Ted Hoffman

I have just cleared a brief response to GDon on second century apologists and it will be up in a few days. I really wanted to respond to this article on Acts. But from what I can see in it and in this thread, it is pure apologetics. This, sad to say, is not surprising, coming from Chris Price.
Layman, you and I know that in your article on Robbins for example, you purposefully slanted the evidence to prop your arguments. Yet, without revising it, you are presenting it here as proof of something. I am glad JoeWallack, Steven Carr and Toto have already picked out some misleading arguments from the article as it is.
I have no problem with you if you have decided to be a professional apologist but you dont need this: you are intelligent enough not to rely on manipulating the readers through misrepresentation.
If you do not want yourself to be taken seriously, it is your choice. But it is a shame to see such a fine mind wasted on such work. You can do better than Josh McDowell or Holding. We have several scholars with confessional interests in NT scholarship. In fact, they are the majority. But their works can hardly be regarded as apologetics - which is not what I, and several others, can say about your work. That is why Kirby has to take a lot of flak for putting up your work at his site.
The first step is presentation of all the evidence, even if you draw your pet conclusions from a hat. Lets see that in future. Please.