• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Resurrection is it provable?

Sheldon

Veteran Member
:facepalm: Ken...

The time to believe things is when you have good evidence for them. Not simply because someone hasn't proven the thing wrong.

Absolutely, and the claim something has credence just because it hasn't been disproved, is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You are simply incorrect, Ken. The majority of modern scholars disagree with you. Particularly those who don't work for fundamentalist institutions.

Please... no opinions.

LOL nobody outside fundamentalist circles thinks 1 Peter was written in 60. It was likely written after the destruction of the Temple.

Please... no opinions. I could just as well say "Only those who don't have faith in Christ and the writings believe it was written after the death of Peter"

What I want is PROOF!

The first century is not the 21st century, Ken. The vast majority of the population of the time was illiterate. There was no Google. There was no formal schooling for most people. Formal education in the kind of composition and rhetoric we see in 1 Peter was reserved for wealthy, upper-class folks, or scribes and scholars, etc. Peter was a fisherman. He would not have been formally educated. He would likely not have been literate.

Please... this isn't evidence. This is full of suppositions trying to use it as evidence. You didn't address the question. Jesus was literate. Are you saying that 33 years later Peter didn't grow as he went across the known world preaching Jesus?

Jesus also most likely would not have been literate. He was a carpenter. The son of working class folks. They would almost certainly have been illiterate.

"Most likely" isn't evidence. It is supposition. If the statement was correct that he was called "master" and read the scrolls and taught, logic say he could read.

Can you give me evidence instead of suppositions that he was illiterate?

Already been done. Again, you keep trying to get me to prove the negative. The initial claim in this debate came from you. It's up to you to demonstrate it. Thus far your evidence has been...well, it says in the letter that he wrote it, so he wrote it. That's not good evidence, Ken.

I'm sorry... up until now you are just giving what "other modern people" think. Do you have something more substantial than opinions? ;)
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Jasus had a brother named James

Jesus had apostoles including one naned Peter one named john

Pilate was the guy in charge of the territory

Caiphas was the high priest

The names of the Cesar's are acurrate and the dates consistent

The names and dates of the Herods are correct

The gospels also record various places where the ministry of Jesus took place. We find that the cities that are mentioned in the four gospels are known to have existed in the first century. The exact location of almost all of them have been firmly established. This includes such cities as Nazareth, Cana, Bethlehem, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Tiberius. In other words, we are dealing with real places.

The structures of the houses is correct

The costumes mentioned in the gospels are correct

The most common names mentioned in the gospels (mary John joseph simon judas etc..) where also the most common names etc.

These are examples of verifiable historical facts......
.
Only a well informed author could have known this details , so like it or not, the gospels where written by people with accets to good sources

The Spiderman film is based in New York, this is a real place, ipso facto Spiderman is real?

That's not a very compelling rationale.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Please... no opinions.

Please... no opinions. I could just as well say "Only those who don't have faith in Christ and the writings believe it was written after the death of Peter"

What I want is PROOF!



Please... this isn't evidence. This is full of suppositions trying to use it as evidence. You didn't address the question. Jesus was literate. Are you saying that 33 years later Peter didn't grow as he went across the known world preaching Jesus?



"Most likely" isn't evidence. It is supposition. If the statement was correct that he was called "master" and read the scrolls and taught, logic say he could read.

Can you give me evidence instead of suppositions that he was illiterate?



I'm sorry... up until now you are just giving what "other modern people" think. Do you have something more substantial than opinions? ;)

This is almost completely non-responsive to the things I actually said. All you're falling back on is what the Bible says and assuming it must be true.

When you reply to what I actually said, we can continue.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
No you haven't explain what would you accept as evidence for ancient historical facts ...


Please stop that dishonest game

That's because you asked what I mean by evidence, not what I would accept as evidence.

leroy said:
you are not willing to explain what you mean by evidence

So your claim is demonstrably disingenuous again.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
How can anyone know ,

Know what?

if you dobt explain what you mean by evidence

I have explained, repeatedly, all anyone need do is look at my post above. Or any of the numerous times in other threads you have asked, and I have every single time offered the dictionary definition.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Left Coast said:
You are simply incorrect, Ken. The majority of modern scholars disagree with you. Particularly those who don't work for fundamentalist institutions.
Please... no opinions.

Scholarly validations are not just based on subjective opinions.

What I want is PROOF!

Ironic double standard alert!!!

Left Coast said:
The first century is not the 21st century, Ken. The vast majority of the population of the time was illiterate. There was no Google. There was no formal schooling for most people. Formal education in the kind of composition and rhetoric we see in 1 Peter was reserved for wealthy, upper-class folks, or scribes and scholars, etc. Peter was a fisherman. He would not have been formally educated. He would likely not have been literate.
Please... this isn't evidence. This is full of suppositions trying to use it as evidence.

You think they had Google?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is almost completely non-responsive to the things I actually said. All you're falling back on is what the Bible says and assuming it must be true.

When you reply to what I actually said, we can continue.
No... you said that Peter wasn't written by Peter. That because Luke didn't name the eye-witnesses translates into he didn't. Proof?

When Peter says that he wrote a letter, it wasn't Peter but then when no name is written (Like John) - then we can't say he wrote it. So, it doesn't matter if it says who wrote it or not, for you it is irrelevant.

Then, though Mark was Peter's protege and very likely was with Jesus, Mark is not an eye-witness. Proof? Proof that Matthew wasn't involved in the writing of the same? Or that he wasn't an eye witness?

Why is Acts not acceptable? Proof that it isn't acceptable?

Basically you are offering your personal opinions at the expense of what was written and what those wrote in the 2nd generation.

Why should I believe your position if you haven't given me anything substantive?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No... you said that Peter wasn't written by Peter. That because Luke didn't name the eye-witnesses translates into he didn't. Proof?

When Peter says that he wrote a letter, it wasn't Peter but then when no name is written (Like John) - then we can't say he wrote it. So, it doesn't matter if it says who wrote it or not, for you it is irrelevant.

Then, though Mark was Peter's protege and very likely was with Jesus, Mark is not an eye-witness. Proof? Proof that Matthew wasn't involved in the writing of the same? Or that he wasn't an eye witness?

Why is Acts not acceptable? Proof that it isn't acceptable?

Basically you are offering your personal opinions at the expense of what was written and what those wrote in the 2nd generation.

Why should I believe your position if you haven't given me anything substantive?
Why are you talking about Luke and Mark?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
No... you said that Peter wasn't written by Peter. That because Luke didn't name the eye-witnesses translates into he didn't. Proof?

No, it translates into we have no reason to believe him. Again, we have a rational basis for believing things when we have evidence for them. We have no reason to believe the author of Luke's bald claim that he talked to eyewitnesses of things Jesus did on Earth.

When Peter says that he wrote a letter, it wasn't Peter but then when no name is written (Like John) - then we can't say he wrote it. So, it doesn't matter if it says who wrote it or not, for you it is irrelevant.

That is incorrect. For example, I believe several of the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul were actually written by Paul. See if you were familiar with any of the scholarship of these things you'd understand that there's a difference. But you aren't.

Then, though Mark was Peter's protege and very likely was with Jesus, Mark is not an eye-witness.

The Gospel of Mark doesn't even claim to be written by someone named Mark, lol. :facepalm:


Proof that Matthew wasn't involved in the writing of the same? Or that he wasn't an eye witness?

Again, the author of the Gospel of Matthew doesn't identify himself. You keep trying very hard to make me prove negatives. That dog ain't gonna hunt, Ken. You made a claim that there were eyewitnesses. Thus the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove somebody wasn't an eyewitness.

Why is Acts not acceptable? Proof that it isn't acceptable?

Written by the same anonymous author as Luke. Suffers the same basic problems on top of anonymity: it's full of completely implausible ridiculous claims, such as Peter's shadow magically healing people.

Basically you are offering your personal opinions at the expense of what was written and what those wrote in the 2nd generation.

Why should I believe your position if you haven't given me anything substantive?

Again, the claim that started all this was yours, Ken. You have been trying to pass the buck ever since. It's not going to work.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, it translates into we have no reason to believe him. Again, we have a rational basis for believing things when we have evidence for them.

Yes... that is your viewpoint with no substantive evidence of why we shouldn't believe it. It would be like me writing a letter and you saying "I have no reason to believe you wrote it".

You will need more that your personal viewpoint since we have the author's statement.

We have no reason to believe the author of Luke's bald claim that he talked to eyewitnesses of things Jesus did on Earth.

But you haven't given me any reason why NOT to believe it. He gives the history using the very people who were eye-witness. (Please don't give me the absurd analogy of the book of Ilead also has names of places)

Let's assume if was Mary or a Didamus... does the information change just because someone different wrote it? No. So your position is quite mute.

That is incorrect. For example, I believe several of the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul were actually written by Paul. See if you were familiar with any of the scholarship of these things you'd understand that there's a difference. But you aren't.

LOL This makes absolutely no sense.

The Gospel of Mark doesn't even claim to be written by someone named Mark, lol. :facepalm:

I trust Papias more than your opinion. :) Unless you have evidence that Papias was wrong... I will go with him. :)

Again, the author of the Gospel of Matthew doesn't identify himself. You keep trying very hard to make me prove negatives. That dog ain't gonna hunt, Ken. You made a claim that there were eyewitnesses. Thus the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove somebody wasn't an eyewitness.

Again... I have your personal viewpoint or I can believe Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Origen which all affirm Matthean authorship.

What evidence do you have that they were wrong?

Written by the same anonymous author as Luke. Suffers the same basic problems on top of anonymity: it's full of completely implausible ridiculous claims, such as Peter's shadow magically healing people.

See above

Again, the claim that started all this was yours, Ken. You have been trying to pass the buck ever since. It's not going to work.

LOL... so all you have is your personal viewpoint. I'm OK with you having your opinion. I just seem to rely more on the contemporaries of the time of Jesus or the generation after.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes... that is your viewpoint with no substantive evidence of why we shouldn't believe it. It would be like me writing a letter and you saying "I have no reason to believe you wrote it".

You will need more that your personal viewpoint since we have the author's statement.



But you haven't given me any reason why NOT to believe it. He gives the history using the very people who were eye-witness. (Please don't give me the absurd analogy of the book of Ilead also has names of places)

Let's assume if was Mary or a Didamus... does the information change just because someone different wrote it? No. So your position is quite mute.



LOL This makes absolutely no sense.



I trust Papias more than your opinion. :) Unless you have evidence that Papias was wrong... I will go with him. :)



Again... I have your personal viewpoint or I can believe Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Origen which all affirm Matthean authorship.

What evidence do you have that they were wrong?



See above



LOL... so all you have is your personal viewpoint. I'm OK with you having your opinion. I just seem to rely more on the contemporaries of the time of Jesus or the generation after.

Wow! Still not getting it. And even citing those sources is quite the stretch. The one quote that I know of from Papias on Mark in no way indicates that he wrote the Gospel of Mark. In fact the claim about Mark was not every complimentary. His statement about Matthew was even weaker.

On Mark he only referred to what John the Elder said. Now you will probably grasp at straws, but his is all that was said:

The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.”[iii]

So he got the order screwed up but the gist of the story right. At best you can claim that Mark wrote some records.

New Testament: Papias on Mark and Matthew

That was not a statement that Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark.

It is even worse when it comes to Matthew:

Concerning Mark, these things were related by the father [John the Elder]. Concerning Matthew these other things were said, “Therefore, Matthew set in order the logia (“divine oracles”) in a Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them, as he was able.”[v]

Please note the language that Matthew wrote in. The New Testament was written in Greek originally. That is a huge problem for both Mark and especially for Matthew.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes... that is your viewpoint with no substantive evidence of why we shouldn't believe it. It would be like me writing a letter and you saying "I have no reason to believe you wrote it".

No, it isn't at all like that Ken, for the reasons you still haven't addressed.

You will need more that your personal viewpoint since we have the author's statement.

Again, pseudepigrapha all have the author's statement.

But you haven't given me any reason why NOT to believe it.

And I'm not obligated to. You really don't seem to grasp this. If I tell you I can breathe underwater, it's not your obligation to prove I can't. It's my job to show that I in fact can do this incredible thing I claim.

He gives the history using the very people who were eye-witness.

LOL WHICH people, Ken?? Which people did he interview? Tell me! Give me names!

You can't. Because you don't know. No one does.

Let's assume if was Mary or a Didamus... does the information change just because someone different wrote it? No.

How in the world could you possibly know that? You have no clue how the story would've been different if someone else wrote it. In fact you have every reason to believe it definitely would have been different, since every Gospel we have access to is in fact different.

LOL This makes absolutely no sense.

Do you believe pseudepigrapha existed in the early Church?

If the answer is no, then you simply need to educate yourself, Ken. I don't know what else to say on that point.

If the answer is yes, then the concept shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp that at least some of the writings, even many of the writings, floating around the early church purporting to have been written by this apostle or that were forgeries.

I trust Papias more than your opinion. :) Unless you have evidence that Papias was wrong... I will go with him. :)

Well first off, Papias had no direct knowledge of who wrote Mark and wrote somewhere in the mid-second century. He never claimed to even have known any of the original apostles at all.

Secondly, Papias claims Mark was Peter's secretary and that was Mark's source of information for that Gospel. But Peter was a Torah-observant Jew and the whole point of the Gospel of Mark is to oppose Torah observance with a much more Pauline version of the faith (unlike a Gospel like Matthew, for example). Papias also claims Mark was written originally in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, but all available evidence contradicts that claim. Matthew and Luke both repeatedly copy Mark's Greek verbatim (which by the way, independent eyewitnesses don't do).

Papias also apparently made completely ridiculous claims like:

"[Judas'] body bloated to such an extent that, even where a wagon passes with ease, he was not able to pass. No, not even his bloated head by itself could do so. His eyelids, for example, swelled to such dimensions, they say, that neither could he himself see the light at all, nor could his eyes be detected even by a physician's instrument, so deep had they sunk below the surface. His genitals, too, grew bigger and more disgusting than all that is horrid, and, to his shame, out of them oozed pus and worms from all throughout his body whenever he relieved himself. After suffering an agony of pain and punishment, he finally went, as they say, to his own place. And owing to the stench the ground has neem deserted and uninhabited until now. Inm fact, even to the present day no one can pass that place without holding one's nose, so abundant waws the discharge from his body and so far over the ground did it spread."

The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas: The Epistles and The Martyrdom of St ... - Google Books

In other words, Papias strikes me as a guy who believes any ridiculous fish story that sounds good to him.

So yeah, we have lots of reasons to doubt Papias.

Again... I have your personal viewpoint or I can believe Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Origen which all affirm Matthean authorship.

And literally none of them had first-hand knowledge or evidence of Matthew's authorship. They all lived generations, even centuries, after the fact. They simply repeated what the oral tradition among Christians was.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science today asks did humans witness a God held four day carpenter tectonic earthquake. And vacuum voiding of day light taken away as the sacrifice in heavens?

Yes. It was legally recorded.

Did human cell blood life body get attacked because of Roman pyramid technology?

Yes. Rome caused it. Temple circuit was however in Jerusalem. Jeru means turning position.

Why Rome blamed Jewish and why Jewish said it was all Romes fault.

Spirit gas burning fallout by burning holy wanderering star set alight. Was seen the flame above their heads. No longer cooled as ice saviour mass coming immaculate body was gone.

It's why immaculate womb mother wasn't considered as holy as ice saviour. As stated in earths science. Inherited position safety.

Real.

As origin earth science confessed it had set alight about one third stars held frozen in origin earths science life destruction. Origin history men of science in earth. Machines.

Why men knew wandering stars dangerous. And burning wandering stars Satan.

The moon was proof space had frozen the suns attack.

So yes it did occur. Why men said dust was owner a Holy body position on earth...never change it again agreement.
Jesus.

Men said twice dust body was converted. The programmed occult science mind of man will ignore all advice and do it again in a future.

Which is now. Our present.

So nuclear converting had been changing earths gravitational forces. Poles began to shift mass. Ice witnessed in desert snap freeze moments.

Man copies he says what earth God teaches him as man's mind possessed.

So by new machine men tried to finish us off. Actually.

Mind psyche possession was studied and proven real. Mind coercions caused by the AI machine program. He copied as computer satellite haarp study.

Man today wants all technology parts as machines using mass conditions substances as his first machine heavenly healed position is heavenly machines.

To be removed and used inside his new machine as substances regained like his nuclear model.

As it is his mind brain taught machine heavens position possession all earth status. His mass machine types saved cooled. Are in fact first in man's science. All machines just mans science terms.

Father's warning he's trying to destroy his owned technology. As transmitters heat bio life gets destroyed. Real.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, it isn't at all like that Ken, for the reasons you still haven't addressed.



Again, pseudepigrapha all have the author's statement.



And I'm not obligated to. You really don't seem to grasp this. If I tell you I can breathe underwater, it's not your obligation to prove I can't. It's my job to show that I in fact can do this incredible thing I claim.



LOL WHICH people, Ken?? Which people did he interview? Tell me! Give me names!

You can't. Because you don't know. No one does.



How in the world could you possibly know that? You have no clue how the story would've been different if someone else wrote it. In fact you have every reason to believe it definitely would have been different, since every Gospel we have access to is in fact different.



Do you believe pseudepigrapha existed in the early Church?

If the answer is no, then you simply need to educate yourself, Ken. I don't know what else to say on that point.

If the answer is yes, then the concept shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp that at least some of the writings, even many of the writings, floating around the early church purporting to have been written by this apostle or that were forgeries.



Well first off, Papias had no direct knowledge of who wrote Mark and wrote somewhere in the mid-second century. He never claimed to even have known any of the original apostles at all.

Secondly, Papias claims Mark was Peter's secretary and that was Mark's source of information for that Gospel. But Peter was a Torah-observant Jew and the whole point of the Gospel of Mark is to oppose Torah observance with a much more Pauline version of the faith (unlike a Gospel like Matthew, for example). Papias also claims Mark was written originally in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, but all available evidence contradicts that claim. Matthew and Luke both repeatedly copy Mark's Greek verbatim (which by the way, independent eyewitnesses don't do).

Papias also apparently made completely ridiculous claims like:

"[Judas'] body bloated to such an extent that, even where a wagon passes with ease, he was not able to pass. No, not even his bloated head by itself could do so. His eyelids, for example, swelled to such dimensions, they say, that neither could he himself see the light at all, nor could his eyes be detected even by a physician's instrument, so deep had they sunk below the surface. His genitals, too, grew bigger and more disgusting than all that is horrid, and, to his shame, out of them oozed pus and worms from all throughout his body whenever he relieved himself. After suffering an agony of pain and punishment, he finally went, as they say, to his own place. And owing to the stench the ground has neem deserted and uninhabited until now. Inm fact, even to the present day no one can pass that place without holding one's nose, so abundant waws the discharge from his body and so far over the ground did it spread."

The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas: The Epistles and The Martyrdom of St ... - Google Books

In other words, Papias strikes me as a guy who believes any ridiculous fish story that sounds good to him.

So yeah, we have lots of reasons to doubt Papias.



And literally none of them had first-hand knowledge or evidence of Matthew's authorship. They all lived generations, even centuries, after the fact. They simply repeated what the oral tradition among Christians was.
You may have conflated Matthew and Mark when it came to what languages there were written in. Papias says extremely little about either of those two men. I quoted one source, but there are others that seem to say the same thing. When it comes to languages he noted that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but as you said, the book shows all of the signs of being originally written in Greek.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
History of earths nuclear mass the sun had put it held frozen by space causes.... inside of an attacked earth mass.

To theory earths mass nuclear it already included sun. Earths amount only.

Star money meteor types he studied were never of earth as earths own origin mass fought off the attack.

Theorising new out of space matter introduced earths Ai alien attack of earths natural ground mass.

As it's not the same. Human science introduced the attack. As earth not the sun owns earths heavens gases. Immaculate history taught why.

So our heavens gas gets attacked by sun fuel mass that falls in.

History said never change the holy sacrificed body above us. Once earths gas body was burnt. Consciousness of a gas aware lied to itself. Human life by earth only.

As star fuel is not of earths body kept heavens alight. It's not to fall in as it burns out earths own stone gases.

Knew already. Ignored.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I really can't agree... and ultimately, IMV, it just depends on who you subscribe to.

If you are going to disagree you need to contradict and debunk the points. The field agrees with him. I can present some of the arguments.

Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot


If Richard Pervo, sentenced for child possession and distribution of child porn is considered a reliable source, one would need their head examined.

So the Preists who were molesting children, they couldn't teach Christianity at Mass? I think they did. Information is not distributing child porn? He has a scholarly monograph complete with sources. He just has the skills to do the research. Although looking to ad-hom the author is a common apologetics tactic. Why would his illegal activity prevent him from doing history?

Again, ultimately it will be on just who you subscribe to as reliable.
Yes PhD historians. Thomas Brodie writes on Acts, several scholars work is summed up in a post that gives many examples -

Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes. MacDonald informs us in his The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul (New Testament Studies, 45, pp. 88-107) that:

“The shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way [in a new ship].“

Paul actually tells us himself that he was shipwrecked three times, and that at least one time he spent a day and night adrift (2 Cor. 11.25). It’s possible that Luke was inspired by this detail given by Paul and used it to invent a story that expanded on it, while borrowing other ideas and details from famous shipwreck narratives including those found in Jonah, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid. In fact, Acts rewrites Homer a number of other times. Paul’s resurrection of the fallen Eutychus was based on the fallen Elpenor. The visions of Cornelius and Peter were constructed from a similar narrative that was written about Agamemnon. Paul’s farewell at Miletus was made from Hector’s farewell to Andromache. The lottery of Matthias we hear about was built off of the lottery of Ajax. Even Peter’s escape from prison was lifted from Priam’s escape from Achilles. There are other literary sources besides Homer that the author of Acts used as well. For example, the prison breaks in Acts share several themes with the famously miraculous prison breaks found in the Bacchae of Euripedes such as the miraculous unlocking of chains and being able to escape due to an earthquake (compare Acts 12.6-7 and 16.26 to Bacchae pp. 440-49, 585-94).

However, the source that Acts seems to employ more than any other is the Septuagint. While MacDonald has shown that the overall structure of the Peter and Cornelius story is based on writings from Homer, the scholar Randel Helms has shown that other elements were in fact borrowed from the book of Ezekiel in the OT, thus merging both story models into a single one. For example, both Peter and Ezekiel see the heavens open up (Acts 10.11; Ezek. 1.1), both of them are commanded to eat something in their vision (Acts 10.13; Ezek. 2.9), both respond to God twice by saying “By no means, Lord!” using the exact same Greek phrase (Acts 10.14, 11.8; Ezek. 4.14, 20.49), both are asked to eat unclean food, and finally both protest saying that they have never eaten anything unclean before (Acts 10.14; Ezek. 4.14). Clearly, the author of Acts isn’t recording anything from historical memory, but rather is assembling a fictional story using literary structures and motifs that don’t have much if anything to do with what happened to Peter or Paul. The author appears to be inventing this “history” in order to convince his readers of how the previously-required Torah-observance was abandoned in early Christianity, and to convince his readers that this abandonment of Torah-observance was even approved by Peter all along, and confirmed to be approved of through divine revelation. Yet, we know this to be a lie because Paul even tells us himself (in Gal. 2) that he was for a long time the only advocate for a Torah-free version of Christianity, and it was merely tolerated by Torah observers like Peter (and often contentiously so). Similarly, in Acts 15.7-11, we can see that it is basically just Paul’s speech from Gal. 2.14-21 put into Peter’s mouth, which is the exact opposite of what Paul told us actually happened.



I subscribe to this position as historically correct:
On the Historical Accuracy of the Book of Acts.
https://crossexamined.org/historical-accuracy-book-acts/

An article by an apologist? So truth isn't a priority for you? All he pretty much does is verify that some authentic terms are used. But it's beyond certain that the author of Acts used many other sources to write this. And used the terms in the fiction?

Obviously if one subscribed to Erhman, you would have a different position.https://crossexamined.org/historical-accuracy-book-acts/
https://crossexamined.org/historical-accuracy-book-acts/

Yes the same position all historians have. All the work is peer-reviewed for historical errors. There are many papers demonstrating Acts is sourcing other fiction.

I have no problem with the synopsis of Mark, Matthew and Luke. There are very marked differences.

So I have no problem with it.

I also love how people use numbers to benefit their position such as "Matthew has 97% of the original Greek verbatim from Mark."

you would almost think that there is only 3% difference between the two. But Matthew has 26 chapter while Mark only has 16.

Maybe you should check out an opposing view?

Yes the fundamentalists views are literally crank and I have checked them out. Christian scholarship holds the view that Mark was the source? You don't seem to understand the depth of the knowledge?
The arguments are given here (not Mark Goodacres) but this alone is beyond solid. I would think you would want to know about your own religion and understand these reasons and you yourself put them to fundamentalist arguments. I have which is how I know apologetics is psuedo-science.

Matthew was a good writer and clearly attended the Greek school. The fact that it's 26 chapters and Mark is 16 means Matthew added a lot after copying Mark verbatim. The Sermon was taken from the Greek OT. So clearly that kept him busy and added chapters.


The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Dr Carrier talks about Matthew and how it was created in his book OHJ:

"The Sermon is a well crafted literary work that cannot have come from some illiterate Galilean. Scholars know it originated in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic because it relies on the Septuagint text of the Bible for all it's features and allusions. It relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and in key places other text. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism has been redacted to the Greek text of Isa, 50.6-9. These are not the words of Jesus. This famous sermon as a whole also has a complex literary structure that can only have come from a writer, not an everyday speaker. And again, it reflects the needs and interests that would have arisen after the apostles began preaching the faith and organizing communities and struggling to keep them in the fold. SO it's unlikely to come from Jesus. In a paper by Dale Allison - Studies in Matthew he details the extensive use of triadic structure.
It's far to intricately organized and too literary to be a casual speech"

There are long examples of triadic structure and chiastic structure in the book as well. The themes form a chiasmus. Only found in carefully planned literary works
It also fits nicely with known rabbinical debates over how Jesus could fulfill the Torah after the destruction of the Temple Cult.
 
Top