Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 03-09-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Ok, by your logic when do you date the Book of Acts?

On what can logically be deduced from the "evidence" of the reference to the Egyptian, after 56 CE.

Jeffrey

That makes sense, the following document can be used to date Luke before the 2nd century (and perhaps Acts if Luke was the author).

Papyrus Bodmer XV

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I could, but I am sorely disinclined to do so, since it would only encourage what seems to be a rampant practice here among the majority of posters-- and that's never to go to a library and to do some real research in the published liteature, but instead to limit oneself only to what one can find on the web.

I have no interest in facilitating that practice.

Jeffrey

While I am really thankful to professionals like yourself for their time and thoughts on a lot of matters, and in principle do agree with putting in effort to gain knowledge of things, this only works in countries/cities with decent library systems. I'm not in one of them, and I'm sure a lot of others aren't either. I do order books online, but from a monetary point, it's not easy being part of a world with local currency of low value, high shipping costs, and the relatively high price of text books.

Only a few countries belong to the 1st-world. ETA: Finding information online is not a limit I have imposed on myself.

My apologies. I was speaking to those here who here who have imposed this limit upon themselves, and who, unlike you, have the temerity to claim that they are well grounded in scholarship and can speak authoritatively on matters NT.

Quote:

Hence, my thankfulness for people with resources that expound on issues.

The substance of my article is within the book that Toto has drawn attention to as being readable online here. Begin with p. 160.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

On what can logically be deduced from the "evidence" of the reference to the Egyptian, after 56 CE.

Jeffrey

That makes sense, the following document can be used to date Luke before the 2nd century (and perhaps Acts if Luke was the author).

Papyrus Bodmer XV

Umm .. this papyrus is dated as having been copied between 175-225 C.E. How can it then be used to date Luke before the second century when it is possibly early third century?

Jeffrey

arnoldo · 03-09-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

That makes sense, the following document can be used to date Luke before the 2nd century (and perhaps Acts if Luke was the author).

Papyrus Bodmer XV

Umm .. this papyrus is dated as having been copied between 175-225 C.E. How can it then be used to date Luke before the second century when it is possibly early third century?

Jeffrey

You are correct, this copy of Luke (it's not the original, right?) can be dated second century or early third century.

juergen · 03-09-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Hence, my thankfulness for people with resources that expound on issues.

The substance of my article is within the book that Toto has drawn attention to as being readable online here. Begin with p. 160.

Jeffrey

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.

Toto · 03-09-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

...

I have been to the link at google books several times. I do not see how I can read your book for free. ...

Does this link work for you? Google Books

Toto · 03-09-2008, 08:22 PM

Moderator request: please avoid name calling and group insults, and please do not create more work for the moderators. Thanks.

Doug Shaver · 03-10-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Doesn't John 3:2 refer to signs being given unto this generation?

It doesn't say so. I would not assume that any reference to a miracle is a reference to a "sign."

Decypher · 03-10-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And why, especially in the light of this admission, should we use what appears to you to be the case as the criterion for judging what's what in NT scholarship? Fallacy of personal incredulity, anyone?

I didn't say we should.

Quote:

Perhaps I'm wrong...

Quote:

You are. The interesting thing is why you would think otherwise.

Jeffrey

It just looked like a small point to me, it's as simple as that.

But anyway, if it gets lots of discussion, what are the best articles to read in your opinion? I know you have already given a couple of references, but what else would you recommend?

Decypher · 03-10-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The substance of my article is within the book that Toto has drawn attention to as being readable online here. Begin with p. 160.

Jeffrey

With regard to page 162-163, where you say that a "sign" is used to validate that a prophet is "of God", how can this be so when false prophets can give signs according to Deut. 13?

You seem to be describing what you find in the Bible, so this isn't a criticism of what you have said exactly, but a criticism of the Bible.

If there is any question that Jesus is going away from the Torah, being able to give a sign will not help him. He can give the sign, it doesn't matter. Jesus still has to be rejected as a false prophet.

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

03-09-2008, 08:22 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Moderator request: please avoid name calling and group insults, and please do not create more work for the moderators. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.