Actually the new testament claims to be the writing of men, not God. For example Mark wrote the recollections of Peter, John wrote John and Matthew composed Matthew. As for Mohammeds claim of writing for God I am simply skeptical of that. It has no bearing on the issue of Christianity
Open with the same message I did in RD room.
- Thread starter krkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
krkey,
No, I didn't "forget" that. I asked *you* to highlight those concepts within Islam that *you* felt were clearly examples of an "Arian influence". You listed two. The second surprised me, since it appears to be a mainstream (orthodox) christian concept. I'm just trying to understand why you felt the need to mention something that is cleary not an "Arian Christian" concept in response to my question? Your reply seems to indicate that, in fact, you put it there for no reason at all?
Fair enough - you can hold that opinion. Can I ask you then, how "far removed" are the books and writings of the "NT scholars" you are referring to? Would they be further removed than the Quran? Would this "distance" weaken or strengthen the value of these writings compared to, say, Muhammad and other Muslim scholars of the past 1400 years?
While our prattling blatherskite will ignore it, one can plat tit for tat.
Ok, let me get into character. . . Let's see, I'm a raging infant horrible. . . I'm so convinced of being on a mission for God that I'll slant the truth and my arguments. . . I'll only accept as "scholarly" pieces those that agree with me. . . I'm a fan of ultraconservatives. . .
OK, I'm ready. Here's my reply
Well, Mr. KrKey, if you'd only read what I post, you'll find true knowledge and insight, although I know your prejudice wouldn't let you. If you read these you'd see that I'm correct, all scholars agree with me, and you're going to hell.
Just check out: "Putting Away Childish Things"
by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. She proves to the whole world the falsity of the myths in the narratives.
Then maybe you should read this "The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus" by John Dominic Crossan to learn of the Jewish oral traditions of the Jesus myths and how they can be faulty.
Then you should read this "The Five Gospels : What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus"
by Robert W. Funk to see what scholars all agree on. There is no debate, and you're wrong.
Then you should read this "Josephus and the New Testament"
by Steve Mason to learn how the author of Acts relied upon Josephus. He's got the sole correct answer.
Then you should read "Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack from one of the most 'secular' scholars in the field. He's the only one with the correct answer.
Then to learn about the other Xian writings, please read "The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader"
by Bart D. Ehrman.
Whew!
Hey, it's easy when you delude yourself that you're the only one with the "Truth" (tm Bob Jones University).
Ok, let me get into character. . . Let's see, I'm a raging infant horrible. . . I'm so convinced of being on a mission for God that I'll slant the truth and my arguments. . . I'll only accept as "scholarly" pieces those that agree with me. . . I'm a fan of ultraconservatives. . .
OK, I'm ready. Here's my reply
Well, Mr. KrKey, if you'd only read what I post, you'll find true knowledge and insight, although I know your prejudice wouldn't let you. If you read these you'd see that I'm correct, all scholars agree with me, and you're going to hell.
Just check out: "Putting Away Childish Things"
by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. She proves to the whole world the falsity of the myths in the narratives.
Then maybe you should read this "The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus" by John Dominic Crossan to learn of the Jewish oral traditions of the Jesus myths and how they can be faulty.
Then you should read this "The Five Gospels : What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus"
by Robert W. Funk to see what scholars all agree on. There is no debate, and you're wrong.
Then you should read this "Josephus and the New Testament"
by Steve Mason to learn how the author of Acts relied upon Josephus. He's got the sole correct answer.
Then you should read "Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack from one of the most 'secular' scholars in the field. He's the only one with the correct answer.
Then to learn about the other Xian writings, please read "The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader"
by Bart D. Ehrman.
Whew!
Hey, it's easy when you delude yourself that you're the only one with the "Truth" (tm Bob Jones University).
Try a real statement of my views. I accept scholarship, real scholarship by people who have demonstrated they have the competance to deal with the subject at hand. Wells, Doherty and Maccoby are by no more New Testament scholars any more then Kent Hovind is a biologist.( all you have to do to disprove my claim is show me the university that gave them at least a masters in the New Testament. The fact this has yet to be done strengthens my view that it cannot be done. Without that I refuse to compare people who have devoted their entire lives, and have shown proper aptitude in the subject, be them believers or nonbelievers with the above mentioned gaggle of clowns. It is an insult. It literally is the same as putting Richard Dawkins on the same level as Hovind)
I have never said a person is not a scholar for holding a post seventy AD date for Mark, many New Testament scholars do. Many do not. I am simply arguing that their is compelling arguments for not doing this.
I have read Dominic Crossan before so I see no reason to go farther with him. His argument for the priority of Peter and Thomas has no support by any person but himself. While I do respect Crossan's numerous credentials my time would be more wisely spent studying scholars, regardless of theological strip who are more mainstream.
I have already read Burton L Mack, his book is currently resting on the top row of my bookshelf. I did not find him very convincing. He simply did not offer any explanation for easter sunday(wise move), often times used the phrases similiar to "you can only imagine or "it is possible". It is very unwise to make assumptions about the Quelle document such as he did, its existance is at best hypothetical and even if it does exist we still do not know the contents of it. Again I respect him as a legimate scholar though I would argue he is only convincing to those already convinced.
I will confess I have not read Funk and will see if I can check it out from my library. From what I see so far at amazon he seems to be taking three stars, which is not a very good sign for his argument. But as I said I will read it if it is available from the library. As a rule though, I do not waste much time on any book from amazon with less then 3 1/2 stars( because only three stars means that it has only has average failed to convince half of all people, remember you cannot do zero stars in amazon.com ) I suspect a few round with this book might do you well
I already own Ehrman so need to further look at it. I have not read Mason by I think I can suspect the flaw with his methodology already. He confuses similar language and similar descriptive events as proof of dependence upon one or another. This in fact only proves that different people can describe a similar event in a similar way.
For example if you and I were both asked to write about September 11 we would both mention the world trade center and the pentagon. We would also use similar words and phrases to describe the event in question.
Here are the objections from Colin Hemer
Another difficulty with the theory of a literary
connection between Acts and Josephus is the details
excluded from Acts which certainly would have been
known to the author of Luke and most certainly
recorded by him, because they were such major details
within early Christian history.
a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas the brother of Jesus (mentioned in
Josephus)
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem ( mentioned in Josephus)
g.) Beginning of 1st Judean Revolts ( mentioned in
Josephus)
h.) it shows no knowledge of Paul's writings. This is
best explained by the fact they were not yet in
circulation, thus requiring an earlier date for Luke.
Paul's writings were used in the Didache, dated to
100Ad. If Luke is from a similiar time period, why no
use of these writings?
yet another argument for an older date. The main issue
of acts is the relationship between Jews, Jewish
Persecutuions and Early Christians. It had a neutral
approach to the Romans. This all applies to a pre
Judean Revolt scenario had it been written after the
fall of Jerusalem, the Christian-Jew controversy would
have been none existant and the focus would have been
on the now Roman persections.
Points d , e and g are all grave difficulties for any
assumption of a literary connection between Acts and
Josephus. These were all events mentioned within
Josephus, all had a major effect upon the Christian
community. To suggest the author of Luke, would use
Josephus for certain material and not these major
events is absurd. Another difficulty is point H, it is
baffling to say the least why Luke would use Josephus
but not the writing of Paul, by which time would have
been in circulation.
Lastly this theory offers little explanation for
certain points of specialized knowledge within Acts.
Hemer has identified over 191 pieces of information
that are of a specialized nature, only readily
available to a person if he been at those locations(
which is extremely difficult in ancient times, people
did not travel nearly as much.) Lastly this needs to
be considered, if Luke is not the author, why the
absolute attributation of it to Luke. Does your
author attempt to explain the “we” passages in Luke.
Why is there no know counter tradition of authorship.
If it was a forgery, wouldn’t it make much more sense
to attribute it to say Barnabas.
Five out of 191 points.
16:13 A small river, the Gangites, flow close to the
walls of Philippi.
17:18 The Athenians call Paul a “babbler” ( sorry my
computer does not type Greek, this is the best
translation) which is a word of characteristically
Athenian slang
17:23 Paul would have seen the Athenian object of
worship in profusion at the main approach to the agora
from the northwest.
19:35 Has the correct title for the chief executive
magistrate in Ephesus.
20:14-15 The sequence of places mentioned in these
verses is entirely correct and natural
I got sick of typing, I was originally going to do
twenty. Does your author successfully explain these
things?
Forgot to mention, here is Crossan getting
demolished in debate.
as for faith, I prefer the Christian definition
No reply you said Gregor?
I have never said a person is not a scholar for holding a post seventy AD date for Mark, many New Testament scholars do. Many do not. I am simply arguing that their is compelling arguments for not doing this.
I have read Dominic Crossan before so I see no reason to go farther with him. His argument for the priority of Peter and Thomas has no support by any person but himself. While I do respect Crossan's numerous credentials my time would be more wisely spent studying scholars, regardless of theological strip who are more mainstream.
I have already read Burton L Mack, his book is currently resting on the top row of my bookshelf. I did not find him very convincing. He simply did not offer any explanation for easter sunday(wise move), often times used the phrases similiar to "you can only imagine or "it is possible". It is very unwise to make assumptions about the Quelle document such as he did, its existance is at best hypothetical and even if it does exist we still do not know the contents of it. Again I respect him as a legimate scholar though I would argue he is only convincing to those already convinced.
I will confess I have not read Funk and will see if I can check it out from my library. From what I see so far at amazon he seems to be taking three stars, which is not a very good sign for his argument. But as I said I will read it if it is available from the library. As a rule though, I do not waste much time on any book from amazon with less then 3 1/2 stars( because only three stars means that it has only has average failed to convince half of all people, remember you cannot do zero stars in amazon.com ) I suspect a few round with this book might do you well
I already own Ehrman so need to further look at it. I have not read Mason by I think I can suspect the flaw with his methodology already. He confuses similar language and similar descriptive events as proof of dependence upon one or another. This in fact only proves that different people can describe a similar event in a similar way.
For example if you and I were both asked to write about September 11 we would both mention the world trade center and the pentagon. We would also use similar words and phrases to describe the event in question.
Here are the objections from Colin Hemer
Another difficulty with the theory of a literary
connection between Acts and Josephus is the details
excluded from Acts which certainly would have been
known to the author of Luke and most certainly
recorded by him, because they were such major details
within early Christian history.
a.) Fire of Rome
b.) Death of Paul
c.) Death of Peter
d.) Death of Judas the brother of Jesus (mentioned in
Josephus)
e.) First Persecutions of Nero
f.) Fall of Jerusalem ( mentioned in Josephus)
g.) Beginning of 1st Judean Revolts ( mentioned in
Josephus)
h.) it shows no knowledge of Paul's writings. This is
best explained by the fact they were not yet in
circulation, thus requiring an earlier date for Luke.
Paul's writings were used in the Didache, dated to
100Ad. If Luke is from a similiar time period, why no
use of these writings?
yet another argument for an older date. The main issue
of acts is the relationship between Jews, Jewish
Persecutuions and Early Christians. It had a neutral
approach to the Romans. This all applies to a pre
Judean Revolt scenario had it been written after the
fall of Jerusalem, the Christian-Jew controversy would
have been none existant and the focus would have been
on the now Roman persections.
Points d , e and g are all grave difficulties for any
assumption of a literary connection between Acts and
Josephus. These were all events mentioned within
Josephus, all had a major effect upon the Christian
community. To suggest the author of Luke, would use
Josephus for certain material and not these major
events is absurd. Another difficulty is point H, it is
baffling to say the least why Luke would use Josephus
but not the writing of Paul, by which time would have
been in circulation.
Lastly this theory offers little explanation for
certain points of specialized knowledge within Acts.
Hemer has identified over 191 pieces of information
that are of a specialized nature, only readily
available to a person if he been at those locations(
which is extremely difficult in ancient times, people
did not travel nearly as much.) Lastly this needs to
be considered, if Luke is not the author, why the
absolute attributation of it to Luke. Does your
author attempt to explain the “we” passages in Luke.
Why is there no know counter tradition of authorship.
If it was a forgery, wouldn’t it make much more sense
to attribute it to say Barnabas.
Five out of 191 points.
16:13 A small river, the Gangites, flow close to the
walls of Philippi.
17:18 The Athenians call Paul a “babbler” ( sorry my
computer does not type Greek, this is the best
translation) which is a word of characteristically
Athenian slang
17:23 Paul would have seen the Athenian object of
worship in profusion at the main approach to the agora
from the northwest.
19:35 Has the correct title for the chief executive
magistrate in Ephesus.
20:14-15 The sequence of places mentioned in these
verses is entirely correct and natural
I got sick of typing, I was originally going to do
twenty. Does your author successfully explain these
things?
Forgot to mention, here is Crossan getting
demolished in debate.
as for faith, I prefer the Christian definition
No reply you said Gregor?
I forgot to add this part to difficulties with Josephus-Acts connection
Here are the objections from Colin Hemer on this subject about a literary connection between Acts and Josephus.
A.) It should be noted that when the two authors touch upon a subject, they often conflict. This hardly helps the argument for dependence immediately. For example the date of the census under Quirinius, Theudas reference, and date of succession of Festus.
B.) The author of Luke tends not to paraphrase his sources, while Josephus does this for both brevity and to alter the mood of his writings. The author of Luke was a far better historian then Josephus with his materials
C.) Josephus is attempting a comprehensive history of a people (Ant) or period (BJ) whereas Luke’s work is extremely narrow and selective in its focus
D.) Where Josephus’ major works are extended over many books, Luke has written two books tersely.
E.) The advocacy implicit in the two authors writers is different: Luke is on any view self-effacing, his purpose theologicial ( even if its expression is through a historical record) whereas Josephus’ record is intensely personal in areas where his own conduct had incurred criticism, he does not have a similar theological motive.
F.) The theological outlook of Josephus is close to the ethical providential theism of Dionysus, but the further assimilation of luke to this comparison is difficult to substain. Although both authors may be trying to communicate with a pagan readership, where Josephus may be prone to accommodate, Luke’s theology, even as presented in Acts 17, may interact with pagan thinking, but is bold to counter it. These two headings involve a different resolution of the history-theology tension in the two writers.
G.) Josephus’ writing is strongly marked by rhetoric, and stands in a distinctively rhetoricial tradition within ancient historiography; Luke, while capable of sophisticated literary style in his preface, is never rhetorical.
H.) The speeches in Josephus are characteristic products of the rhetoricial tendency; those of Acts are brief, and if we may adduce the “speeches” of Jesus in the third Gosepl, their content is reproduced almost verbatim in part from a preserved source( Mark) or a closely inferable one ( Q or equivalent)
I.) Josephus, while a an invaluable witness to matters within his experience, is prone to sensationalize and exaggerate; Luke is restrained. Josephus dwells on the horror of the famine in domed Jerusalem or the grotesque fate of refugees, or a mother eating her child, a scene complete with speeches. This problem is especially apparent in the treatment of numbers. In Acts 4,000 men follow the Egyptian bandit into the desert, and in Josephus 30,000. Josephus has not less than three million Jews in an anti-Roman demonstration, can we accept such a figure?
Here are the objections from Colin Hemer on this subject about a literary connection between Acts and Josephus.
A.) It should be noted that when the two authors touch upon a subject, they often conflict. This hardly helps the argument for dependence immediately. For example the date of the census under Quirinius, Theudas reference, and date of succession of Festus.
B.) The author of Luke tends not to paraphrase his sources, while Josephus does this for both brevity and to alter the mood of his writings. The author of Luke was a far better historian then Josephus with his materials
C.) Josephus is attempting a comprehensive history of a people (Ant) or period (BJ) whereas Luke’s work is extremely narrow and selective in its focus
D.) Where Josephus’ major works are extended over many books, Luke has written two books tersely.
E.) The advocacy implicit in the two authors writers is different: Luke is on any view self-effacing, his purpose theologicial ( even if its expression is through a historical record) whereas Josephus’ record is intensely personal in areas where his own conduct had incurred criticism, he does not have a similar theological motive.
F.) The theological outlook of Josephus is close to the ethical providential theism of Dionysus, but the further assimilation of luke to this comparison is difficult to substain. Although both authors may be trying to communicate with a pagan readership, where Josephus may be prone to accommodate, Luke’s theology, even as presented in Acts 17, may interact with pagan thinking, but is bold to counter it. These two headings involve a different resolution of the history-theology tension in the two writers.
G.) Josephus’ writing is strongly marked by rhetoric, and stands in a distinctively rhetoricial tradition within ancient historiography; Luke, while capable of sophisticated literary style in his preface, is never rhetorical.
H.) The speeches in Josephus are characteristic products of the rhetoricial tendency; those of Acts are brief, and if we may adduce the “speeches” of Jesus in the third Gosepl, their content is reproduced almost verbatim in part from a preserved source( Mark) or a closely inferable one ( Q or equivalent)
I.) Josephus, while a an invaluable witness to matters within his experience, is prone to sensationalize and exaggerate; Luke is restrained. Josephus dwells on the horror of the famine in domed Jerusalem or the grotesque fate of refugees, or a mother eating her child, a scene complete with speeches. This problem is especially apparent in the treatment of numbers. In Acts 4,000 men follow the Egyptian bandit into the desert, and in Josephus 30,000. Josephus has not less than three million Jews in an anti-Roman demonstration, can we accept such a figure?
Triadboy Again you do not seem to comprehend my statement I do not waste my time on the ranting of the idiotic views of any village atheist. I have about as much desire to deal with their writings as I have to deal with the writings of Duane Gish Hey look he also got four stars. My criteria while I might have left it unspoken is for dealing with books written by scholars( wait a minute now, Duane Gish unlike the gaggle of Christ Mythers I have been presented with actually has a relevant degree in the subject he writes. Wow I found something worse then young earth creationism, Christ Mything)
But I will read it if you read perhaps this or this
Please tell me that was a brain fart and you seriously do not believe what you recommend was in any way useful as anything other then fuel for a fire.
But I will read it if you read perhaps this or this
Please tell me that was a brain fart and you seriously do not believe what you recommend was in any way useful as anything other then fuel for a fire.
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
krkey said:
Do me a small favor, and read this thread.
Tell me what you think about emotional investment.
I'll promise you this. If you can manage to convince me of any of this God or Christ stuff, I'll go back to being a Christian.
I'm serious. I'm no "scholar" or other some such. I'm just some guy that is trying to figure things out in a neutral way.
Care to take the challenge and try to convince me? Your chance to save a soul!!!
To be honest, I have no idea how this will turn out. I have no problem saying I'm wrong. If you want this real challenge, PM me and let me know...
I'm willing to honestly put my beliefs on the line. Are you willing to try to affect change?
I see you are uninterested in a debate over principles, but merely want to sling around titles to see who can come up with the most accredentialed authority.krkey said:
Well, the Catholic Church has the best authority of all Christian denominations. I take it therefore you will soon inform us of your conversion to Catholicism.
TruthSeeker
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,587
Yahzi said:
(I am learning so much in Mr. Krkey's threads. Thanks to all of you.)
First, many of your topics are make weight arguments, and a number are surely subjective.
A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.
B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying
C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.
D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.
E & F - again, going to motivation, not content
G - too vague without examples
I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.
Well, while I don’t know whether you cut and pasted your materials or summarized them yourself, I do get the benefit (and inherent limitations) of relying upon a summary by another. What follows is also obviously more comprehensive than your simplifications - but as I admit, I didn't prepare it.
Richard Carrier has already summarized many of the salient facts and arguments that Mason makes to support the Luke reliance upon Josephus.
The following is an abbreviated cutting from infidels:
“Among the[] stories or facts [that are identical in both Josephus and Acts and thus militate in favor of copying] are:
• The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).
• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).
• The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
. . .
[See the actual article for ten more]”
“Mason concludes with one overriding similarity of tactic between L and J that is unlikely to have been independently devised: both very cleverly paint their religions as respectable Graeco-Jewish philosophical schools. Some of these features:
• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .
• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth.
• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus
• L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).
• L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,.
• L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189)."
"Conclusion
"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd.”
The full review can be found at infidels.org
DEBATING WILLIAM CRAIG
And Jeff Lowder has responded to Craig’s historicity of the resurrection debate topics here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.
B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying
C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.
D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.
E & F - again, going to motivation, not content
G - too vague without examples
I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.
Well, while I don’t know whether you cut and pasted your materials or summarized them yourself, I do get the benefit (and inherent limitations) of relying upon a summary by another. What follows is also obviously more comprehensive than your simplifications - but as I admit, I didn't prepare it.
Richard Carrier has already summarized many of the salient facts and arguments that Mason makes to support the Luke reliance upon Josephus.
The following is an abbreviated cutting from infidels:
“Among the[] stories or facts [that are identical in both Josephus and Acts and thus militate in favor of copying] are:
• The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).
• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).
• The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
. . .
[See the actual article for ten more]”
“Mason concludes with one overriding similarity of tactic between L and J that is unlikely to have been independently devised: both very cleverly paint their religions as respectable Graeco-Jewish philosophical schools. Some of these features:
• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .
• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth.
• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus
• L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).
• L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,.
• L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189)."
"Conclusion
"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd.”
The full review can be found at infidels.org
DEBATING WILLIAM CRAIG
And Jeff Lowder has responded to Craig’s historicity of the resurrection debate topics here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Steve Allen was not a "village atheist", he was a Christian.krkey said:
Furthermore, you are revealing that you will dismiss any atheist as a source. You appeal to authority, and you liberally apply the 'true Scotsman' fallacy to determine whom you will regard as an authority.
In short, you are intellectually dishonest.
triadboy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 2,556
krkey said:
Just to get an idea of where your head is - I'd love to know what your particular OT beliefs are concerning:
Adam and Eve
Cain and Abel
Tower of Babel
Jonah in the big fish
Noah and the Flood
The Adventures of Lot
Moses and the Exodus
Are these real to you? (i.e. actual historical events) If you are a Christian - I assume you believe them as real.
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
I'll write this real slow to match your comprehensive skills:krkey said:
Allen was not an ex-Christian. He was a Christian. I use the past tense because he is dead. You say you respect scholars, but it very clear through other things you say that you respect only scholars whose viewpoint matches your own.
First, many of your topics are make weight arguments, and a number are surely subjective.
A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.
Luke seems to place the census or Quirinius around 6AD while Josephus places it during the time of Herod. The egyptian in acts has 4000 men, In josephus 30,000( Acts is more likely correct here.) If Luke was simply copying Josephus, why the difference here
B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying. From Hemer on this. Downings examination of Josephus' handling both of the Old Testament text and noncanocial material in the Epistle of Aristeas is of much interest. He concludes that Josephus is free in altering the wording of his sources, and the historian does think this at variance with his strong professions of accuracy. Further, Josephus seems to paraphrase for the sake of change, since most ofthese changes have no obvious motivation. There is no real invention of material, though he may variously rearrange, tidy, conflate or embellish his sources. The second part of the study, which applies these findings to the purpose and method of luke is less successful. Downing claims that luke is actually much closer verbally to his sources than Josephus, and points in at least one connection tto his relative brevity.
C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.
I will inform the classical historians of your correction. My point in this is to establish difference between Acts-Josephus. The more differences, the less likely there is a connection
D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.
But this needs to be asked, if Luke was composing so late as you suggest, why didn't he use any of Pauls writings? This is extremely difficult for a Josephan connection, because the later you date Luke, the more and more difficult it becomes to explain why he never used Pauls writings. You want me to believe a Christian would use Josephus, but not Paul
G - too vague without examples.
Point H provides the example, the speeaches of Jesus in mark
I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.
Nor do I , its from page 97-98 of Hemer
The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8). As I posted earlier Luke and Josephus have different dates for these events, kinda odd indeed if they copied one another.
• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171). From Hemer on Theudas. Theudas is said to precede Judas whose revolt was directed against the census of Quirinius in 6AD and therefore a fortiori he most precede the dramatic date of Gamiel scence. But the sequence clashes with Josephus' dating of a revolt by a theudas under the procurator fadus, a time after Judas and more then 10 years too late for the ostensible chronology of this scene in acts....It is possible tha Josephus rather than luke is wrong. For the "Egyptian see above"
The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
And why should this be any evidence for a literay connection? This is something both a Jew and a Christian would find offensive. I found 9-11 to be offensive, and I assume you did. Does that mean we now copied of each other.
• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .Why should it again be puzzling that a Christian would use a similiar phraselogy as that of a Jew? Similiar background often produce similiar thought patterns.
• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth. and both you and I use the word science to describe a science. Does that mean you and copied from each other? The problem with this argument is obvious, for it to have any bite it needs show there were numerous other words the author of Luke could have used.
• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus many people in modern times extol the virtues of charity. In ancient times povery was considered to be virtious. That luke had a common view for his time, that Josephus shared with him should not be suprising.
L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).
What other Christian author should have used it?
L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,. This can be equally explained by the fact Josephus was a hellinized Jew and Luke was a former pagan
conclusion
Mason and Carrier are simple enganging in naive, uncriticial, 2 dimensional history without properly thinking through their Parallels. Also please xplain the second part of my post and why didnt Luke include all that material which would have been known to him
A - I don't know if I'd agree with this, and I'd need to compare the two entries side by side.
Luke seems to place the census or Quirinius around 6AD while Josephus places it during the time of Herod. The egyptian in acts has 4000 men, In josephus 30,000( Acts is more likely correct here.) If Luke was simply copying Josephus, why the difference here
B appears to be incorrect - you need to give an example for me to even consider what you are saying. From Hemer on this. Downings examination of Josephus' handling both of the Old Testament text and noncanocial material in the Epistle of Aristeas is of much interest. He concludes that Josephus is free in altering the wording of his sources, and the historian does think this at variance with his strong professions of accuracy. Further, Josephus seems to paraphrase for the sake of change, since most ofthese changes have no obvious motivation. There is no real invention of material, though he may variously rearrange, tidy, conflate or embellish his sources. The second part of the study, which applies these findings to the purpose and method of luke is less successful. Downing claims that luke is actually much closer verbally to his sources than Josephus, and points in at least one connection tto his relative brevity.
C is not quite accurate but irrelevant - while Joe was more focused on history at its core and Acts was history plus theology. It doesn't help you argument one bit.
I will inform the classical historians of your correction. My point in this is to establish difference between Acts-Josephus. The more differences, the less likely there is a connection
D So? point? And L/A only had to read two books to borrow from.
But this needs to be asked, if Luke was composing so late as you suggest, why didn't he use any of Pauls writings? This is extremely difficult for a Josephan connection, because the later you date Luke, the more and more difficult it becomes to explain why he never used Pauls writings. You want me to believe a Christian would use Josephus, but not Paul
G - too vague without examples.
Point H provides the example, the speeaches of Jesus in mark
I - I recognize the cut and paste, but I cannot recall where.
Nor do I , its from page 97-98 of Hemer
The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8). As I posted earlier Luke and Josephus have different dates for these events, kinda odd indeed if they copied one another.
• The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171). From Hemer on Theudas. Theudas is said to precede Judas whose revolt was directed against the census of Quirinius in 6AD and therefore a fortiori he most precede the dramatic date of Gamiel scence. But the sequence clashes with Josephus' dating of a revolt by a theudas under the procurator fadus, a time after Judas and more then 10 years too late for the ostensible chronology of this scene in acts....It is possible tha Josephus rather than luke is wrong. For the "Egyptian see above"
The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)
And why should this be any evidence for a literay connection? This is something both a Jew and a Christian would find offensive. I found 9-11 to be offensive, and I assume you did. Does that mean we now copied of each other.
• L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses . . .Why should it again be puzzling that a Christian would use a similiar phraselogy as that of a Jew? Similiar background often produce similiar thought patterns.
• L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth. and both you and I use the word science to describe a science. Does that mean you and copied from each other? The problem with this argument is obvious, for it to have any bite it needs show there were numerous other words the author of Luke could have used.
• L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty [like] Josephus many people in modern times extol the virtues of charity. In ancient times povery was considered to be virtious. That luke had a common view for his time, that Josephus shared with him should not be suprising.
L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).
What other Christian author should have used it?
L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis,. This can be equally explained by the fact Josephus was a hellinized Jew and Luke was a former pagan
conclusion
Mason and Carrier are simple enganging in naive, uncriticial, 2 dimensional history without properly thinking through their Parallels. Also please xplain the second part of my post and why didnt Luke include all that material which would have been known to him
First a small correction. Luke has the census of Quirinious during the time of Herod, who died on four BC. Josephus has it during 6AD.
Here is why the argument isnt compelling( see above posts)
a.) Does not explain why Luke and Josephus have contradictory views on events if one use the others.
b.) does not explain why Acts excluded the material that it did, including relevant material that is in Josephus ( Death of Judas brother of Jesus, or anything relating to the Judean revolt)
c.) does not explain how Luke had such a high knowledge of various hellenistic settings.
d.) offers no explanation for why Acts never used the writings of Paul. The later one dates Acts, the more difficult this becomes.
e.) has no explanation for the "we" passages
f.) why would the Church attribute this anonymous document to Luke? He was a minor figure within Christianity. Why not someone more famous, such as Barnabas
Your Parallels are not very convincing. They are too general, they can equally be explained by two contemporary writers writing about similiar experiences. This is in fact a superior argument, because it much more adequately explains points a-f. These are the reasons the majority of scholars dismiss a Acts-Josephus connection.
In order for this argument to be viable, you need to find something like below.
The author of Luke used Mark as one of his sources. He used it almost verbatim
Mark 10:18-22 -Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"
He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions
Luke 20:18-23 An official asked him this question, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.'"
And he replied, "All of these I have observed from my youth."
When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.
In order to establish a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus you need something similiar to this.( especially now this demonstrates Luke qouted his sources' almost verbatim)
Here is why the argument isnt compelling( see above posts)
a.) Does not explain why Luke and Josephus have contradictory views on events if one use the others.
b.) does not explain why Acts excluded the material that it did, including relevant material that is in Josephus ( Death of Judas brother of Jesus, or anything relating to the Judean revolt)
c.) does not explain how Luke had such a high knowledge of various hellenistic settings.
d.) offers no explanation for why Acts never used the writings of Paul. The later one dates Acts, the more difficult this becomes.
e.) has no explanation for the "we" passages
f.) why would the Church attribute this anonymous document to Luke? He was a minor figure within Christianity. Why not someone more famous, such as Barnabas
Your Parallels are not very convincing. They are too general, they can equally be explained by two contemporary writers writing about similiar experiences. This is in fact a superior argument, because it much more adequately explains points a-f. These are the reasons the majority of scholars dismiss a Acts-Josephus connection.
In order for this argument to be viable, you need to find something like below.
The author of Luke used Mark as one of his sources. He used it almost verbatim
Mark 10:18-22 -Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"
He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions
Luke 20:18-23 An official asked him this question, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.'"
And he replied, "All of these I have observed from my youth."
When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.
In order to establish a textual relationship between Acts and Josephus you need something similiar to this.( especially now this demonstrates Luke qouted his sources' almost verbatim)