hjalti

Ok, avi, well, it's pretty painful to see you confuse such a basic fact when you are saying that a great scholar like Tyson is "glaringly wrong".

Regarding your idea that the gospels would differentiate between "holy writings" and "writings". Why haven't you look at the occurances of grafh in the gospels?

avi

hjalti: to me, CE 120 is not a "late" date. That date is very early, in my opinion, and I would be hard pressed to find even one shred of evidence, from any scholar, great, or little, suggesting such an early date, prior to the third Roman Jewish conflict....

Perhaps you have some evidence??

So, when I wrote, admittedly stuporous at the time, that the great scholar had written a glaring error, I was referring to his LOGIC, not the evidence, for I have no evidence. I don't think great scholar Tyson has any EITHER. It is not his "evidence" that is "glaringly wrong", but his logic, in assuming such an early date for composition, absent data to support his hypothesis.

Please show me great scholar Tyson's EVIDENCE for such an early date of composition of "Paul"--Galatians, or anything else.

Thanks, indeed, that is what I am intending to do....

avi

aa5874

But, it is also equally disturbing when so-called Scholars fail to take into account the SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS of dating Acts of the Apostles or any other writing LATER than claimed by the Church or implied by the author himself.

Once the dating of Acts of the Apostles is changed ALL writings that mentioned Acts of the Apostles MUST BE REVIEWED.

The author of Acts claimed he TRAVELED with "Paul" ALL over the Roman Empire and it is claimed "Paul" was executed around 64 CE or under the reign of Nero.

There are major chronology and historicity problems for any date of Acts of the Apostles outside the date stipulated by the Church.

Toto

The earliest mention is about 150 CE, well after any of these dates.

The author of Acts makes no such claim, either that he traveled with Paul, or that Paul was executed around 64 CE. The idea that Acts was written by an eyewitness is an inference from the "we" passages, but it is not the only inference that could be drawn.

There are major chronology and historicity problems with all Christian literature.

aa5874

WHAT!!!!???? Please. I won't tolerate such an absurd statement.

Look at Acts 16.16-17 Please show that the author of Acts is claiming that HE and others did NOT go to prayer when he wrote, " WE went to prayer".

Please show that the author of Acts is claiming that a damsel did NOT meet HIM and others when he wrote, " a certain damsel.... met US".

Please show that the author of Acts is claiming that HE and others were NOT followed when he wrote, "The same followed Paul and US"

Now, you ought to read my post CAREFULLY.

Do you see the PHRASE "IT IS CLAIMED".?

PLEASE read my post carefully before you attempt to reply.

What you say CANNOT be proven or demonstrated to be true.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr do not appear to have any major chronology and historicity problems.

The writings attributed to Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Aristides, and Arnobius do not appear to have MAJOR chronology and historicity problems

But the writings attributed to Irenaeus have MAJOR chronological and historicity problems. Irenaeus did NOT even know the governor of Judea for the Emperor Claudius and wrote that Jesus was about 50 YEARS old when he suffered CONTRARY to other Church writers.

Irenaeus also supplied the REJECTED and BOGUS chronology, authorship, dating and even contents of the Gospels, including Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagors, Minucius Felix, Aristides and Arnobius have NO such major problems as Irenaeus.

dog-on

I put Acts, along with Luke, between 160 and 180. I do think that the mentioned Theophilus was, in fact, Theophilus of Antioch.

hjalti

avi, I don't remember if Tyson gives us a narrow date like 110-120. His work mainly shows that one of the major purpose in writing Luke-Acts was to combat Marcionism. But I think I can agree with your point if you are saying that the upper limit should be higher.

My point regarding showing repsect to great scholars like Tyson is that I don't get the impression that you are familiar enough with the material to criticize him because: For a lengthy post you kept on talking about 1st and 2nd Galatians and put forward a theory that only takes about 30 seconds (less if one can recall it from memory) to see that is totally wrong. Maybe I'm just being to harsh and the Galatians-thing was just a slip everyone can make.

stephan huller

The key dates for the use of Acts are:

1) Irenaeus is familiar with it (c. 185 CE)
2) Clement of Alexandria attests to it (c. 193 CE)

I would argue that Irenaeus's witness of the rejection of John Mark and Paul's preference for Luke was an addition developed by Irenaeus himself (so too the 'we' section). In other words, there was a pre-Irenaean copy of Acts which is lost, probably developed in Antioch or an Antiochene interest.

I think Theophilus was Theophilus of Antioch and I suspect the original author was Polycarp.

aa5874

How can that be when Theophilus of Antioch did NOT even mention Jesus or that he believed in Jesus in his 3 books called "To Autolycus"?

Theophilus of Antioch show NO AWARENESS of the Jesus stories and did NOT acknowledge Jesus as his LORD and Savior in "To Autolycus".

This is Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" 1.12 Theophilus was a Christian who had nothing to do with Jesus.

It is NOT likely that "Theophilus" in Acts was Theophilus of Antioch.

Acts of the Apostles may have been written at the end of the 3rd century.

This is John Chrysostom on Acts of the Apostles writing in the 4th century.

Homilies 1 Acts of the Apostles should have been the most significant book for the Jesus cult since it contains the MOST IMPORTANT day for the START of the Jesus cult, "the DAY of Pentecost".

No early Christian writer REMEMBERED the significance of the Day of Pentecost or claimed to have the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and TALKED in TONGUES except "Paul".

Acts of the Apostles, wholly or in part, appears to be a Fiction-based LATE invention with the Pauline writings in an attempt to provide a BOGUS history of the Roman Church.

avi

1. Yup, upper limit should be as Stephan outlined.

2. Sorry for the sloppiness of my earlier message. Need to get those meds on a tighter schedule....


avi