Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 02-22-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Question: Has Klaus Schilling ever done anything more than assert?

Spreading the pearls before people unable to understand that Jesus is the Logos of Hellenic philosophy would be a pointless.

Then what exactly are you spreading? (Something does come to mind....)

Ben.

DevilsAdvocate · 02-22-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

.... These positions hardly add credibility to our positions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who is this our? Please note that aa5874 speaks only for himself and has been critiqued by both atheists and Christians.

That is so correct. I represent myself, no-one else.

Perhaps an awkward wording. I was referring to any of us who would discuss or debate and the credibility of argument.

DevilsAdvocate · 02-22-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Spreading the pearls before people unable to understand that Jesus is the Logos of Hellenic philosophy would be a pointless.

Then what exactly are you spreading? (Something does come to mind....)

Ben.

Maybe you now show your insight...

So do you hold that Jesus as the stoic Logos of the time is inconsistant with any Christian interpretation? Or that he takes that place in fabricated teachings?

It seems to ne that it is easily seen as a theme of Paulline letters, Hebrews, John and I John ... and most other epistles when compared to some contemporary stoic writings and Roman social order.

aa5874 · 02-22-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I thought Acts was written long after 70 CE, long after Claudius and Nero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenC Smith

Well, I suspect it was.

So, why did you think this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think much of the support for Romans viewing Christians as a Jewish subsect comes from Acts.

And I think that Acts is also regarded as fiction by scholars.

Quote:

It would seem that Suetonius' and Tacitus' "Christians' had nothing to do with Jesus Christ, whose history was probably written or fabricated also after Nero and Claudius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenC Smith

Thank you for patiently explaining your view of early Christianity to me yet again; I appreciate your persistence in beating on my head with your bare assertions. I may, after all, have missed your meaning the first 1,089 times through.
Ben.

Well, after 1090 times, if I can depend on your count, you still don't get it. I make no bare assertions, you know that biblical scholars claim gMark, regarded as the earliest of the Synoptics, was likely to have been written after Claudius' and Nero's "Christians".

Bare assertions! Stop beating yourself up.

DevilsAdvocate · 02-22-2008, 03:22 PM

Interesting... If Acts was fabricated long after 70 CE ... they chose to close it with Jerusalem unpunished for the crucifixion of their Christ figure by the destruction by Rome in 70CE.

They left their martyred hero Paul extant and in prison in Rome, not having been released according to tradition and preached their fabricated religion in Spain ... and later martyred in the first century CE.

The supposed heroic matyrdom of the rest of the 12 accomplished by tradition by the end of the century... is unmentioned

Now if you choose to examine the context and content... Luke and Acts were an orderly collection of extant writings and traditions collected by a greek speaking scribe/physician. The content listed above would suggest a setting sometime in the last years of the first century... an interesting accomplishment for writers in the time of Constantine given the technology of the time. Is anybody aware of any anachronisms in Luke or Acts to support this position?

DevilsAdvocate · 02-22-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I thought Acts was written long after 70 CE, long after Claudius and Nero.

So, why did you think this:

And I think that Acts is also regarded as fiction by scholars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenC Smith

Thank you for patiently explaining your view of early Christianity to me yet again; I appreciate your persistence in beating on my head with your bare assertions. I may, after all, have missed your meaning the first 1,089 times through.
Ben.

Well, after 1090 times, if I can depend on your count, you still don't get it. I make no bare assertions, you know that biblical scholars claim gMark, regarded as the earliest of the Synoptics, was likely to have been written after Claudius' and Nero's "Christians".

Bare assertions! Stop beating yourself up.

Bare assertions because you reference "scholars" without regard to the scholar, the oposition of other scholars, or the legitimacy of their arguments. There is no concensus by all "scholars" to the timeline you suggest, and many ... even those that are not apologists... would disagree with it. You refer only to "scholars" you choose to have faith in and that support your desired position. Is this not the tactic of unscrupulous Christian apologists?

Toto · 02-22-2008, 03:38 PM

I assume that Acts is theological fiction, but that does not mean that there is no history in it. However, extracting the history is a complicated matter.

Acts does not directly mention the destruction of the Temple, but it was clearly written or compiled well after the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who do refer to the destruction of the Temple. One might infer from this that it was written well after 70 CE, when that event was no longer at the center of attention. Most non-apologetic scholarship dates Acts between 110 and 150 CE.

Yes, Paul is still alive at the end, but why end your uplifting tale on a downer?

There is no indication that Luke-Acts was written by a physician.

DevilsAdvocate · 02-22-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I assume that Acts is theological fiction, but that does not mean that there is no history in it. However, extracting the history is a complicated matter.

Why assume it is fiction? That is a beginning premise that restricts possibilities. Is it not just a likely that it is a compilation of records or an ancient "historian's" compilation of accounts based on real events...given ancient historians' potential for aggrandizement...

Acts does not directly mention the destruction of the Temple, but it was clearly written or compiled well after the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who do refer to the destruction of the Temple. One might infer from this that it was written well after 70 CE, when that event was no longer at the center of attention. Most non-apologetic scholarship dates Acts between 110 and 150 CE.

Yes... the prediction of the destruction of the temple in the synoptics likely drawn from the same source. Interesting it is not in John... Apologetic scholars have some valid scholarship. Why dismiss them outright?

Yes, Paul is still alive at the end, but why end your uplifting tale on a downer?

But the heros that the authors want to have people look to are all martyrs. That was glorious to them and would end on an up beat with their holy death and assured salvation... Why not finish the story on an up beat with glorious examples of self-sacrifice? Is that not an "anti-apologetic" dismissal of contextual evidence? I hear it from Christians all the time. Fabricate an excuse and dismiss the evidence.

There is no indication that Luke-Acts was written by a physician.

Except in the Pauline letters... if I recall correctly...

mountainman · 02-22-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even Eusebius thought "Paul "was real.

Did Tolkien think that "Bilbo Baggins" was real?

Best wishes

Pete Brown

mountainman · 02-22-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no indication that Luke-Acts was written by a physician.

There are a number of indications to think that a number
of the "UnConstantinian Acts of the Apostles" were written
by physicians. In fact, there are ample references to show
that the authors of the "UnConstantinian Acts of the Apostles",
as a set of literature, demonstrated far more knowledge of the
healing and physician traditions, than the "miraculous events"
of the "Constantinian Acts and Gospels" found in his "bible".

Why is this?

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2008, 03:22 PM	#155
DevilsAdvocate Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 170	Interesting... If Acts was fabricated long after 70 CE ... they chose to close it with Jerusalem unpunished for the crucifixion of their Christ figure by the destruction by Rome in 70CE. They left their martyred hero Paul extant and in prison in Rome, not having been released according to tradition and preached their fabricated religion in Spain ... and later martyred in the first century CE. The supposed heroic matyrdom of the rest of the 12 accomplished by tradition by the end of the century... is unmentioned Now if you choose to examine the context and content... Luke and Acts were an orderly collection of extant writings and traditions collected by a greek speaking scribe/physician. The content listed above would suggest a setting sometime in the last years of the first century... an interesting accomplishment for writers in the time of Constantine given the technology of the time. Is anybody aware of any anachronisms in Luke or Acts to support this position?

02-22-2008, 03:38 PM	#157
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I assume that Acts is theological fiction, but that does not mean that there is no history in it. However, extracting the history is a complicated matter. Acts does not directly mention the destruction of the Temple, but it was clearly written or compiled well after the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who do refer to the destruction of the Temple. One might infer from this that it was written well after 70 CE, when that event was no longer at the center of attention. Most non-apologetic scholarship dates Acts between 110 and 150 CE. Yes, Paul is still alive at the end, but why end your uplifting tale on a downer? There is no indication that Luke-Acts was written by a physician.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.