Bede

Peter,

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the source of this 'we' in sea voyages thing. What other Greek works can we see it in and why does the 'we' travel overland (all the way to Jerusalem in one instance) as well. Just wondering, as this comes up a lot without any kind of referencing.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Geoff Hudson

Perhap he means the type of sea voyage undertaken by Josephus (imo Paul): "for as OUR ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, WE that were in it, being about six-hundred in number (or was it about three hundred, or to be precise 276 - Acts 27.38), swam for OUR lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon the sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others (I wonder who some others were?), eighty in all by God's providence (surely another substituted word - for Spirit may be), prevented the rest (who I presume drowned), and were taken up into the other ship." (Life 3).

He talks like a Paul, swims like a Paul, fights like a Paul, knows the same people as a Paul. He must be a Paul.

Geoff

capnkirk

While the presence of gross historical errors IS grounds to dismiss the arguments presented in a document (the validity of the argument being dependent on the validity of the relavent history), but the converse is NOT true.

Historical accuracy does NOT construe religious content! Archaeological proof that there WAS a Temple of Solomon in ancient Jerusalem "proves" nothing except that there was such a temple. Here's a more secular example: The historical fact that there WAS a devastating earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 does NOT prove (or even imply) that God sent the quake to destroy the wickedness therein (though there were evangelicals that have made that claim).

The point that I am making is that demonstating historical accuracy of any scriptural passage does not add credibility to the religious content of the passage (though demonstrating historical INaccuracy certainly does detract from it).

This is the salient point when being thus confronted by christians. This is where their leap of faith is, and it can be exploited far more effectively than arguing whether such and such a reference is historically accurate...because if your opponent can get you to argue on that basis, it means that you concede his (unspoken) premise that historical accuracy equals religious accuracy. In other words, you have already lost the real argument.

Ted Hoffman

Captain Kirk,
"The real argument" being that beleivers can take a leap of faith and beleive in anything they want - irrespective of fact and history?
That is not an argument.
Its an absurdity. Besides your false dilemma and syllogistic fallacy, you need to remember two things:
History relates factual events. Religion involves an interpretation (besides other things) of such events (if any) based on (non-factual) beliefs.
Notice that you have mixed apples with oranges in your "explanation" above.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Artemus

Understood. My purpose in inquiring is not due to arguments with Christians (I gave that up years ago), but rather for my own education. As my profile says, I am fascinated by the historicity of Jesus debate, and I found the Jesus Puzzle web page very convincing. However, I want to try to examine all points of view before deciding. Sometimes events listed in Acts are given as evidence for the existance of Jesus, and I want to fully understand the validity that approach.

My current understanding, solidily reinforced by the Helms reference, is that "Luke" had no hesitation at all to change the narrative of Mark to better fit his own particular desires, and completely adding new scenes when needed (e.g. the nativity). I believe that is accepted by almost all scholars except for the most conservative inerranists. Based on this, the credibility of said author in any work should be zero. There is no way of knowing if the details presented in any of the works are relayed accurately from the sources, "corrected" when used, or fabricated from thin air. Material from Acts should therefore be treated as useless until proven correct. (Note: Useless does not necessarily mean false, just that you cannot use it to make a point.) Instead, it seems that opposite is true...things are assumed to be true unless proven false. Frankly, this makes no sense to me.

I should add that I would feel pretty much the same way even if it is possible he was a companion of Paul. Modern evangelists adust their retelling of their own encounters to "put it in proper perspective" (one of my favorite Oral Roberts defenses). Why should we not suspect it of an ancient writer who already had a questionable track record?

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Artemus ]</p>

Layman

Well, most historical works contain inaccuracies. So even if you assume some unspecified level of "fiction" you haven't really advanced the ball of the discussion.

It's one of my favorite areas of study. There are many fine commentaries out there. One I have found very helpful is by Colin Hemer.

Layman

Many of which are overinflated or just plain wrong themselves. Of course, simply because Luke was an occasional companion of Paul does not ensure complete agreement between their very different literary works, or even theology.

I've responded to lists of your alleged discrepancies before:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=</a>


A conclusion that is rejected by the majority of New Testament scholars.

Well, if Luke really did have an interest in placing the Christian story in larger Roman and Jewish history, then it would not be surprising that he would use Josephus' work--had he known about it.

You guys are hard to please. He's damned if he used historical sources and damned if he did not. Nice to have it both ways like that.

Of course, even if he used some materials from Josephus, it need not require that he published after 79 CE. As Professor Streeter noted in his highly respected "The Four Gospels; A Study of Origins," prior to publishing a work, authors -- such as Josephus -- often gave speeches or lectures to the public on their material in Rome. Josephus would likely have done so as well.

How did you decide what level of detail would be sufficient? We have an outright claim by the author to such an association. Sounds like your analysis is simply subjective, self-serving, uneducated opinion-mongering.

Umm, the parts that say "we did x" or and "then we went y." It is often noted that the "We" sections do contain more detail and specificity than the non "We" sections.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ahhh, the typical Layman marginallization attempt. You're nothing if not consistent!

No, of course not. It's expected that all historians will be wrong about certain things here and there. They're only human right and not at all inspired in any way by a higher power.

Problem being (as you so carefully tried to avoid with this pathetic evasion tactic) is that it doesn't address the question. How do you separate fact from fiction?

In the case of Luke/Acts, it was the attempt that generated the discrepencies to begin with, leaving us with the only logical conclusions:

<ol type="1">[*] authorship unknown and therefore cannot be attributed to anyone specifically[*] authorship proven unreliable in regard to historical accuracy[*] authorship contradictory in regard to religious dogma[/list=a]

You tell me, sir, how unknown, unreliable and contradictory authorship advances the ball on this discussion?

Koyaanisqatsi

And roundly trounced for your shoddy analysis and lack of substantive argumentation.

Again.

Layman

No one loves this topic more than I do. And I've laid out my thoughts on many of these issues in depth in various threads:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000526&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000526&p=</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000559" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000559</a>

and

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/marcion-layman.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/marcion-layman.html</a>

But. I have no intention in getting into a smear match with the master. Given your above snide comments, personal attacks, and insults, it is obvious not only that productive discussion with you is impossible, but that it would also be time consuming and highly unpleasant. Not because of the force of your arguments, nor the breadth of your knowledge, but because of the personal nastiness of your approach.