Why on earth do you believe the Author of the book of Acts?
Acts is an obvious work of theological fiction.
Bizarre.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Why on earth do you believe the Author of the book of Acts?
Acts is an obvious work of theological fiction.
Bizarre.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Because the Bible says so, brainache, obviously!
It's all right there; the bible tells us which books are fake and which parts are real, and we know that because 4th to 6th century church leaders told us that 2nd century sources told us this.
It's all right there; the bible tells us which books are fake and which parts are real, and we know that because 4th to 6th century church leaders told us that 2nd century sources told us this.
Because the Bible says so, brainache, obviously!
It's all right there; the bible tells us which books are fake and which parts are real, and we know that because 4th to 6th century church leaders told us that 2nd century sources told us this.
This is most fascinating. Do you NOT rely on Acts of the Apostles in the thread entitled "Paul the Herodian"?
You have a bad memory.
You have a bad memory. You have completely forgotten that the chronology of Paul is found in Acts of the Apostles.
In order to date the Pauline Epistles pre 62 CE you must use Acts of the Apostles.
In fact, you can ONLY use Acts because there is NO other book in the Bible about the chronology of the travels of Paul.
Why on earth do you believe the chronology in Acts for Saul/Paul?
Last edited:
No.
The dating of Paul relies on internal information in the texts.
You are the only person relying on Acts.
Is that another thing you hadn't noticed?
Oh dear.
I prefer to point out even if you take the part of the Pauline Corpus generally agreed to be Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) he doesn't give you anything you can cross check with history.
Paul's Jesus is this vague figure who is described in general terms...much like we see with John Frum now and despite all the resources of the 20th century we're not sure the John Frum described by believers ever existed.
More importantly these writings of Paul shows that he is more concerned with the Jesus in his own head then any actual flesh and blood Jesus and goes as far as to warn about being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)
This leaves you with the Gospels for details and they are not referenced until c130 CE.
Last edited:
You have not ever read the Pauline Corpus or cannot remember that it contains no date at all for any Pauline letter.
If there was internal information to date the Pauline Corpus pre 62 CE you would have shown me.
Your claim that the dating of Paul relies on internal information is Chinese Whispers [Telephone]
The internal information in the Pauline Corpus tell us that there were MULTIPLE authors using the name Paul but do not tell us when they were composed.
You haven't noticed!!!
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
I warned you that paleography was a sin.
We can't verify anything until someone else cites it, and we can't verify that source until someone cites it either.
The whole bible is a myth made between the 4th and 6th century!
You have all been fooled!
We can't verify anything until someone else cites it, and we can't verify that source until someone cites it either.
The whole bible is a myth made between the 4th and 6th century!
You have all been fooled!
He goes back and forth to Jerusalem a few times. He mentions a Roman Governor called Gallo (IIRC) and tells us of his adventure escaping from Aretas in Damascus via a basket and a rope.
None of that would place the Pauline letters as later than the 60's.
This would probably be a lot easier for you, if you found this stuff out before you tried arguing about it.
That's right. Just as it makes no sense to carry statues of dead people round villages as I've seen done in Italy, or
http://www.oddee.com/item_98640.aspx . It simply happens to be the case that many religious adherents have weird beliefs about dead people. "Sense" doesn't come into it!
Last edited:
Aretas IV Philopatris (Ḥāritat in Nabataean) was the King of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40, says wiki. But the post 180 forgers just put that in, the way a modern author could invent an imaginary story about George III. This is how dejudge must believe things happened, according to his Munchausen pure fiction theory.
OK, you will have to explain that thinking a bit further for me - Jerusalem as a place obviously still existed. You cannot erase an area of the earth.
Perhaps you are saying that after the claimed destruction of the temple in what is generally said to be c.70AD(?), Christians would have been banned from that area by the Roman Rulers?
I don't see how an idea like that would be conclusive in thinking that Paul and the others could have met to talk in Jerusalem (despite any ban), or met to talk where some of them generally lived in the wider general area around Jerusalem.
But in in any case, since the copies that we have of Paul's letters were apparently written by Christians after about c.200AD, is it not obvious that they may have written about beliefs of Paul meeting principal members of the Jerusalem Christians 3 years and then 14 years after Paul’s visions?
Does Paul give a date? Afaik, he just says that after 3 and then 14 years, he went to Jerusalem to confer with the "pillars of the Church", he meant people (not stone pillars).
Why is it impossible for Paul go to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and others at any time/date during his life... why does it have to be before a building was destroyed around c.70AD? That's apart from the fact that, as told 150 years after Paul had died, these may be entirely apocryphal stories of legend anyway.
I know this question is for Tim, but while you are waiting, why not try a little light reading. Here is Josephus on the Jewish War, and if you read it carefully, you might understand why Paul wasn't going anywhere near Jerusalem after 70 CE..:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/
It's an interesting read actually, you should get familiar with Josephus, if you want to start making posts that people don't just laugh at.
Cheers.
Yes he does, in 2 Cor 11
Aretas died in 40 AD. Also the bit about the governor of Damascus is correct too. Caligula (I think) had recently ceded Damascus to the Nabateans and it wasn't their capital. The King lived in Petra or somewhere like that, and ruled Damascus through a local governor as Paul states. But hey, that doesn't mean Paul really had a vision of light and heard the voice of The Lord while on his way thither. That bit is not historical. Psychological, maybe.
ETA Let's consider this for a moment. Paul believed he had heard the voice of The Lord talking to him from a light in the sky which he saw at mid day in Syria. As one does. He believed he had heard the voice, and that he had been struck blind. And he also believed that Damascus had a King called Aretas (in Greek) who had a governor resident in Damascus, and he believed the governor had an APB out on him. Are any of these beliefs more probable than others, or must we either accept or reject them en bloc? If we can distinguish them, what criteria should we employ to perform this operation? What would be the result of this procedure?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Sounds to me like you believe what the bible tells you.
Another interesting aspect to this Aretas Damascus story, is that at that time, Aretas was going to war against Herod Agrippa, who had recently killed John The Baptist. Aretas was sheltering some allies of JTB around that time (according to josephus) and it was Aretas who was out to arrest Paul in that letter.
But according to Acts, Paul was escaping from "The Jews" who were chasing him.
Why would the Author of Acts say that? Why wouldn't he tell the same story that Paul does?
There is something fishy here.
Belz...
Fiend God
Seems to me like even historians have no clue, right ? Dejudge the expert will set them straight, though.
When are you publishing ?
Do I hear hollow echoes of fallacies by JaysonR?
The Pauline LETTERS [P 46] are dated to the 2nd century or later by paleography. So far there is no discovery of any Pauline letter to disprove that they are not all forgeries.
Justin Martyr c 150 CE did not mention any Pauline letters to Churches and so far the paleographic dating of the recovered Pauline Corpus supports his writings.
Based on Justin, Aristides and Celsus , stories of Jesus were already known, written and circulated in the Roman Empire up to c 180 CE before Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.
- Status