Comments on Earliest Christian History: Leading postmodernist and other strange uses of la...

This post has me very close to burning (or otherwi...

2008-12-23T01:14:00.000Z

This post has me very close to burning (or otherwise dishonorably disposing of) my copy of Jesus and the Victory of God--but I can't bring myself to do it, because well, it's still a book.

Maybe I'll just stick it in a box and bring it to the basement.

Acts 17:1-9 is fabricated interpolation to make on...

2008-12-05T09:26:00.000Z

Acts 17:1-9 is fabricated interpolation to make one think that Paul and Silas had travelled to Thessalonica on the mission to Gentiles. In fact 'we' (not Paul and Silas) were in Lydia's house (16:40) and that was in Rome, as was the synagogue which she attended, not Philippi. She was a Jewess.

Most of the real events in Acts occured in Rome. But the travels of Paul to Gentile areas are all fabrication.

what about acts 17:6-7?6But when they did not find...

2008-12-04T04:05:00.000Z

what about acts 17:6-7?

6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

Stephen from the North East wrote:"Not even the au...

2008-12-01T14:43:00.000Z

Stephen from the North East wrote:"Not even the author of Acts could rewrite history to the extent of claiming that the dispute was about anything other than to do with Law-observance, and the function of the Temple."

Don't you believe it! How naive can you get? And who is this so-called 'author' of Acts? I take it you mean editor. After all we are talking about dating of documents here, and there was surely a progression from an original Acts (certainly not of the 'apostles'), and the editor was more than likely one of the best liars the Flavians could bring to the party. So Felix was a figment of the editor's imagination. No Stephen, it wasn't originally to do with Law, or the temple, and the location was Rome, not Jerusalem. How does Goodacre date Acts?

'Wright's language is poetic etc but it's content ...

2008-11-29T14:52:00.000Z

'Wright's language is poetic etc but it's content does not work as an argument (one very good reason why content should really come first) and it seems he's making it up. '

Are we allowed to say that leading New Testament scholars make things up?

As it happens, even Acts of the Apostles does not portray the Romans as bothered by Christian claims of a resurrection, or even aware of them.

Nor do any Jews try to get Christians in trouble by telling Romans that Christians worship a convicted criminal who escaped death.

Take the letter by Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings. This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment.'

Not even the author of Acts could rewrite history to the extent of claiming that the dispute was about anything other than to do with Law-observance, and the function of the Temple.

Is he any worse than someone who dates New Testame...

2008-11-28T10:44:00.000Z

Is he any worse than someone who dates New Testament documents according to the youngest information in them? Especially so when that youngest information looks like later interpolation. Take The Epistle to 'Romans' for example. I mean you just might think that all those names in 'Romans' 16 guarantee the 'Paul' was definately not in Rome, and almost certainly on his way to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints, having been too busy on his mission to Gentiles to visit Rome. The whole chapter couldn't have been completely fabricated could it now, just to con us all along like. So is the editor also up to conning us in 'Romans' 15? Goodacre quotes 'Romans' 15:19 as evidence that 'Romans' must have been written after 'Galations' and 1 and 2 'Cor'., collections for the saints having been taken. Thus we have the editor writing the bold words for his Paul: "So from Jerusalem all the way round to Illyricium, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ", again leading us to believe that 'Paul' hadn't quite made it back to Rome, and was on his travels. In 'Romans' 15 and 16 we are looking at youngest information interpolated into an earlier document which probably ended with the Amen of 'Romans' 15:33. The earlier document of 'Romans' was not written to Romans at all, but to prophets in Jerusalem. And the original author was actully writing in exile from Rome. He would no doubt have written: "from Rome I have fully proclaimed the Spirit of God." It was in this letter that the author was highly critical of the immoral behaviour of the priests, later turned by the editor into the immoral behaviour of Gentiles.

So may be Wright is not so differently bad after all.

...they could certainly use the paper as bandage w...

2008-11-28T02:27:00.000Z

...they could certainly use the paper as bandage waddings and as random toiletries.

I might have thought that he thinks if he writes a...

2008-11-27T23:05:00.000Z

I might have thought that he thinks if he writes alot of rubbish that has no logic, people will think he's a great intellectual maverick (which they do) but then he's not clever enough. He just makes it up as he goes along believing he's a great intellectual maverick - and the Messiah. I'm sure the Middle East do too. Perhaps he should make a pilgrimage there and see what happens when he starts preaching to them.

Well if he could write plain English he might be a...

2008-11-27T22:53:00.000Z

Well if he could write plain English he might be able to help the rest of the world. And I couldn't give a toss about labels.

One thing is for sure. The Church of England is rich eough to keep thousands of Wrights going until the resurrected Lord comes again. How does that grab y'all? Enough to give Wrong nightmares.

these are strange times in which we live. things ...

2008-11-27T22:12:00.000Z

these are strange times in which we live. things are no longer called by their proper name, but rather by the name most likely to engender support of ideology. for the fundamentalists (a label certainly deserved by those who have it hurled at them), everyone who thinks differently is a 'postmodernist' as though that word were equivalent to 'satanist'.

that's because fundamentalists are at their best when demonizing others rather than honest debate.

But of course that's to be expected. they don't have an argument to support their position. hence they must retreat to tried and true methods to stir their sycophants to action against their foes.

the one fact that makes it impossible for the same to be said of non-fundamentalists is this: they are at least willing to think.