|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-20-2003, 09:24 AM
|
#1 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Acts of the apostles?
Some mythicists claim that the acts of Jesus are no evidence for his career, because they are merely the acts of the apostles re-worded as the acts of Jesus (I think Doherty at least makes this argument; I'm not positive about anyone else.)
If this is the case, then why are all the apocryphal acts of the apostles (Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, etc.) late-2nd-century documents, at best? |
|
|
12-30-2003, 10:49 AM
|
#2 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
|
Wow, no replies...does this mean I win?
|
|
|
|
12-30-2003, 11:43 AM
|
#3 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
No, it means no one could figure out what your point was.
Could you locate a quote from Doherty that indicates what his argument is? Or any other mythicist who makes that argument, which I don't recall right now? Or any historicist who uses the "acts of Jesus" (meaning what?) as evidence? |
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
