countjulian

pwnt

Johnny Skeptic

Events are not the issue. The issue is writings. Many writings were available other than the ones that were chosen. What distinguised to the choosers which writings ought to be included in Scripture and which writings ought not to be included. How could the choosers have been reasonably certain that they were choosing the right writings?

What can be verified without a measure of faith?

The only claims in the book of Acts that most people would have bothered to attempt to verfiy would have been the supernatural claims. Accurate geography can be found in many religious books, and many secular books as well. The Enclopedia Britannica 2003 says "Acts was written in Greek, presumably by the Evangelist Luke, whose gospel concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ's Ascension into heaven. Acts was apparently written in Rome, perhaps between AD 70 and 90, though some think a slightly earlier date is also possible." The Microsoft Encarta Enclopedia 2005 says "Because the Acts is designed to serve as a second volume, however, the book must be a least slightly later than the Gospel of Luke, and the Giospel is almost certainly later than that of Mark. The result is to put Luke's two volumes sometime in the last two decades fo the 1st century." So, the book of Acts might not have been written until 90 A.D., or even later, making adequate examination of supernatural claims impossible.

So is it your position that wherever you find accurate geography in various religious books that that are included with supernatural claims, the supernatural claims must automatically be true? Supernatural claims in the book of Acts might not have been the result of deliberate fraud, but of innocent but inaccurate relelations, which are not at all uncommon in various religious books.

It would certainly be a good start. Do you not make the very same requirements regarding claims of miracles in other religous books? Why do you believe that Jesus healed people? Do you believe that God performs miracles healings today?

Steven Avery

> First, could you specifically indicate the canon lists that mention these
> books ?

Number of canon lists = 0

(Which is, btw, the clearest issue, not whether an alexandrian codex has another book included.. that does not tell us what was considered scripture, even more so to those like myself who consider the two alexandrian manuscripts as demonstrably woefully corrupt.
The church writer references are more consequent, and you do get an occasional Hermas dabble and a couple of other books as referenced, out of a couple of dozen writer)

The idea that there was no Aramaic translation to 400 A.D. is quite questionable, btw, but a little outside our purview. On that one point the Aramaic primacists make good sense, in that the textual scholars pushed the date back from c.200 to c.400, possibly because the Peshitta was too Byzantine for their (now defacto discarded) Lucian recension theories.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Prax, do you actually know anything about ancient fiction? Because what you've described is precisely the situation in the type of Greek fiction that was prevalent during the first and second centuries. Nothing would more normal than to have a group of historical characters interacting with a fictional hero. Jean Alvares (1997) notes of Chaereas and Callirhoe, which she dates in the mid to late first century CE: "For example, Hermocrates, Ariston, Statira, and Artaxerxes are historical figures. Mithridates may recall a Mithridates that, according to Ktesias, Statira helped become satrap."

And of course, the novel's heroes are fictional.

Luke-Acts, and especially Acts, is typical Greek fiction.

They obviously had, as they still do today, recruiting functions. For example, Mark was most probably a baptismal document. And since there was no local remembrance, they didn't need to dovetail with any local memories -- why would they, writing from places far outside Palestine?. Nor did the writers care much for historical legitimacy, except Luke, who had grasped Mark's potential as history and as propaganda that could, properly deployed, support orthodox legitimacy and unite the Pauline and Petrine wings of the early Church.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

So your working theory is that the 27 books of the New Testament were like a serial edition romance novel, sans royalties, using the Hebrew Tanach as storyline backdrop, getting the history and environment right while 'far from' Israel (there was no Palestine at that time) and far after the time of the story. This novel either accidentally changed the spiritual map of the world, or was carefully planned to do so (probably the Illuminati), and then brought or smuggled into Israel sometime after the Temple destruction.



Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

John A. Broussard

Yup. Just like the divinely inspired Quran which led to the spread of Islam from the Far East to the West Coast of Africa in far less time then the equivalent spread of Christianity.

What does either "change of the spiritual map of the world" have to do with the value of the myths spread by these cults?

Steven Avery

So the quran was also a romance novel of a serial of dozens of books done by the illuminati sans royalties that was accidentally accepted as a true history ?

What does your evaluation of the value of the beliefs of the NT and Tanach believers about sin and holiness and repentance and Messiah have to do directly with our theories of its origin, propagation and transmission?

Vorkosigan

No, prax, and I thoroughly dislike this kind of strawman response. It is difficult to take you seriously when you write like this.

Here's how I see it. A group of authors in an emergent cult created a narrative of the cult's mythical founder. The first of these narratives, the Gospel of Mark, simply told a story. The function of the narrative was largely recruiting and baptismal, and was not intended as history. It was certainly read aloud to crowds, and probably performed as well, as a number of exegetes have argued. Like Greek fiction, it draws on the religious heritage of those it perceived as its forefathers. Like Greek fiction, it is told in an episodic manner, and like the Greek romances, contains scenes of resurrections, trials, empty tombs, entrances into the city, portentious visits to the temple after the entrance, being taken as a divine being by crowds, and so on. All of the things that you think of as "historical" are actually conventions of Greek fiction. Like Greek fiction, it is created by paralleling famous episodes from history and literature. The writer of Mark, like other writers on Jesus, like the writer of Ben Hur, and Left Behind, and a thousand similar narratives, drew on the literary conventions, devices, and techniques of his day to create this narrative. I would say that of the four canonical gospel writers, the writer of the Mark was the only authentic genius of the lot.

The next writer was Matthew, who was simply butt-stupid and had no clue what Mark was about. He reconstructed Mark to get rid of the "errors" and make plain the prophecies that the writer of Mark had left for the reader to puzzle out -- like all good writers, the writer of Mark didn't rub his audience's face in the meaning of his text. I cannot tell if Matt thought what he was writing was history or not.

The way I see it, Luke came along last, integrating a version of John, along with the other two Synoptics, into his avowedly "historical" work -- did I mention that mimicking history was a common technique among writers of Greek fiction? -- with the goal of resolving theological conflicts in the Church, as well as locating the tale in history. That writer was a skilled writer, but not the genius that the writer of Mark was. The writer of Luke, in contrast to the writer of Mark, presented her work as history although she knew that it was not.

The narrative itself was not the thing that redrew the map of history, prax, but the Church's decision to organize itself as a proto-Leninist society with tight organizational controls, strong insistence on particular doctrines, top-down control, cells (churches), and political overseers (bishops) as well as cell leaders (pastors). This Leninist organization has proven highly adaptable and successful in spreading various political and social beliefs (see advance of Communism and Christianity). The spread of Christianity was due to many factors, but had nothing at all to due with the content or quality of its narratives.

Vorkosigan

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Please reply to my post #32.

Steven Avery

Johnny, if I thought that either encyclopedia authority you appeal to was even close to accurate in their appraisal, with Luke written at the end of the century, I would not discussing these issues. Personally I consider every book as being written before 70 AD, likely even Revelation.

Quoting encyclopedias as authorities who are obviously using liberal scholarship criteria is not really the way to engage me in constructive dialog.

On the "choosers" question, I have answered that numerous time, including a good hearty "I dunno" to the exact answer. Now if the NT writings were 90AD and later, and written in a foreign land without the personal first-hand investigative research asserted by Luke and supported by his accuracy, that might be a more interesting question. However that is not my view at all.

Johnny, I can only dialog from my understanding, now those of other folks who have a lower view of the NT accuracy and authority.

And I view all the first-person proclamations of authorship and dating as correct and truthful, (and if even one were wrong then I would not accept the NT) and the prophecies as being given and written before the Temple destruction in 70 AD.

On the measure of faith..

Hebrews 11:6 -
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

One who does seek God, and just languishes in a view of skepticism, looking for the various possible holes he can find in the scriptures, will of course discount the declaration of the scriptures of the virgin birth and the other issues mentioned above. And if a Christian claims he can prove them to you, I believe he is not speaking accurately. There is a primary element of faith involved in the Messianic walk.

As for other religions claims of supernatural events, I don't remember any discussions where I claimed they didn't occur. Maybe a short discussion with a morman about whether the plates were received from an angel, a demon, or simply some handiwork of Joe Smith. With the islamists I am far more interested in their innate conceptual problems, and generally they don't make a supernatural appeal. So I am unclear what the proposed analogy here is.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic