Quote:

---

I'm saying that what you're claiming as evidence is not accepted by the large majority of working biblical scholars as evidence for early composition of Acts. There's a lot of evidence in the text that it was written later with a Roman audience in mind.

---

Here's an example. You state your opinion of what the "majority" of scholars may think. But if I challenge your opinion or even the majority consensus (assuming you're correct), then you claim that I'm disregarding the evidence.

My take is that, assuming you are correct on your statement of their opinions, that the "large majority of working biblical scholars" have already made up their mind and reject the evidence of other scholars, that I've summarized, simply because it contradicts their preexisting conclusions. Also, which of those scholars have specifically considered the evidence I've summarized? What specific reasons did they give for rejecting it? Are their reasons valid?

You fail to specify exactly what is the "evidence in the text that it was written later with a Roman audience in mind." Am I simply to take your word for it? That evidence also sounds suspiciously subjective in the extreme. As you wrote it, it sounds like so-called scholars are trying to read Luke's mind over 2,000 years after the fact.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The absence of any reference to the gospels (not even mark) by paul pushes the likely dates for the gospels back until after his death.

---

Wouldn't you consider that to be rather weak evidence for dating either the Gospels or of Paul's letters? Couldn't there be any number of other reasonable explanations for Paul not mentioning any of the Gospels other than them not yet being written? And aren't those explanations substantively different than the absence of references I mentioned in the book of Acts?

---

In a word no.

Dating pauls letters is much less controversial except for the letters most scholars consider written by someone else.
There could be reasonable explanations for "someone" alive at the time writing letters with a christian theme and not mentioning the gospels, or quoting jesus, or even referencing an event only known through the synoptics. But most of those reasons are very weak when applied to paul.

If paul was a christian who rarely if ever quoted scripture in his letters at all, it would be much less glaring. Or if there was never a topic of his conversation that would have been bolstered by quoting jesus, or referring to a parable, ect. then it would make sense for him not to.

Instead we have close to 100 quotes in his letters from the OT. In fact we can tell he used the LXX. That doesn't include references to scripture itself, just quotes.

If we examine the possibilities that paul knew of the gospels and the reasons he might not have made a single quote of jesus own words, single reference to them individually or collectively as scripture, recommendation to read them and learn them, allusion to a story only known through them, reference to a parable ect. and compare that to him simply not having access. Not having access is a dramatically stronger argument.

This is further bolstered by paul never mentioning hell. A concept thoroughly grounded in the gospels and thoroughly absent in the OT.

This is hardly the only evidence that the gospels weren't around. The gospels not surprisingly at all are heavily referenced by multiple sources after a certain period and utterly absent before. This is exactly what you would expect if they came into being in the interim.

Most scholars to their credit try to be pretty objective. The largest part of this isn't poking holes in the opponents argument, it's poking holes in your own. To this end and absence of references to the gospels by ANYONE in the early date range is problematic. A complete absence from paul when paul knew about them rests on extremely ad hoc and weak ground.

Jabin said:

---

Thank you for your kind words. I am passionate for the Lord now after a long lifetime of skepticism. My passion now may be an example of the saying that there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner!

---

Haha!

jabin said:

---

And interpretation can be hard, especially when that interpretation is colored and filtered by our different faith traditions. What does bother me (although it may not come across in my posts here), is when we allow our varying interpretations to create divisions between us. IMHO, as long as one accepts the core concepts of the Gospel, then we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Our differences create richness, if we allow them to.

To contrast that, I have met many people, and there are many on this board, who claim to be Christians but refuse to fellowship with other Christians because of doctrinal differences that are not central to the Gospel.

---

I like the ecumenical tone in your post. That's one of the concepts that greatly attracted me to chaplaincy. It was a challenge on how to quickly find common ground, or even ignoring my own theology and use someone else's to their own benefit. As you said, it may just make my life richer!

It's how you'll find chaplains ministering to Baptists or Methodist, or Catholics as well as Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims. There is always so much more that we have in common than we do different.

Agree with you and jabin.

And if I was in the ministry, I would be a chaplain. Some of my best friends are hospital chaplains and I appreciate their views.

As long as one believes the basic creeds, I believe they are brothers/sisters in Christ.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The absence of any reference to the gospels (not even mark) by paul pushes the likely dates for the gospels back until after his death.

---

Wouldn't you consider that to be rather weak evidence for dating either the Gospels or of Paul's letters? Couldn't there be any number of other reasonable explanations for Paul not mentioning any of the Gospels other than them not yet being written? And aren't those explanations substantively different than the absence of references I mentioned in the book of Acts?

---

In a word no.

Dating pauls letters is much less controversial except for the letters most scholars consider written by someone else.
There could be reasonable explanations for "someone" alive at the time writing letters with a christian theme and not mentioning the gospels, or quoting jesus, or even referencing an event only known through the synoptics. But most of those reasons are very weak when applied to paul.

If paul was a christian who rarely if ever quoted scripture in his letters at all, it would be much less glaring. Or if there was never a topic of his conversation that would have been bolstered by quoting jesus, or referring to a parable, ect. then it would make sense for him not to.

Instead we have close to 100 quotes in his letters from the OT. In fact we can tell he used the LXX. That doesn't include references to scripture itself, just quotes.

If we examine the possibilities that paul knew of the gospels and the reasons he might not have made a single quote of jesus own words, single reference to them individually or collectively as scripture, recommendation to read them and learn them, allusion to a story only known through them, reference to a parable ect. and compare that to him simply not having access. Not having access is a dramatically stronger argument.

This is further bolstered by paul never mentioning hell. A concept thoroughly grounded in the gospels and thoroughly absent in the OT.

This is hardly the only evidence that the gospels weren't around. The gospels not surprisingly at all are heavily referenced by multiple sources after a certain period and utterly absent before. This is exactly what you would expect if they came into being in the interim.

Most scholars to their credit try to be pretty objective. The largest part of this isn't poking holes in the opponents argument, it's poking holes in your own. To this end and absence of references to the gospels by ANYONE in the early date range is problematic. A complete absence from paul when paul knew about them rests on extremely ad hoc and weak ground.

---

I believe Paul was divinely inspired by God and wrote what God revealed to him.

And the concept of ECT hell was not part of the revelation.

But, as I pointed out yesterday, Paul may have in fact quoted from Luke.

But I agree that Paul's failure to reference or quote more extensively from the Gospels means that he most likely did not have access to them and/or that they were not around, as you described it. That is evidence of their availability to Paul, but only weak evidence as to the date of the writing of the Gospels. Given that they had to be copied by hand and the poor transportation/distribution systems available at that time, it would likely have taken considerable time for the Gospels to have been widely distributed around the Mediterranean world.

Regardless, whether Paul's writings preceded the Gospels by a few years does not seem that critical one way or the other. I think that most conservative scholars would generally agree that Paul's writings preceded the writing of the Gospels.

And on hell, I agree completely. Hell is a very difficult theological concept. I tend to agree with CS Lewis's description of it, although based more on my understanding of God's character generally rather than on specific scriptures.

Jabin said:

---

But, as I pointed out yesterday, Paul may have in fact quoted from Luke.

But I agree that Paul's failure to reference or quote more extensively from the Gospels means that he most likely did not have access to them and/or that they were not around, as you described it. That is evidence of their availability to Paul, but only weak evidence as to the date of the writing of the Gospels. Given that they had to be copied by hand and the poor transportation/distribution systems available at that time, it would likely have taken considerable time for the Gospels to have been widely distributed around the Mediterranean world.

Regardless, whether Paul's writings preceded the Gospels by a few years does not seem that critical one way or the other. I think that most conservative scholars would generally agree that Paul's writings preceded the writing of the Gospels.

And on hell, I agree completely. Hell is a very difficult theological concept. I tend to agree with CS Lewis's description of it, although based more on my understanding of God's character generally rather than on specific scriptures.

---

I along with the majority of scholars don't find the argument that paul quoted luke credible. Especially compared to the contrary argument it's just not strong at all.

You seem to acknowledge that this is strong evidence of their availability to paul, but want to consider it weak evidence against their existence. I don't think this follows very well. Yes distribution will be somewhat slow. But just how big is the church at the time of Paul (There are maybe 10? major churches at the time.)? Just how slow will word of mouth of their existence spread, just how little did the few church leaders at the time communicate? How far down the list of people to know about a gospel being written is Paul of all people going to be? If you wanted to argue a gospel was around in the year 50 say, and paul didn't get a sniff of it before death I think that's a very weak argument. You could perhaps argue that mark was around maybe a year or two before paul's last letter and it didn't get to him, but I don't think it buys you much time.

And when it comes to pauls writing proceeding the gospels, it seems you've accepted the very point I was making above. If paul comes before luke, and luke must come before acts....well that's all I was saying.

Sapper,
On the medieval Masoretic text…

"…the Masoretes recognized the possibility of human error when copying the Hebrew Bible. They tried to combat it by adding supplements to the text. In the margins of the Masoretes' manuscripts, there are innumerable notesmasorahto safeguard the text. The precision with which the Masoretes were able to preserve the Hebrew text beginning in the seventh century C.E. is astounding. Nevertheless, the Masoretes were not working with the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Corruptions had already crept into the versions they copied.

The Masoretes' efforts preserved the Biblical text in the first millennium C.E. Modern scholarship, with critical editions of the Bible like Biblia Hebraica Quinta, is bringing us even closer to reconstructing the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible."

May 23, 20023

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/errors-in-the-masoretes-original-hebrew-manuscripts-of-the-bible/

Some letters like 2 Timothy and Titus may have been dictated, which was common back then. Even later St. Thomas Aquinas dictated some of his works.

St. Paul was dealing with problems with his eyesight, according to numerous scholars based on his writings.

So it was Pauline but perhaps not from his pen.

And Paul used the word death to represent hell. For hell is a place of death. Obviously, Paul wasn't writing about physical death (although that is part of the effects from the fall) , Paul is emphasizing spiritual death. For the saint is equipped with spiritual life now, spiritual life in the next life, in a physical body which will no not ever experience death again.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Some letters like 2 Timothy and Titus may have been dictated, which was common back then. Even later St. Thomas Aquinas dictated some of his works.

St. Paul was dealing with problems with his eyesight, according to numerous scholars based on his writings.

So it was Pauline but perhaps not from his pen.

---

Using an amanuensis doesn't really get you out of the problems that caused scholars to abandon pauline authorship. As long as the words are from his lips you have issues. And he may well have been using an amanuesis on all his letters.

The Role of An Amanuensis in the Letters of Paul (biblicalfaith.online)


death doesn't mean hell. Sheol doesn't mean hell. Hades doesn't even mean hell. These are different concepts and conflating them demands something far beyond the intent of the text.

Quote:

---

I along with the majority of scholars don't find the argument that paul quoted luke credible. Especially compared to the contrary argument it's just not strong at all.

---

I was not aware that anyone had yet responded to Dr. Kruger's point that he had. Do you have a link or citation to that response? What is their reasoning, since Paul's quote of what he calls the Scriptures is verbatim the same as the words from Luke? That seems to be fairly incontrovertible, so I'd like to learn the reasoning why it's not.

"death doesn't mean hell. Sheol doesn't mean hell. Hades doesn't even mean hell. These are different concepts and conflating them demands something far beyond the intent of the text."

Don't play the word game.

Hades is the word for hell in the New Testament.
It is definitely a place of suffering, death, and destruction that is eternal.

Sheol is used generally in the positive, of which is similar to the concept of heaven.
But the Old Testament does mention a place of destruction.

Moreover, you universalists sure do stick together. It's amazing that some of you call yourself Trinitarian.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

I along with the majority of scholars don't find the argument that paul quoted luke credible. Especially compared to the contrary argument it's just not strong at all.

---

I was not aware that anyone had yet responded to Dr. Kruger's point that he had. Do you have a link or citation to that response? What is their reasoning, since Paul's quote of what he calls the Scriptures is verbatim the same as the words from Luke? That seems to be fairly incontrovertible, so I'd like to learn the reasoning why it's not.

---

First timothy is widely regarded as not having been written by paul at all.

Quote:

---

Hades is the word for hell in the New Testament.

---

Don't think that's right. The word translated as "hell" in the NT was most often "gehenna".

And how can you tell him not to play "word games"? We Christians pore constantly over the precise words used and their correct translation in order to gain a better and deeper understanding of what the Scriptures are communicating.

He's right on this point.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"death doesn't mean hell. Sheol doesn't mean hell. Hades doesn't even mean hell. These are different concepts and conflating them demands something far beyond the intent of the text."

Don't play the word game.

Hades is the word for hell in the New Testament.
It is definitely a place of suffering, death, and destruction that is eternal.

Sheol is used generally in the positive, of which is similar to the concept of heaven.
But the Old Testament does mention a place of destruction.

Moreover, you universalists sure do stick together. It's amazing that some of you call yourself Trinitarian.

---

I'm not, you simply are conflating bad english translations with what these words mean.

Sheol means grave. It's neither heaven nor hell. In fact at the time the majority jewish sect (sadducees) didn't believe in any afterlife at all.

hades is the abode of the dead. Everyone goes there. It's analogous to sheol.

Tartarus is the place of suffering.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Hades is the word for hell in the New Testament.

---

Don't think that's right. The word translated as "hell" in the NT was most often "gehenna".

And how can you tell him not to play "word games"? We Christians pore constantly over the precise words used and their correct translation in order to gain a better and deeper understanding of what the Scriptures are communicating.

He's right on this point.

---

I have no problem with Gehenna at all. I'm saved from the place of worms, torment, and everlasting fire. Those are descriptive metaphors for a place not to be ever found.

I still don't see the point. Hades translates well as well. Probably should have just been left as Gehenna with the same basic theological implications.
For the other qualifiers of Gehenna are awesome as in terrible.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

I along with the majority of scholars don't find the argument that paul quoted luke credible. Especially compared to the contrary argument it's just not strong at all.

---

I was not aware that anyone had yet responded to Dr. Kruger's point that he had. Do you have a link or citation to that response? What is their reasoning, since Paul's quote of what he calls the Scriptures is verbatim the same as the words from Luke? That seems to be fairly incontrovertible, so I'd like to learn the reasoning why it's not.

---

First timothy is widely regarded as not having been written by paul at all.

---

Oh, OK. That's a completely different point and seems like you're changing the argument because you have no response. Do the scholars say anything about Dr. Kruger's point, no matter who the author was?

Also, what hard evidence do scholars have for rejecting Paul as the author of 1 Timothy? Isn't most of the evidence merely subjective evaluation of its language and style?

Yes. It could have been Barnabus or someone else.
Barnabus may have written Hebrews, for example. His Greek is that of the nobility. He was very wealthy.

It's not that I have no response. The response is simple, his very foundation is flawed since it's not a pauline work. You'd have to convince scholars of the first point before the second point is even a matter of debate.

If you want to know why certain pauline works are rejected I'd pick any book by a scholar in line with the consensus view. I'm not really interested in going down that road with someone unfamiliar.

His point is that Paul does not mention hell/gehenna at all and is using that to try to buttress his argument that Paul's writings were therefore written prior to the Gospels.

He's right that Paul does not mention hell/gehenna, but Paul does talk a lot about judgment and God's wrath. Again, I think his argument in this case is very weak because there could be a lot of reasons Paul didn't write about hell other than not having the Gospels. Paul was not writing a systematic or exhaustive theology.

But it matters not if the Gospels or Paul's writings were written first. What does matter is how weak so many of the skeptics' arguments against the scriptures are, even if those arguments claim to be buttressed by the "majority of scholars".

You're sort of new here (I think) so you should know that both Sapper and AgGrad are two of our resident atheists/skeptics. They like to fall back on the "consensus of scholars" when they have no hard evidence.

Quote:

---

If you want to know why certain pauline works are rejected I'd pick any book by a scholar in line with the consensus view. I'm not really interested in going down that road with someone unfamiliar.

---

How condescending of you. In other words, you don't know. But I'll give you time to look it up on the internet so you can learn.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want to know why certain pauline works are rejected I'd pick any book by a scholar in line with the consensus view. I'm not really interested in going down that road with someone unfamiliar.

---

How condescending of you. In other words, you don't know. But I'll give you time to look it up on the internet so you can learn.

---

Go away if you are going to be a brat. You have a habit of making everyone do your homework for you, rather than simply making an argument and addressing it. I made the argument I was interested in making and you seem to have more or less accepted the point.

I'm not interested in re-hashing all of the consensus of NT scholarship with which you almost certainly disagree and are highly unlikely to change your mind about. Broadly of the top of my head pauline authorship is challenged on high criticism which shows strong variation of mastery of language, word use, and theological differences between works. Additionally, analysis of which works are referenced by whom and at what point in time. For instance many of pauls works have an early attestation by marcion who was quite the pauline fan. As well as the dates of their first unequivocal attestations.

Jabin said:

---

His point is that Paul does not mention hell/gehenna at all and is using that to try to buttress his argument that Paul's writings were therefore written prior to the Gospels.

He's right that Paul does not mention hell/gehenna, but Paul does talk a lot about judgment and God's wrath. Again, I think his argument in this case is very weak because there could be a lot of reasons Paul didn't write about hell other than not having the Gospels. Paul was not writing a systematic or exhaustive theology.

But it matters not if the Gospels or Paul's writings were written first. What does matter is how weak so many of the skeptics' arguments against the scriptures are, even if those arguments claim to be buttressed by the "majority of scholars".

You're sort of new here (I think) so you should know that both Sapper and AgGrad are two of our resident atheists/skeptics. They like to fall back on the "consensus of scholars" when they have no hard evidence.

---

Thank you. We agree. They have no primary sources.

We have the "God has foreordained whatsoever shall come to pass from the beginning" concept.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want to know why certain pauline works are rejected I'd pick any book by a scholar in line with the consensus view. I'm not really interested in going down that road with someone unfamiliar.

---

How condescending of you. In other words, you don't know. But I'll give you time to look it up on the internet so you can learn.

---

Go away if you are going to be a brat. You have a habit of making everyone do your homework for you, rather than simply making an argument and addressing it. I made the argument I was interested in making and you seem to have more or less accepted the point.

I'm not interested in re-hashing all of the consensus of NT scholarship with which you almost certainly disagree and are highly unlikely to change your mind about. Broadly of the top of my head pauline authorship is challenged on high criticism which shows strong variation of mastery of language, word use, and theological differences between works. Additionally, analysis of which works are referenced by whom and at what point in time. For instance many of pauls works have an early attestation by marcion who was quite the pauline fan. As well as the dates of their first unequivocal attestations.

---

Marcion rejected the Old Testament because God must only be a God of love and the Old Testament God could therefore not be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He was condemned as an heretic. Justly.

However, Marcion had a following then and still does today, unfortunately. He was from nobility with numerous connections.

Quote:

---

Go away if you are going to be a brat. You have a habit of making everyone do your homework for you, rather than simply making an argument and addressing it.

---

Now you're name calling. Ad hominem attacks are always the refuge of those with no argument.

And you have a habit of simply stating "the consensus agrees with me" and then cannot articulate the evidence the consensus relies upon. That's your job, not mine. You seem to think that if you simply state some conclusion, that it's my job to research your conclusion. What I've found is that all it takes is one soft poke at your balloon and you usually collapse into name calling.

I'm aware the Marion isn't considered orthodox (very far from it). He's important because he's one of the earliest sources we have and put together the first canon we have. And gives a glimpse into some early varieties of belief that quickly emerge in the church.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Go away if you are going to be a brat. You have a habit of making everyone do your homework for you, rather than simply making an argument and addressing it.

---

Now you're name calling. Ad hominem attacks are always the refuge of those with no argument.

And you have a habit of simply stating "the consensus agrees with me" and then cannot articulate the evidence the consensus relies upon. That's your job, not mine. You seem to think that if you simply state some conclusion, that it's my job to research your conclusion. What I've found is that all it takes is one soft poke at your balloon and you usually collapse into name calling.

---

Except it's the opposite. It's always you who is the first *******.

Let's look back at this very thread, I kept it civil and calmly addressed your points which while not very strong were at least made in good faith. You eventually responded with this D-bag comment:

"Oh, OK. That's a completely different point and seems like you're changing the argument because you have no response"

It wasn't a different point. I was simply further explaining why I didn't find the argument credible or persuasive. You were just being a dick. Because I don't know you always have to.

You are the one kicking first and complaining when you get kicked back. Learn to keep it civil, learn to do your own homework and it will be fine.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I'm aware the Marion isn't considered orthodox (very far from it). He's important because he's one of the earliest sources we have and put together the first canon we have. And gives a glimpse into some early varieties of belief that quickly emerge in the church.

---

Not important to the discussion because there was already a received text, which Marcion largely rejected and edited his own theology into the Gospel of Luke, for example.

Far from orthodox is an understatement. Marcion wasn't even a Christian.

Quote:

---

None of that faith or fruit is possible without God's grace and Christs sacrifice. But our faith still requires effort on our part.

---

Love this.

I agree. We are justified by faith and justified by our works.
Sorry for the proof texts. I'm trying to be briefer for people to read. You can check out the context to see if it contradicts. This is yet another reason to believe in the double predestination.

James 2:21
Verse Concepts
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

James 2:25
Verse Concepts
In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

James 2:24
Verse Concepts
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Matthew 11:19
Verse Concepts
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

Romans 2:13
Verse Concepts
for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Romans 2:15
Verse Concepts
in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Justified-By-Works

ChaplainMCH said:

---

Quote:

---

None of that faith or fruit is possible without God's grace and Christs sacrifice. But our faith still requires effort on our part.

---

Love this.

---

Amen

Quote:

---

.IMHO, continuing to celebrate Jewish holidays in disbelief of the Messiah...is questionable and of little real benefit to those who do so.

---

Agreed, because Jesus fulfilled all 8 Jewish festivals....

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

.IMHO, continuing to celebrate Jewish holidays in disbelief of the Messiah...is questionable and of little real benefit to those who do so.

---

Agreed, because Jesus fulfilled all 8 Jewish festivals....

---

Huh? Be specific about this claim.

https://catholicstand.com/jesus-fulfills-the-jewish-feasts/