Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-22-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem to miss the point. If it can be established that the book called Acts is not history then all references to the Churches are likely to be false, either in chronology or reality.

I don't think this follows. For example, "Tom Sawyer" is known to be fiction. But that doesn't imply that every location it mentions, every event, etc. is fiction. Most fictional works build on reality rather than replacing it.

Acts may very well be fictional, but that doesn't imply that the churches are as well.

So, the churches could have been there and Paul never wrote a single epistle to them.
Or Paul wrote epistles for other churches not affiliated with Jesus.
Or maybe the churches were established in the 2nd century.
And there are many other possibilities.

If 'Tom Sawyer' is a fiction novel, then this disclaimer is usually written, 'This novel is a work of fiction. Names and characters are the product of the author's imagination and any resemblance to actual persons living or dead, is entirely coincidental'.

It is not necessary to find that every event, name or place is fictitious in a book considered to be fictional. All that is necessary is to show the book is not reliable or credible.

And even though Acts is considered to be of little historical value, today, it must be remembered that the Church Fathers regarded the names, events and chronology of events of Acts to be hugely significant and of immeasureable historical importance.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies book 3.12-14, appears to agree with the events, names and chronology as laid out by the author of Acts.

spamandham · 08-22-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, the churches could have been there and Paul never wrote a single epistle to them.
Or Paul wrote epistles for other churches not affiliated with Jesus.
Or maybe the churches were established in the 2nd century.
And there are many other possibilities.

I certainly don't disagree with any of this. But what is most probable given what we have?

Doug Shaver · 08-23-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

this disclaimer is usually written, 'This novel is a work of fiction. Names and characters are the product of the author's imagination and any resemblance to actual persons living or dead, is entirely coincidental'.

That is the custom nowadays. It is a very recent custom.

Rich Oliver · 08-23-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
So many unanswered questions.

So what is your purpose?
.... OR

You could want to debate evangelicals or Christian apologists as to the historical validity of their religion. In that case, you probably want to stick to a story line as close to the standard version as possible, in order to keep your message simple and not throw too much at them at once. In that case, you might as well say that Paul wrote in the middle of the first century to various churches, etc. You can agree with most of the standard Christian narrative without agreeing that there is any higher truth to the religion, and you can focus on the real weaknesses of their religion without asking them to bite off more than they can chew.

I don't think its even worth bringing in the epistles. I think its best to hammer them on the Gospels, their glaring ommisions, nothing on stem cell research or nuclear weopons, their contradictions inaccuracies and incoherent muddle. However I'm personally a lot more interested in converting Muslims than Christians.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.