Toto

I have actually looked at one of those volumes. But it shows that the historical background of Acts might have some historical validity, not that the stories in Acts are history.

I have also read Pervo's Profit with Delight, which undermines any claim to the historicity of Acts.

johntheapostate

Deuteronomy 30:8-10 “ You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, and the young of your livestock and the crops of your land The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul�

Paul had called the Law a curse, and indeed prior to these verses all the curses for disobedience to the Law had been clearly outlined. But the text of Deuteronomy shows that the Law was not to be considered as curse but as a blessing. Nevertheless Paul considered it to be a curse by the fact that he considered that god had made it impossible to keep and that god had sent Jesus to abolish the Law for this reason

Galatians 3:10 " All who rely on observing the law are under a curse for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.�

Romans 3:20 “ Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin�

Ephesians 2:13-15 “ But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in the flesh the law with its commandments and regulations�

Colossians 2:13-14 “ God made you alive with Christ having canceled the written code with its regulations that was against us and that stood opposed to us, he took it away nailing it to the cross�

These passages show that Paul considered the law dead and would be especially dead to the Jews who really were the only ones who had been bound by it anyway. My point is that for a Jew to receive salvation according to the doctrine of Paul he would have to renounce the law.

Romans 10:1-4 “ Brothers my hearts desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they can be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they do not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to Gods righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes�

Paul declares that Christ is the end of the law for everyone including the Israelites and he hints that the law was a product of their own making ( While I would agree that the law as well all the rest of the Bible is a human invention, Paul knew full well that the Hebrew scriptures claim god as the author of the law)



Here are some more verses from Deuteronomy that follow those I quoted earlier

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 “ Now what I am commanding you today is not to difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not in heaven so that you have to ask, Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it. Nor is it beyond the sea so that you have to ask Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it. No the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart, so you may obey it.

These verses proclaim that obedience to the law is a doable thing. This is in stark contrast to the testimony of Paul. We can be sure that they are in reference to the law as they indicate acts of obedience rather than acts of faith.

These words made an impression on Paul and I don’t know if he depended on the ignorance of his readers or if he actually fooled himself but he mangles these verses to support his doctrine.

Romans 10:5-8 “ Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law, The man that does these thing will live by them. But the righteousness that is by faith says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven ( that is to bring Christ down) or who will descend into the deep ( that is to bring Christ up from the dead) But what does it say? The word is near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith that we are proclaiming, that you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved�

Paul was familiar with the passages in Deuteronomy and he would have known that they testified to the validity of the law and that they referred to acts of obedience, yet he could not resist using the language of the Hebrew scripture and in mangling it use it to support his doctrine even though originally it testified against him.

Was Paul a liar?

johntheapostate

I had posted this in a different thread but I thought it might also be applicable here as it illustrates the concept of free will and exclusivity of salvation by belief in the divinity of Jesus that I have debated here. Here it is.


John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ on the basis that he has enabled certain people the ability to believe but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will as the text is clear that certain persons will never have the ability to believe. But even those with the ability to believe may not have the ability to not believe,as is indicated in this verse



John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"



These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rests on the good pleasure of gods will.


It is very important to some people that this be denied at all costs. For in their belief in the free will to accept or reject Christ rests there justification for infant salvation.

They just cant bear the thought of deceased infants suffering in agony for an eternity in hell. They subordinate the concept of original sin and make a conscious act of rejection of Christ the determining factor in the salvation of the individual.


They insist that because the infant has not consciously rejected Christ he has automatic entrance into heaven.

They choose to ignore the testimony of the author of John which states that the wrath of God was a preexisting condition and that eternal life is dependent on a conscious act of belief on the part of the believer and this is only achieved by god enabling the person to do so.

The logical conclusion would be that as part of that enabling god would also have granted the infant the ability to live to an age where such a decision could be made.

As I don't subscribe to the validity of the New Testament I personally do not hold these views but they do have textual support for those who do believe that the Bible is the word of god.

Metacrock

You know what? Don't try to lecture me on the NT. I know far more about it than any of you. I know more Kirby, yes i do. Iv'e read it in Greek, I have a masters in Theology, I've studied for 25 years.

Of course I Know Pual didn't write Acts. That doens't mean that he didn't say that! Its' quoting him. I have no reason to believe, and you can't give me one, that Acts is not historical.

Your only reason,the only only reason you say anything, is your hatred of God and chrsitans. That to you is what passes for thinking. God and christians suck so everything they say is wrong. That's your version using your mind.


I've read far more about any of this stuff than of you ever will.

I read A.D. knock in highschool. I bet you never heard of him have you?








Because he was the chief preist <deleted>. Of course they could work toether anytime they saw it as important.



Of course you can! What a stupid question. Besdies, the speechs don't have to be accurate for that one peice of information to be right. Who a person studies under was prety dman crucial to who they were. So paul's guys would not have been ignorant of that.

Metacrock

Ironic that you say that, because you don't even know what a real scholar is. you would laugh at Raymand Brown and think that Maccoby guy is someone when he's really the Depack Chopra of theology; Brown is one of the major scholars in the world and respected by liberals and conservatives alike

Vorkosigan

I can't imagine how you ever thought that your response above answers this question.

• Can you find any reputable scholar who argues that the speeches in Acts reflect history as opposed to the theological motives of the author of Acts? Do you have any reason to think that Acts reflects history?

Writing of this passage, Akenson (St.Saul) notes p247 that the connection to Gamaliel is "Fine propaganda, but questionable history." Akenson then points out that if Paul had studied under one of the great leaders of Pharisee history he would probably have mentioned it (aside: I wonder if Akenson would permit that same argument from silence to be used as an argument against the historicity of Jesus But I digress... ). He then goes on to note that Acts not only has Paul studying under Gamaliel, but also the son of Pharisee. "This pushes the geneological discrediting of Pharisaism back to its largest figure; for if Paul was taught by Gamaliel, who was his father taught by?" Akenson then notes that Hillel was the great predecessor of Gamaliel, and concludes that the author of Acts wants the reader to connect Paul's father with Hillel just as Paul is connected to Gamaliel. "This material's brilliance as propaganda virtually guarantees that it is not creditable as history."

EP Sanders also suggests that this could be no more than a conclusion that the author of Acts drew based on Paul's claim to have been a Pharisee.(Paul, p8)

Schnelle (His&Theo, p270), listing the Gamaliel speech among many in Acts, notes "although it has repeatedly been asserted that the basic content of the Acts speeches are reliable reports, research has rightly generally come to the conclusion that they cannot be understood as authentic accounts of speeches that were actually given....[examples given]...Their intention is not to report a particular historical event, but to communicate to the reader insight into the suprahistorical significance of the particular historical moment, which corresponds to the function of speeches in ancient historical writings."

Thomson (If this Be From Heaven...) in his work on the Jesus and the NT in relationship to Judaism, observes on p224 of Gamaliel: "The repeated mention of the man in Acts cannot be other than intentional. Comparison with rabbinic literature confirms the impression that the words the author ascribes to Gamaliel are based on tradition. Thomson's book concludes with a close study of this tradition on pp419-423.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

There are tons of good reasons to assume that Acts is historical, but the bit abotu who Paul studies with even moreso. the record of the meeting of the chruch council, and Paul's escape from Damascas, and his meeting wtih James might all be tweeked, glossed, made up form whole cloth, but who he stuided with would certianly be known to the Pauline circle. I mean you ever know anyone who went to harvard? Did they ever let you forget it? Think about it.





You shot down your own piont on that one. That's what I like, self refutting atheists.





O so Paul couldn't have a big name Rebe for a teacher because then his father would have to have one? That's nuts! If Paul studied with a Pharisee it's more likely he came from a Pharisee family.



why do atheists always think that if something is mentioned as a possiblity, then it must be a rock solid fact? It could be the case, but what's the real argument for it? If you consider the archaeological accuracy that Ramsay shows for Acts, and the use of titles and small facts that only someone well travaled in the region would know, it's clear that "Luke" (whomever that was) was well travaled in the region, really met the people he claims to have met. He was probably traveling with Paul. In your skeptical enthusiasm you just assume any possiblity of a fundie being wrong must be a fact, and all traditional calims are false a priori, I don't think that's scholarship. In facts its obesscion. NO book is wrong that much!





I agree with that asscessment, but you somehow keep confussing historical docudrama with factual knowledge. You seem to think that if the narratival account is exaggerated or fictionalized then every fact it gives must be wrong too. But the allusion above says that Acts has a great deal in it that is histoircal, you youself admitting that the speeches themsevles have historical facts. So why not just accept this as one of them until its disproven?



Sure, our er zots "Luke" readctor said to himself "I know Paul studied with Gamaliel, and trandition says G. thought X, so I'll include X." That doesnt' disprove whom Paul studies with. That's a very basic fact about someone,especially a Rabbi. Rabbis are real touchy about whom they study with. His credentials would be partly judged why who his teacher was. it's absurd to think that the Pauline chruch would not have known. Why Paul didn't brag about it in his letters, when he braggs about everything else, I don't know. But it mgiht have had something to do with some personal history between student and teacher, or it might have just been because so many of this readers were Gentiles he figured they wouldn't know, it woudln't mean anything to them.

Metacrock

Hey let me tell you a secret about scholarship. Since I went to school with several people are making their reps and studies with a coupple of world famous guys (William Farmer in textual studies--Diane Fellwell--Joette Bassler--Schubert M. Ogden in theology proper) people need to publish real bad, they look for things to say.

People chruch this stuff out morning, noon and night. If finding a mention for an idea is evidence of that ideas truth, then everything is because you can find "real scholars" backing almost any idea. There is no replacement for understanding their reasons, and in the end we all still have to pass judgement on it.

I had a prof who had a very good friend who was a big name in textual cirticism. That textual critic admitted to my friend the prof, thathe forged certain things and made other things up just to get published. This was a big name guy.

Now might say if that's the case why trust them any more than the non academics like Maccoby? Well if the peer reviewed guys do it, just think how much more the non reviewed guys do it!

Amaleq13

It has been my experience that individuals who truly have greater knowledge of a subject do not feel compelled to resort to insults or derogatory comments nor to boast of their knowledge in response to opposition. Actually demonstrating their mastery of the subject matter tends to be sufficient to establish their expertise and counter opposing arguments.

I agree and Brown is most valuable when he feels compelled by the evidence to conclude against tradition despite his faith which encourages him to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

For example, Brown recognizes the existence of errors in Acts and includes the obvious mistake of depicting Gamaliel referring to the uprising of Theudas despite the fact that it didn’t occur until 10 years after the alleged speech. (The Birth of the Messiah, p.555)

Metacrock

I demonstatre my mastery of it every post. You dont' see that because you don't know enough to see what's what. If I were trying prove I was a better poet I would write in imambic pentamiter and you would be saying "why are his posts so starngely rythmical?"


Here's a clue: look for allusions to things you haven' heard of. Istead looking for agreement with the hacks llike Maccoby, try looking for statments that reflect a knowledgel level to which you have no obtained.





Just exactly my point. You an't accept him as major because he's a christian with real faith, so me must be an idiot and be wrong about everything. But the major scholars of the world don't see that way. If you went to the Jesus Seminar and asked the most liberal "Is Brown a fundie idiot" they would not say he is. They would say they respect him, even though they may not agree with him.

Brown made his reputaiton by dating and doing textual criticism on the Gospel of Peter. That in itself, for the time (early 60s) was ground breaking and radical, becasue no one worked on non canonical Gospels at that time.He proved that GPete does not follow matthew but comes form its own indpenedent source following the pslams. That has not been overturned. That's good solid schlarhsip that put him on the map. He's still on the map.




Great, that's good. I think you dont' understand that non Fundies don't have a rigid inerrency thing going. So it doesn't mattef if there are errors. There are various thoelogical avenues for dealing with that, and most major scholars just dont' worry about it. None of those big name guys are going "O no! A mistake in Acts, my faith is shambles." That's the clown, that is for the people at clown college.