Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2012, 11:57 PM

Great point maryhelena. While late dates do seem likely, it is certainly not anything we should be hanging our collective hats on.

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Great point maryhelena. While late dates do seem likely, it is certainly not anything we should be hanging our collective hats on.

:thumbs:

Always best to keep ones options open......

Toto · 02-14-2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

... Here, let's take Geisler's Top Ten list (simply the first ten):

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

There is no explicit mention of the fall of Jerusalem, but the events are set at an earlier date, so these would not be expected.

Quote:

3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.

Again, the events are set before this alleged event, which might not even have happened.

Quote:

4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).

Why should there be? Later Christians identified this James with the James mentioned in Acts, but not everyone is convinced that they are the same person.

Quote:

5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.

I don't understand this at all - Christian teaching was never legitimized as part of Judaism.

Quote:

6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

The events were set at a pre-70 date.

Quote:

7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.

This "phase of conflict" is highly speculative.

Quote:

8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.

We have no actual evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Peter is only a character in the first part of Acts, then disappears.

Quote:

9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.

Geisler made that up. Judaism continued to make converts until the practice was outlawed after Constantine.

Quote:

10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
...

??

Compare Dating Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Richard Pervo

Quote:

Analyzing the author s sources, methods, theology, familiarity with ecclesiastical developments and vocabulary, Pervo discovers that the author of Acts is familiar with the later writings of Josephus (c. 100 C.E.) and that the theological perspectives of Acts have much in common with elements found in the Pastoral Epistles and Polycarp (c. 125-130). He also situates the book of Acts in terms of its place in the development of early Christianity and its social and ideological context, and shows how a second-century date helps to interpret it.

Net2004 · 02-14-2012, 03:22 AM

Quote:

2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

no christians involved in the war
luke is trying to prove to the gentiles that jesus is thier messiah
why would the gentiles want to hear about jewish war? what has it got to do with them? was luuke written to inform his readers about all the different wars going on between the jews and romans? i have 2 questions. why didn't paul tell his church about the jews manipulating pontius pilate? why didn't paul say anything about the jews making pilates decisions for him? paul says that the people in power are there because god put them there so why didn't paul tell his church about jewish control of pontius pilate?

Doug Shaver · 02-14-2012, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

but you can't expect us to take your word that they're all bad arguments. Do you have any proof or even evidence?

Unlike the typical apologist, I wouldn't ask anyone to just take my word for anything.

My proof or evidence would certainly not convince you of anything, but I addressed arguments 1, 2, and 3 in post #9 of this thread.

tanya · 02-14-2012, 04:03 AM

This is a terrific thread.

There are at least five wonderful posts.

I am grateful to all.

I have learned a lot. I still have a few questions from these brilliant posters, really, thank you, well done.

So, about my earlier question then, am I to understand that the quotation marks were placed in the English version, but there is neither reference to Acts, nor "quotes" or some other means of designating the particular passage in Acts? No one knows of a Greek version of these letters from Ignatius?

MaryHelena: Wow. Knocks my socks off. Ok, I guess I need to revise my thinking then, because I have been a dyed in the wool conservative on this issue of the dating of manuscripts. Well, I think you make a very good point, vis a vis copies of copies. Sure, you are right, I am wrong, to be so concerned about the dates of our oldest extant manuscripts....You may need to continue to remind me, though in the future.

Philosopher Jay: Gosh, wonderful stuff. Holy Cow. Thanks so much for putting an answer to my question; that was an outstanding summary of history.....

Sotto Voce: I respect your erudition. I am enamored of your writing skill. I think you have a very honest moral fiber, and it is a pleasure to encounter your posts. I do disagree with you, on several important points: "the Bible". If you will go back and reread your posts, discussing the current Catholic pope, you mention in a couple of places, how Protestants rely on "scripture", without, however, defining what is meant by that term, precisely:
Jews consider the old testament scripture. Some Christians consider the new testament also scripture. The conflict arises whether or not the Greek word, grafas, should be thought to represent the gospels as well as the old testament. Until you have resolved that problem, I don't know how you can claim that Luther and Calvin et al, (murderers, both of them) think differently from the Catholics regarding "scripture".

With regard to your absurd claim that Catholics, (but not Protestants!!!) are similar to Hindus and Muslims is laughable. I burst out laughing. Muslims are Jews, reformed. Catholics and Protestants represent bizarre distortions of Judaism. Hindus share nothing in common with the Semitic religions, apart from the Lunar calendar/Zodiac-->manifests more clearly in the progeny: Buddhism.

All of these religions have shared internal strife, fighting and killing over doctrinal issues.

All of these religions have fought one another, and continue to do so, today, each demanding that non-followers obey their particular doctrines.

All religions are anachronisms, a reflection of man's ignorance of science, medicine, music, art and literature. Claiming that Protestants have a unique approach is childish.

:constern01:

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 04:43 AM

Here is an idea regarding the book of Acts:

The book of Acts, the story within the book of Acts, was written as a follow on to the gospel JC story. Hence it's internal dating structure is made to fit that pre-70 c.e. timeframe. From an ahistoricit/mythicist position, a position that rejects the claimed historicity for the gospel JC, the follow-on story in Acts is not history. It, like the gospel JC story, is pseudo-history.

If Luke is the author, or the source, of Acts, then Acts cannot have been written prior to Antiquities in 95 c.e. (gLuke drops the gMark and gMatthew reference to Herodias being married to Philip and reverses the Judas and Theudas dating). Unless, of course, Luke was playing footsy with Josephus.....Whatever the case, Antiquities, dated around 95 c.e., is relevant to Luke’s writing; that means that Christian history, up until 95 c.e., has been, in Acts, backdated in order to fit it’s pre- 70 c.e. JC gospel timeframe. The post-70 c.e. history - up until 95 c.e., is being condensed, assimilated, with the pre-70 c.e. history.

The JC story? Tertullian says there were Christians in the time of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e, indicating that the JC story is much older than it's crucifixion story ending in the 15th year of Tiberius in 30 c.e. (also the JC crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e). The JC story is ‘old news’. It goes way back, via the Toldoth Yeshu and the wonder-doer story now preserved in Slavonic Josephus. The NT gospel version is simply the latest, the one that got to be ‘scripture’. The stories that got away, the ones that did not make the ‘scriptural’ cut, are still relevant for research into the origins of that JC story.

Dating Acts in connection with Antiquities in 95 c.e. does present the possibility for an early ‘Paul’ and a later ‘Paul’ figure. As later, post-70 c.e., Christian history has been condensed with early history in order to fit the pre 70 c.e. storyline in Acts - so, likewise, the activities of major figures in early christian history have been assimilated.

Duvduv · 02-14-2012, 05:36 AM

Where is the citation in Tertullian? Why would this author claim Christians existed before the time of pontius Pilate indicated in his own gospels?

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Where is the citation in Tertullian? Why would this author claim Christians existed before the time of pontius Pilate indicated in his own gospels?

TERTULLIAN

AD NATIONES.

Quote:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian06.html

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,

Duvduv · 02-14-2012, 05:59 AM

All it says in that sentence is that their NAME originated from the time of Augustus which was when their Jesus figure was believed to have been born.
Why doesn't he mention Jesus there at all?

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

02-13-2012, 11:57 PM	#41
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Great point maryhelena. While late dates do seem likely, it is certainly not anything we should be hanging our collective hats on.

02-14-2012, 04:03 AM	#46
tanya Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 829	This is a terrific thread. There are at least five wonderful posts. I am grateful to all. I have learned a lot. I still have a few questions from these brilliant posters, really, thank you, well done. So, about my earlier question then, am I to understand that the quotation marks were placed in the English version, but there is neither reference to Acts, nor "quotes" or some other means of designating the particular passage in Acts? No one knows of a Greek version of these letters from Ignatius? MaryHelena: Wow. Knocks my socks off. Ok, I guess I need to revise my thinking then, because I have been a dyed in the wool conservative on this issue of the dating of manuscripts. Well, I think you make a very good point, vis a vis copies of copies. Sure, you are right, I am wrong, to be so concerned about the dates of our oldest extant manuscripts....You may need to continue to remind me, though in the future. Philosopher Jay: Gosh, wonderful stuff. Holy Cow. Thanks so much for putting an answer to my question; that was an outstanding summary of history..... Sotto Voce: I respect your erudition. I am enamored of your writing skill. I think you have a very honest moral fiber, and it is a pleasure to encounter your posts. I do disagree with you, on several important points: "the Bible". If you will go back and reread your posts, discussing the current Catholic pope, you mention in a couple of places, how Protestants rely on "scripture", without, however, defining what is meant by that term, precisely: Jews consider the old testament scripture. Some Christians consider the new testament also scripture. The conflict arises whether or not the Greek word, grafas, should be thought to represent the gospels as well as the old testament. Until you have resolved that problem, I don't know how you can claim that Luther and Calvin et al, (murderers, both of them) think differently from the Catholics regarding "scripture". With regard to your absurd claim that Catholics, (but not Protestants!!!) are similar to Hindus and Muslims is laughable. I burst out laughing. Muslims are Jews, reformed. Catholics and Protestants represent bizarre distortions of Judaism. Hindus share nothing in common with the Semitic religions, apart from the Lunar calendar/Zodiac-->manifests more clearly in the progeny: Buddhism. All of these religions have shared internal strife, fighting and killing over doctrinal issues. All of these religions have fought one another, and continue to do so, today, each demanding that non-followers obey their particular doctrines. All religions are anachronisms, a reflection of man's ignorance of science, medicine, music, art and literature. Claiming that Protestants have a unique approach is childish. :constern01:

02-14-2012, 04:43 AM	#47
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Here is an idea regarding the book of Acts: The book of Acts, the story within the book of Acts, was written as a follow on to the gospel JC story. Hence it's internal dating structure is made to fit that pre-70 c.e. timeframe. From an ahistoricit/mythicist position, a position that rejects the claimed historicity for the gospel JC, the follow-on story in Acts is not history. It, like the gospel JC story, is pseudo-history. If Luke is the author, or the source, of Acts, then Acts cannot have been written prior to Antiquities in 95 c.e. (gLuke drops the gMark and gMatthew reference to Herodias being married to Philip and reverses the Judas and Theudas dating). Unless, of course, Luke was playing footsy with Josephus.....Whatever the case, Antiquities, dated around 95 c.e., is relevant to Luke’s writing; that means that Christian history, up until 95 c.e., has been, in Acts, backdated in order to fit it’s pre- 70 c.e. JC gospel timeframe. The post-70 c.e. history - up until 95 c.e., is being condensed, assimilated, with the pre-70 c.e. history. The JC story? Tertullian says there were Christians in the time of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e, indicating that the JC story is much older than it's crucifixion story ending in the 15th year of Tiberius in 30 c.e. (also the JC crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e). The JC story is ‘old news’. It goes way back, via the Toldoth Yeshu and the wonder-doer story now preserved in Slavonic Josephus. The NT gospel version is simply the latest, the one that got to be ‘scripture’. The stories that got away, the ones that did not make the ‘scriptural’ cut, are still relevant for research into the origins of that JC story. Dating Acts in connection with Antiquities in 95 c.e. does present the possibility for an early ‘Paul’ and a later ‘Paul’ figure. As later, post-70 c.e., Christian history has been condensed with early history in order to fit the pre 70 c.e. storyline in Acts - so, likewise, the activities of major figures in early christian history have been assimilated.

02-14-2012, 05:36 AM	#48
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Where is the citation in Tertullian? Why would this author claim Christians existed before the time of pontius Pilate indicated in his own gospels?

02-14-2012, 05:59 AM	#50
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	All it says in that sentence is that their NAME originated from the time of Augustus which was when their Jesus figure was believed to have been born. Why doesn't he mention Jesus there at all?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.