Chili

The message here is 'that' the time is near and 'why' the time is very near for those who do wrong and continue to do wrong . . but not for those who are vile nor for those who do righteous things for the sake of righteousness . . . because there already are "holy ones" among you for whom the second coming is in the past.

Those who are wrong are wrong and they know it. They are earnestly looking for the reign of God, as Joseph was when he went to give an account of himself in Bethlehem.

Those who are vile are wrong but do not realize this since the law has not come alive in them just yet (from Romans 7:7-12). See also Jn. 21:18. "I tell you solemnly: as a young man you fastened your belt and went about as you pleased; but when you are older you will stretch out your hands, and another will tie you fast and carry you off against your will."

Those who are righteous for the sake of righteousness are summarized in Rev.14:12 in keeping the commandments and their faith in Jesus. These would be the Jesus worshipers for the sake of righteousness.

The holy ones are the holy ones of Rev.14:13. "I hear a voice from heaven say to me: "Write this down: Happy now are the dead who die in the Lord!" The spirit added, "Yes, they shall find rest from their labors, for their good works accompany them." For these the second coming has been.

johntheapostate

In all honesty, I dont know what the hell you are talking about.

Metacrock

What's the evdience for it being anti-pharisee? What if it is? That doesnt' prove Paul wasn't one, he was anti-pharisee by that time.

what historical erorr in G's speeches?

Metacrock

Yea but I don't care if they did. That doesn't invalidate anything for me.







Jesus himself said "I do not know when I come again" So he didn't know. The early chruch expected it to be soon, they were wrong. What's the big deal?

Metacrock

No! That's ridiculous. You want to think that just beign a skeptic gives you presumption and the text of the Bible must contantly be proven and re-proeven in eveyr single little piont it makes. That's abaurd. That contrary to all rules of logic and argument.


Herer are the 10 commandments of Rehetoric and refutation:

(1) the one advancing an argument has to prove that argument!
The skeptic can't go "the bibles unture,now prove it its true." You have to prove theres a probelm.

(2) the advoacating a position has only to prove a prema facie case, once that is established it becomes the sketpic's responsibility to prove it isn't valid.

(3) It's community memebership that accepts the Bible.


I don't exect you to accept it because you aren't in the community. But the same token, we don't have to prove that our accpetence is valid, that's merely the nature of our identity as the community that we are--we are the commuity that lives by the Bible as the wrod of God. Now of course if we want outsiders to accept it, we have to prove it to them. But if we don't care, we don't and it's none of your business.


I said 10 I have to finnish this latter.

Vorkosigan

To repeat my point:

Not necessarily. But Akenson's point is that Acts' claims about Paul, properly understood, are anti-Pharisee propaganda. You seem to have misread it.

What did Akenson say?

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. 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."

I quite agree that being anti-pharisee doesn't prove that Paul wasn't one, but we're not talking about that. We're discussing the veracity of the speeches in Acts, with respect to the problem of Gamaliel.

Amaleq has already explained to you just what the error is:

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)

I should add that Fredriksen (JesustoChrist,p31) says that this speech contains "significant historical gaffes."

Koester writes:

• "Finally, Acts 22:3 indicates that Paul grew up in Jerusalem and studied there with the famous rabbi Gamaliel I. Since the first part of this information is not trustworthy, the second is pure invention. Paul was a Pharisee, to be sure, but he came from the diaspora and his fanatic defense of the law before his call as little relationship wit Gamaliel's attested liberal halakhic wisdom. Thus the book of Acts contributes very little to our knowledge of Paul's origin and education; in fact, it only confounds the effort to achieve some clairty with respect to this question. It is better to rely exclusively upon the information that can be gleaned from the letters, in which Paul presents himself as a Hebrew from the diaspora with a good Greek education and a Pharisee inspired by a deep religious fervor....(His&Lit,p107)

Fredriksen (FJtC) says the same thing on p55:

• If Acts did not exist and all we had were Paul's letters, we would have no reason to think of him as other than a Jew of the Diaspora whose language was Greek, whose original arena of activity was Damascus, and who relations with the original disciples were complicated and difficult.

In the PseudoClementines Gamaliel is supposed to have been a secret believer......

Vorkosigan

Bede

We know that Gamaliel was Paul's teacher because AActs (who may or may not have been called Luke) travelled with Paul extensively. We know this because AActs says so. Thus we have a direct audited link to Paul.

Akenson's just-so story tells us nothing and has no grounding in history beyond his imagination (which you can tell from the probably's and pure supposition about Hillial). We have a text, Acts, that tells us something and we need grounds for disbelieving it. Constantly stating that Acts is 'obviously fiction' when it obviously isn't, doesn't help your cause.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Audited?? That's the sort of audit that got Arthur Anderson into trouble on the Enron account.

The author of Acts did not identify himself or herself, and did not give the sources for the story in Acts. He (or she) says in the prologue that Acts was compiled from many sources, but does not explain why those sources would be considered reliable.

The very basics for historical reliability are lacking.

Grounds for disbelieving: the obviously ahistorical speech by Gamaliel. The inability to clarify the dates of the incident in Damascus. The appearances of angels. Supernatural events.

I need to get to bed, but someone can probably come up with more reasons.

Bede

AActs identifies himself as a companion of Paul and his source is first hand information. This is quite clear. The basics for historical reliability are obviously present.

So, nothing in Thuycidides, often seen as one of the most reliable of ancient historians, is accruate because he used fictionalised speeches. Ditto Tacitus. Ditto every other ancient historian. Luke is uses standard practice as used by all the historians who everyone else feels can sometimes be relied on.

So, as we don't know the date of the Battle of Poitiers it never happened and Moslems overran Europe. There are huge numbers of uncertain dates and they do not mean we know nothing. Toto, have you ever in your life picked up a single book on ancient history by a recognised scholar? If so, please reread it before making such half arsed comments.

Where do these appear in the first person sections? All this tells us is that Luke reports what he hears and thus he clearly heard Paul say who his teacher was. Like the numerous news stories that appeared on the Angels of Mons don't mean we cannot believe anything we read in the papers.

So Josephus is utterly unreliable and we can't believe a word he says (remember those prodigies). Likewise, the London Times which reported those Angels of Mons, vast numbers of alleged ghosts and UFO sightings, not to mention crop circles.

Let's hope you are thinking more clearly in the morning.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Bede, in your haste to hack, you missed the whole point of this. So for the third or fourth time this thread:

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)

The speech of Gamaliel refers to events which never occurred. That is why it cannot be historical.

The remainder of your post contains the usual misunderstandings, fallacies, and general obnoxiousness you invariably exhibit anymore. Once you had something to contribute. I have no idea why you hang out at Infidels; seeking validation for battles long lost, or nursing an ego so stunted that it can only obtain gratification through dissing regular posters. You don't seem to be doing anything but being peevish. I cannot recall the last time you had a post that contained crisp prose, that discussed ideas, and that referenced recognized scholars. The last few months you've had absolutely nothing to say that was worth listening to.

It's sad, really.

So the question is, why?

Vorkosigan