Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 08-23-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

One expects that the writer of Acts would mention a little bit of information like He was the only son of the only real God or that there were thousands of people around who witnessed his miracles.

You might expect it. I am aware of no reason to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In a sense, Acts can be seen as a sequel to the gospels.

It is a sequel to one of them, in the usual sense. The scholarly consensus, which I have yet to find any reason to second-guess, is that it was deliberately written as a continuation of the story begun by the same author in the Gospel According to Luke. It seems reasonable to suppose, in that case, that the author assumed that whoever he expected to read Acts would already have read the gospel.

GakuseiDon · 08-23-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

Good point.

In ancient times, it was perfectly acceptable for an historian to make up a speech that he hadn't actually read or seen. Today, it would be frowned upon by historians.

That's right. They wrote what they thought the person would have said, based on what was known (or thought) about their character. These are the things that need to be considered when evaluating what is present or missing in a text. Acts simply fits into the pattern of vague references to Jesus and the early church that we find in the extant writings over the first few centuries.

aa5874 · 08-23-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's right. They wrote what they thought the person would have said, based on what was known (or thought) about their character. These are the things that need to be considered when evaluating what is present or missing in a text. Acts simply fits into the pattern of vague references to Jesus and the early church that we find in the extant writings over the first few centuries.

Well, it is for that PRECISE reason why the NT and Acts of the Apostles are UNRELIABLE and need EXTERNAL corroborative sources and none can be found.

The author of Acts made claims about Jesus Christ that are Implausible, and known fiction.

Acts simply fit the pattern of Myth Fables of antiquity.

We have Suetonius "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" which is EVIDENCE against Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, it cannot be shown that Jesus was human but that Jesus was some kind of "WITNESSED" UFO or Myth character.

Acts 1

Quote:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

A Jewish Messiah was expected by the Jews to be human and EVEN one who would KILL or help the Jews to KILL their enemies.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4. Suetonius' "Life of Vesapasian" and Tacitus' Histories 5.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.