When was the Book of Acts really written? I mean, really written ...?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, I suppose so, and that very last statement you've made above does ring with some definite truth.

No. Perhaps the same warning should/is good to remember with do not assume anything - do not suppose something not only not in evidence, but contrary to evidence for two years.

 

[Josheb]

?? again, a lot of information posted/ in the news/ anywhere is not provided by God at all, and God says not to trust it, but to trust HIM.
Even if an Apostle or an apparent angel of light brings any message, it is to be tested proven truth before accepting it.

That's a wonderful job of posting irrelevant to the op and a wonderful job ripping God's word from its context. I think we're done here.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

2 Timothy 3:16-17
November 29, 2019 • 3 posts • 151 views
Daily Devotionals
#1 - Mydreams
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[FireDragon76]

Simply put, it affects the degree that some people will more seriously consider engaging the Christian Faith ... of course you and I already believe and understand that the Lord inspired, organized and arranged the earliest discourses of His Church so that we could have a New Testament.

If this is a requirement of orthodox Christian belief, then that is an obstacle. I refuse to read the Bible in any other way that any other book... which means critically. I am reluctant to consider the notion that the Church was infallibly guided by God in any way, when the evidence is so much to the contrary.

Having said that, the scholarly consensus seems to place Luke and Acts towards at least the late 1st century, and I see no reason to doubt that. But even if it has a date of around 67 AD, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't contain legends. Legends can develop very quickly, as evidenced by the John Frum cult in Papua New Guinea.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If this is a requirement of orthodox Christian belief, then that is an obstacle. I refuse to read the Bible in any other way that any other book... which means critically. I am reluctant to consider the notion that the Church was infallibly guided by God in any way, when the evidence is so much to the contrary.

Having said that, the scholarly consensus seems to place Luke and Acts towards at least the late 1st century, and I see no reason to doubt that. But even if it has a date of around 67 AD, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't contain legends. Legends can develop very quickly, as evidenced by the John Frum cult in Papua New Guinea.

FD, I like you as a person, so don't take it too personally when I say that I think your response in this particular instance has little or nothing to do with the thrust of my OP. You've misunderstood my whole intent here. In fact, my purpose here isn't to 'insinuate' something faulty on the part of skeptics, nor to present some "requirements" for orthodoxy. It's simply to get us thinking about certain issues on deeper levels that might, in the end, help someone place faith in Christ. And if it doesn't help, then it doesn't help. Besides, it's not like I'm one of those who expects a 'one-size-fits-all' epistemic access to Christ and/or devotion to Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

I just think its a horrible Christian apologetic. All that is doing is setting people up for disappointment, or worse, gross errors in judgment.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am reluctant to consider the notion that the Church was infallibly guided by God in any way, when the evidence is so much to the contrary.

You are aware, aren't you, that God Says In His Word, how bad (wrong and sinful/disobedient) the people , even in what you call "the church", were, are , and will be ? i.e. everything is exactly as He Said it would be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just think its a horrible Christian apologetic. All that is doing is setting people up for disappointment, or worse, gross errors in judgment.

I don't even know what your exact critique here is, FD. In this thread I'm simply offering some thoughts on the topic of when Acts may or may not have been written, specifically as presented by Bock. What's wrong with that? If there's something wrong with this, I'm not "getting it," especially since I'm under ZERO expectation that belief in the New Testament contents completely rises or utterly falls with one single issue among a thousand that we all have to contend with as we existentially grapple with both our unique human experience and the possible truth of Christianity, even as generally conceived.

 

[BigV]

Luke and Josephus

If Luke relies on Josephus, then a later date of composition of the Acts becomes very likely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Luke and Josephus

If Luke relies on Josephus, then a later date of composition of the Acts becomes very likely.

For starters, that's a big IF, and Carrier states right at the beginning of the article you've chosen that what he presents doesn't 'prove' anything, but rather lends 'support' to the notion that Luke ripped stuff from Josephus ...

... be that as it may, I will review what Carrier has stated. It ought to be an interesting article, one that I can hold up against Bock and Habermas (and some of the other scholars that I have on the subject).

Thanks for posing this counter and posting this article, BigV!

 

[BigV]

For starters, that's a big IF, and Carrier states right at the beginning of the article you've chosen that what he presents doesn't 'prove' anything, but rather lends 'support' to the notion that Luke ripped stuff from Josephus ...

Yep, I agree. Luke could have used the same source as Josephus used, there could be other explanations. That's one reasons scholars typically abstain from making definitive, itMustbeSo statements.

Thanks for posing this counter and posting this article, BigV!

Yep, any time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, I agree. Luke could have used the same source as Josephus used, there could be other explanations. That's one reasons scholars typically abstain from making definitive, itMustbeSo statements.


Yep, any time.

I'm still in the process of reading your article by Carrier, but at the moment, one thing that is very interesting to me is that the first scholar Carrier cites is one of Steve Mason's books from 1992. One of my main references is a later book also by Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origens, published in 2009. So, I'm going to see what Mason has had to say in 2009 and compare it to what Carrier is citing from him earlier on in 1992.

 

[BigV]

I'm still in the process of reading your article by Carrier, but at the moments, one thing that is very interesting to me is that the first scholar Carrier cites is one of Steve Mason's books from 1992. One of my main references is a later book also by Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origens, published in 2009. So, I'm going to see what Mason has had to say in 2009 and compare it to what Carrier is citing from him earlier on in 1992.

Good point, but your religion is based on writings written... in double digit years and have not been updated since. Yet, it's not a problem, correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good point, but your religion is based on writings written... in double digit years and have not been updated since. Yet, it's not a problem, correct?

You may have to explain more fully what you mean in all of this, because I'm under no obligation as far as I know to think that any of the more 'historical' New Testament books---which essentially are the Gospels and Acts---couldn't have gone through a couple of editings or revisions over time, even during the 1st century and into the 2nd, before 'becoming' in more final form what we have as remnants in our possession today.

So, explain what you mean by double digits, no updates, and this being a problem? While you're doing that, I'm reading more of Carrier's article ...

 

[FireDragon76]

For starters, that's a big IF, and Carrier states right at the beginning of the article you've chosen that what he presents doesn't 'prove' anything, but rather lends 'support' to the notion that Luke ripped stuff from Josephus ...

... be that as it may, I will review what Carrier has stated. It ought to be an interesting article, one that I can hold up against Bock and Habermas (and some of the other scholars that I have on the subject).

Thanks for posing this counter and posting this article, BigV!

Richard Carrier? Good grief, that speaks volumes right there.

Stick to mainstream scholarship, not the fringe. Carrier is as bad as any Bible college when it comes to lack of objectivity and sheer unreasonableness.

Bart Ehrman is a better choice for biblical scholarship. And he refutes Carriers mythicist hypothesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Richard Carrier? Good grief, that speaks volumes right there.

Stick to mainstream scholarship, not the fringe. Carrier is as bad as any Bible college when it comes to lack of objectivity and sheer unreasonableness.

Bart Ehrman is a better choice for biblical scholarship. And he refutes Carriers mythicist hypothesis.

Are you telling this to me or to BigV? It's hard to tell since you don't use the quotation features of CF.

As for me, I'm already critical of Carrier, although he can sometimes make a good point here or there.

And you might add to your Bart Ehrman, Steve Mason. In addition to these two, I'm also holding out for Darrell Bock and Gary Habermas, even though they differ on Luke-Acts from both Ehrman and Mason.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you telling this to me or to BigV? It's hard to tell since you don't use the quotation features of CF.

As for me, I'm already critical of Carrier, although he can sometimes make a good point here or there.

And you might add to your Bart Ehrman, Steve Mason. In addition to these two, I'm also holding out for Darrell Bock and Gary Habermas, even though they differ on Luke-Acts from both Ehrman and Mason.

I was responding to @BigV. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BigV]

Richard Carrier? Good grief, that speaks volumes right there.

Stick to mainstream scholarship, not the fringe. Carrier is as bad as any Bible college when it comes to lack of objectivity and sheer unreasonableness.

Bart Ehrman is a better choice for biblical scholarship. And he refutes Carriers mythicist hypothesis.

Bart doesn't refute Carrier. I prefer to deal with arguments rather than generalizing. This is true about Bible colleges and about Carrier.

Have you seen me post something like... "I can't accept this (insert argument/information here), because it's written by a fundamentalist"?

 

[BigV]

You may have to explain more fully what you mean in all of this, because I'm under no obligation as far as I know to think that any of the more 'historical' New Testament books---which essentially are the Gospels and Acts---couldn't have gone through a couple of editings or revisions over time, even during the 1st century and into the 2nd, before 'becoming' in more final form what we have as remnants in our possession today.

So, explain what you mean by double digits, no updates, and this being a problem? While you're doing that, I'm reading more of Carrier's article ...

I was just pointing out that the sources for Christianity are much older than Carrier, and yet you have no issues accepting them as somewhat reliable (I presume). I was trying to be a bit funny also with that one.

 

[FireDragon76]

Bart doesn't refute Carrier. I prefer to deal with arguments rather than generalizing. This is true about Bible colleges and about Carrier.

Have you seen me post something like... "I can't accept this (insert argument/information here), because it's written by a fundamentalist"?

Richard Carrier's views aren't representative of the vast majority of historians. That doesn't in itself make them wrong, but appealing to someone that is generally seen as a marginal, and highly controversial figure, doesn't seem wise.