A Protestant Learns About Greek Orthodoxy (Video)

[straykat]

I've also thought that the mentions of the destruction of the temple lend support to a pre-70 date of authorship. Basically, if they were wanting to justify their claim to accuracy, they would have mentioned that the prophecy came true! Why leave it as a boring "Oh Jesus said this bad thing was going to happen" when they can add on "and it did happen, just as he said!" I've always thought that supports an earlier date, not a later one. Your point is good too though - Acts just cuts off abruptly; it was either a very unfinished document or it was actually written earlier

Ah, yes good point. But since it's stated in the past with no mention of being fulfilled AND they also think it's a late post AD 70 work, then they're doing what I accused them of: They're saying it was all written in bad faith, as an intentionally deceptive work.

edit: On a sidenote, I don't want to knock Catholics for the NAB. Thankfully, the "Didache" Bible (an RSV with copious RCC commentary) still holds up traditional dating in most places, especially the New Testament.

 

[FireDragon76]

1) Historical criticism and biblical scholarship are not monolithic, they are consensual and peer reviewed activities.

2) Critics can hardly be blamed for prefering naturalistic or mundane explanatios, since this is generally compatible with the scientific method. Biblical scholarship and criticism is not theology per se, and need not be seen as directly threatening the dogmas of a particular church.

 

[straykat]

1) Historical criticism and biblical scholarship are not monolithic, they are consensual and peer reviewed activities.

2) Critics can hardly be blamed for prefering naturalistic or mundane explanatios, since this is generally compatible with the scientific method. Biblical scholarship and criticism is not theology per se, and need not be seen as directly threatening the dogmas of a particular church.

They ARE a threat by the church when adopted by the church - and then pushed forward as some kind of "pastoral wisdom". It's the opposite of pastoral, where they don't "feed the sheep" Jesus commanded them to, but lead them into confusion and starvation. I lay the blame solely on clergy and schools run by churches for pushing this nonsense.

I don't care about the opinions of those outside the church. They have even bigger problems to worry about. They can write and "research" whatever they want to their hearts' content. I just don't want it in the church or in the scripture translations carried out by churches.

For example, it's sad that the NAB, is made by the RCC bishop's conference (and yes, I do care about them.. despite not being Catholic). How this got approval, I don't know. Even their own missal and guidelines from the Vatican have to "retranslate" and correct mistakes just to be suitable for public reading. It's a joke. And if there is ever an Orthodox translation, it'll need to a meet a similar (albeit slightly less formal) process of approval. I would hope they wouldn't make these mistakes either. For everyone else, that's their problem.