Doug Shaver

I'm OK with supposing that Paul was in Jerusalem whenever he himself said he was in Jerusalem.

I'm not OK with treating Acts as if it were anything but a work of fiction.

JoeWallack

JW:
It's a bigger problem than you think. Irenaeus is the only Patrician to claim a chain of witnesses back to Jesus and he says Jesus bought the Vineyard under Claudius (40s). "Luke" makes the greatest effort to give the appearance of history and she clearly has Jesus born c. 6 CE and 30 years old at baptism. Do the Matthew.

The phenomena has nothing to do with history but is based on beliefs. Subsequent authors want HJ to be closer to their time so they keep moving the God posts up. "Luke" has Jesus depart for places unknown c. 36 while "John's" Jesus is close to 50 at go time, hence the 40s.

Ted, there's a difference between when Christian Bible Scholars wanted Jesus to die and what the date was per the "evidence".



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

TedM

I don't want to get into a long analysis but I thought that the John 2:20 reference to 46 years of building the temple placed the date around 30CE. Just found this:

TedM

Just curious Doug: Have you read the last half of Acts? Is there any reason to regard that half as fiction? I find it sufficiently dull enough to see the 'we' references as a first hand account of some of the earliest history of the spread of the faith. From that aspect, it is quite exciting (if true).

aa5874

But, the author of Acts has Paul in a basket by wall in DAMASCUS and "Paul" claimed it was HE HIMSELF that was in the basket.

Acts 9:25 - 2Co 11:33 -

Why is "PAUL" one of the main characters in a work of fiction?

The author of Acts even claimed he TRAVELED ALL over the Roman Empire with Paul.

If "Paul" had a KNOWN TRUE history why was the FICTITIOUS ONE CANONISED?

It is CLEAR "PAUL" had NO KNOWN true history since there would have been ZERO theological or moral and ethical benefit for the Church to have Canonized FICTION about "PAUL".

Doug Shaver

Recently? Not all of the last half.

A couple of points.

1. I've read plenty of indisputably fictional literature that, to my taste, is a lot duller than any portion of Acts.

2. So far as my research to date goes, the preponderance of evidence says Acts was written no earlier than the mid-second century. That pretty well precludes any of it being a firsthand account of anything.

DCHindley

"The old wine is better"

skepticdude

You are wrong. James was the leader of the Judiaziers. Paul was a businessman and saw Christianity as an opportunity to travel, make money, and beat his chest. He solved the problem of making Gentiles interested in the Jewish religion of Christianity, by creating a Gentile-form of the religion that was never envisioned by Jesus.

Unfortunately, that would mean that he would eventually run into prospective converts who would say "Peter, James and John aren't preaching the same gospel you are!"

The Book of Acts was created by the Paulist school to help smooth over the contradiction between James's gospel and Paul's. Paul could easily use acts to combat those who accused him of disagreeing with the original disciples of Jesus.

"Lookee here in Acts 15! James himself said most of the Jewish ritualistic burdens should not be placed on Gentile Christians!"

The fact that such was a nearly unbelievable excuse, does not take away from this argument. Those who might be disposed to possibly convert to Christianity, are also the type that might be swayed by a Book of Acts that explains how it is that Paul and James can be teaching the same gospel.

So the book of Acts was a major benefit to the Paulist school.

aa5874

Well, let see if you are RIGHT.

I did not know that Jesus lived and had ENVISIONED a religion.

I did NOT know "Paul" was a business man.

Where do you get your stories from?

That is ALL speculation.

What year did "Paul" have a school?

What sources of history from antiquity support your ASSUMPTIONS?

Your are just speculating that is all.

mountainman

Hi Doug,

I am shocked to hear this. Maybe the author was inspired by Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations"? At any rate you are essentially proposing a chronology that Acts was written in Greek sometime during the "Second Sophistic".

Are any later dates proposed?

One would not wish to entertain dates in the third century for Acts on account of the possible conflation of the acts of the apostles of Jesus with the reasonably well attested historicity of the very successful acts of apostles of Mani in the Roman Empire c.240 to 276 CE.

Best wishes,


Pete