build an empire like Muhammad or even a small nation in fact Jesus to the outside observer failed. Jesus despite leading a humble life also made the greatest claims one could make especially by humbly referring to himself by proxy as Messiah and God, as Judge of the world and as all righteous people being gifts to him. His early followers staying the course for 15 years are testament to his truth by resurrection and it's steady growth truth of the Holy Spirit. As Paul and Peter remark he showed himself to a select few and about 400 total had seen him alive again. James died 62 AD being stoned to death in Jerusleum asking the Lord to forgive his attackers.

I think it's about time Christians stop listening to secular skeptics when it comes to chronology of the New Testament. Matthew was an accountant, he probably was interested In recording the events and sayings of Jesus while they travelled. Though it was no doubt a team effort especially after Jesus ascended. Matthew and the other apostles wrote it in Aramaic and of course Matthew wouldn't put his name on the copies because why would he, so he can get famous or get stoned to death. But early Christians of the later century attest to his authorship. Paul references Jesus dying for our sins in being "writings" and while you can get that from the Old Testament and Matthew he then says according to the "writings" he died and rose three days later which has to be a reference to one of the accounts of Jesus. Matthew Mark and Luke record Jesus saying he would raise in three days. Matthew was probably written 50 AD at the very latest but probably closer to just a few years or less after Jesus. The only reason people say otherwise is because they don't like that fact, but if we really believe the account of Jesus then it follows there's no reason why Matthew wouldn't be written while the memory of Jesus was fresh in fact the outline of Matthew likely written while Jesus was alive. Mark shortened the account for gentiles and added what he knew. As far as we know Matthew could have shortened his own account taking out all the prophetic references for gentles. Another reason for an early date frankly is I think Matthew seems a bit rushed and sloppy trying to prove Jesus was messiah. He stops to reference the scriptures but many times Jesus' own words which fulfill prophecy just slip by Matthew and I think Matthew sort of stretches a bit with trying to relate things from scripture as messianic. Afterall one really doesn't understand all that Jesus fulfilled and referenced why and how simply by reading the New Testament. You still need to read the old prophets to understand. Matthew was written to prove Jesus was messiah more so then the other three. But honestly he could have done a better job, I think it was written early in a rush for the Jews rejecting Jesus. The Didache quotes Matthew and I'd put that at 65 AD. What we call "Matthew" was the main source, it is literally the Q document, written and finished by the Jerusalem church with help from some rabbis like Nicodemous. We need to just think the obvious instead of starting from the secular skeptic ideas and working down. Traditionally 37 AD has been used, I'd say could be even earlier. Look at the arguments elsewhere. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/ask-a-scholar/when-was-the-gospel-of-matthew-written.aspx >Well it's based on Mark which was written 60 AD Says who? Why would you think that? >It has well developed Christology therefore it's late. What? These are the people who say there are no early Christian writings, so how do you know how quickly "Christology" was developed. >Matthew 22:7 references a city being destroyed therefore it must have been during the Jewish Revolt. ... Matthew 22:7 is a parable... ""ask a scholar"" These guys are clowns. These are the people you trust when you as a Christian go around using terms like "pre-Markian" stop believing idiots who hate Jesus. Doubt is a sin, a crime, these people are doubters.

>>11387 I think parts of Luke were produced first tbh because it's not as organized as Matthew, then Matthew formalized it for the church in Jerusalem, Mark was a shortened version of Matthew, and later on the proto-Luke was incorporated into Luke the Evangelist's compilation with Acts to provide a thorough account of the history of Christianity (like he says at the beginning of his gospel) for the gentile church that was superior to Mark. So "Q" was written into Luke and we don't have a copy of it because scribes thought it was just an incomplete copy of Luke and either finished it or threw it out. If you look at a list of the content of reconstructed Q the material is basically continuous in Luke while it's fragmented across multiple chapters in Matthew. Lastly, there were shortened manuscripts of Luke around in the early second century that were abused by Marcion, giving the proto-orthodox church reason to be suspicious of retaining any Q document as a possible heretical redaction.

A single year is a long time, let alone a decade, you'll have some documents written by then after seeing Jesus ascend oh might just write a bit on that. If written decades later Matthew would have been much more thought out and really hit every point of the Messiah he could. "What do you mean Matthew could have been more thought out it is literally written by God." Hmm. Be reminded that scholars believe Daniel was written in 2nd century BC simply because prophecy can't exist despite the fact at 2nd century BC Daniel still references the future collapse of Rome and there's still future events in Daniel so from their perspective Daniel is fake prophecy that in truth was history but randoms parts of it is guess work of the future just a few certain parts. Okay. And I see Christians accept all these dates and "oh all the scriptures were written during the return to Jerusleum" or whatever and they just wrote all this stuff all the specific ages and geneologies in Genesis 5 and so on just made up. And it just became truth. It's all ridiculous and these scholars shoot themselves in the foot they're gonna regret not taking it seriously. We read documents from 2000 years ago about Jesus but the idea that people were reading Moses from 1500 years ago is somehow impossible. Your ignorance will be your stumbling block. Foolishness let me catch no one speaking this foolishness from "academics" oooh yes ooh must bow down ooooh yes New Testament scholar ooooh.

>>11420 I think Luke and Acts were written close together which means Luke is later since Acts of course has to been at least past 60 AD. Luke says in Acts that he already sent his Gospel account of Jesus to Theophilus. Calls it a former account and I just feel he probably wrote to this patron Theophilus and then was commissioned to write more shortly after. Luke and then Acts probably a year or two later. Theophilus being a patron of course by how he refers to him. Of course Luke being first makes a lot of sense if Theophilus paid for Luke to write his Gospel. 1. Why would Theophilus need to do this if other Gospels already existed. 2. How cheap would it be for Luke to take already existing material and send it to Theophilus. Although being the events in the Gospel are true what exactly is expected in terms of differences. 3 years is not very much time although yes John says Jesus did tons of things. Luke was likely not a witness to Jesus so all he can do is go by what was already written and what witnesses could add for him. In such a case why would Theophilus ask someone like Luke to write an account of Jesus anyways. If Theophilus asked him then all he could do is go off other writing and reports and he does have a lot that isn't in Mark or Matthew. Theophilus could have just been a bit dismissive of the Gospels demanding one be written specifically for him or he could have been a great guy wanting to get this stuff written afterall both Like and Acts which were written to him didn't disappear into history, Theophilius could have desired to get them mass produced.

>>11443 My guess: He found the other gospels somewhat sparse, and the material that's unique to Luke is precisely what he wanted. So he paid Luke to go around and interview witnesses and write down what they say and combine it with other accounts for as close to a full history as possible.

Friendly wood elf with book of level 4 healing spells says worship your bishop.

Silence lay person! You speak out of turn in front of your Bishop. You shall be denied Eucharist 3 weeks for your insolence. Deacons, bring me the rod of punisbments and flail of penance.

I've nearly sorted everything. As for Hebrews now. Why is the letter without authorship. It is unlikely to have lost the name by accident. To the point people say Priscilla wrote it and her name removed because she's a woman but there's problems with that idea. I see the main context here: "Know ye that the brother Timotheus is released, with whom, if he may come more shortly, I will see you." This person was clearly writing to someone or people, you don't just send a letter those days with no name and only this for context outside the sermon. 60 AD: Paul and Timothy are under house arrest in Rome. 61 AD: Paul and Timothy don't mention being prisoners. And they are with Luke and Demas now. AAAAH I just thought about it while typing this. I know what happened. Demas was never mentioned in Acts. Paul and Timothy go to Rome. Luke implies he was there with them. Demas is mentioned three times and look at the evolution. 60 AD " Markus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lukas, my fellow-workmen!" 61 AD "Salute you doth Lukas, the beloved physician, and Demas;" 64 AD "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia." "Luke the beloved... and Demas." and then a few years later Paul has no good words. Acts is a very optimistic book which is why if it was written after Paul's death it wouln't mention his death plus the patron he wrote to may have already known and wanted more info after hearing of Paul's death. Being optimistic I think Luke snubbed Demas from any mention in acts because of what he did. "ooh it's not like everyone gets mentioned there's so many peolple, what about this Aristarchus character mentioned in Paul's letters huh!?" Oh but Aristarchus is mentioned in Acts, three times despite never doing anything, just mentioned as being there. So is it possible Luke didn't want to mention Demas on purpose because of his actions Paul alludes to. AND IS IT POSSIBLE that the name of the author of Hebrews was removed because it was..Demas. *lightning strike* dun dun dun. Demas went to Rome to retrieve Timothy, while at Rome he wrote Hebrews. He didn't mention Paul because he didn't care about him. Unlike every other Paul letter Hebrews addresses no churches or people it claims no authority makes no acusations. Demas' name was removed because he went apostate. Well at least he abandoned Paul and who knows. There's a few other things but it's just a silly theory that came suddenly, other people have probably thought about it I don't know. I do know I'll put Hebrews as 61 AD and at this point I think looking at all the arguments I have sorted out the New Testament book timeline well enough and I think it is much better when you read them in that order.

I don't know if there's something I'm missing that just debunks my theory right away but Paul mentions Demas as a fellow workman along side big names like Luke and Mark he was clearly not a small fish. And the Church chose him to go to Rome to retrieve Timothy or meet up with Paul and Timothy and once they were out of prison he probably just wanted to go back home. He was some kind of preacher or pastor or evangelist. Have we not seen those fall away from the faith. I believe the Bible always gives context if you look hard enough. Here we have an example of a preacher loving the present world and abandoning Paul whatever that really means. Paul wrote that in his death letter. I used to place it just before Nero's persecution but obviously it was during and so Demas couldn't handle the persecution and left Rome and maybe became a backsliding Christian. Not repenting for running from persecution and if he did write Hebrews while in Rome and didn't mention Paul clearly he didn't like him and he justified himself leaving him. Ain't that a fun theory. The Bible giving us an example of Demas people. He also could have written it at one other point but yeah. The timeline stuff givin me a headache, I should start doing Bible Prophecy next because Daniel and Revelation are easy peesy. I also wanted to mention the problem of Revelation when it was written.

Domitian is the king mentioned in Revelation and not Nero. Of course we have historical reference that that's when Revelation was written. Domitian is also just as antiChrist like as Nero. However it is strange since historical reference also says John gave Revelation to the Churches after his banishment ended which was after Domitian died. So to the Churches the King that still is wouldn't be a relevant passage anymore. It's possible the spirit of the antiChrist is what is mentioned, Ceaser in a general sense is the sixth king who is. "But Nero = 666!" Nonsense, the way you calculate this is illogical. "But the beginning of Revelation says it must come to pass soon." Well of that applies to the whole of Revelation it never happened, the literal translation is behoove to past which is more like it must come to past so long as conditions are right and so since the seven churches repented they avoided judgement. But that's all that had to come soon. The first section of Revelation are the things that were to come to past shortly which was about the seven churches then it makes a clear change into the prophetic vision. We know the seven churches repented after receiving John's Revelation because they all came to him afterward desiring him to write his own testimony of Lord Jesus. The main historical reference is in a commentary of Revelation by Victorinus in 259 AD who speaks with common certainty of when John wrote. The other problem for a 66 AD Nero date is that Timothy was still leading the Church in Ephesus. Paul's final letter didn't indicate complete failure and debauchery of the churches like Revelation describes.

As for the pool in the Gospel of John. John says "there is a pool in Jeruslum by the sheepgate". If he wrote this after 70 AD it wouldn't make sense since Jeruslum was completely leveled by the Romans, there was no longer a pool. In fact an eye witness Jewish rebel fighter at the time says literally nothing of Jerusalem was left besides the Roman fort which destroyed it also known as the "Temple mount" but that's another story. Should we expect John or anyone around him to know this and insist on saying "there was a pool". They knew of the destruction of Jerusalem but not the extent of it that it was total. There is also perhaps no need to mention the destruction of the Temple. The letter of Barnabas mentions the Temple destruction but only in its own section. When he recounts Jesus at the temple he makes no reference of its destruction. Likewise John doesn't mention the destruction when recording Jesus. From Barnabas' letter we also know Jewish Christians understood the Temple was old and dead already and unimportant.

Another reason Luke could have wrote after Paul's death. Luke never mentions James' death. Luke mentions James as far as 57 AD, Luke says him and Paul went to the Jerusalem church to meet with James and the elders. He doesn't mention Peter oddly enough, maybe Peter really did travel to literal Babylon during this time with Mark and Silas or somewhere east. James likely died in 62 AD right after Festus like Josephus says, once they heard Festus was gone the sanhedrin took control. Though keep in mind Luke does randomly mention Apostle James' death in 44 AD. So not mentioning Peter, Paul or James dying surely is crazy. Acts ends with saying Paul preached in Rome for two years. Paul said he'd go to Spain and Clement clearly implies that he did. He must have went to Spain for only 1 or 2 years before returning to Rome being arrested and dying. Luke doesn't mention he left to Spain. You'd think he would if he was writing this while Paul was in Spain. Luke must have finished Acts by the end of those two years he preached in Rome. James likely died around that time but the news never reached him to include it.