re: Texas getting it's own Sharia Law

quote:

---

No one does.

---

I do.

quote:

---

There are only suppositions, proposals, hypothesis, theories.

---

So, there are no facts? Is that a fact?

quote:

---

Some are based on the scientific method. Some are just cool stories that rely on blind faith.

---

I agree. Like the historical record of Jesus Christ’s life, crucifixion by Pilate in the first century AD is a fact( and abiogenesis is just a cool story that relies on blind faith?

quote:

---

Human beings will become extinct before we develop the instrumentation and processes necessary to confirm any theory about how the universe or life came into existence.

---

I’m curious why you think this?

quote:

---

It is very interesting stuff to study and debate, though.

---

Me too. ;cheers:

quote:

---

Even though that’s a work of fiction, it is possible that there could be a kernel of historical evidence in there. But that’s just one of Jesus’ disciples.

---

You consistently just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

Almost every historian (yes, almost EVERY SINGLE ONE), Christian, Jewish, atheist, anything, consider Acts as a vital source of history.

Why do you lie?

Me:

quote:

---

There are only suppositions, proposals, hypothesis, theories.

---

You:

quote:

---

So, there are no facts? Is that a fact?

---

It is, but please attempt to prove me wrong.

Me:

quote:

---

Some are based on the scientific method. Some are just cool stories that rely on blind faith.

---

You:

quote:

---

I agree. Like the historical record of Jesus Christ’s life, crucifixion by Pilate in the first century AD is a fact( and abiogenesis is just a cool story that relies on blind faith?

---

The stories to which you refer exist in multiple forms. That is a fact.

The accuracy of those stories has never been proven to be factual.

Me:

quote:

---

Human beings will become extinct before we develop the instrumentation and processes necessary to confirm any theory about how the universe or life came into existence.

---

You:

quote:

---

I’m curious why you think this?

---

Because the conditions necessary to sustain life on Earth are fleeting. Nature will eventually wipe us out.

Tectonics, an asteroid strike, a massive sun flare, etc.

Something will eventually kill us all, sooner rather than later, and we won't have it all figured out before then.

And neither you nor I will ever know because we'll both be dead within the next 100 years.

quote:

---

Would a modern Jew or an atheist believe the Holy Spirit came down from heaven and caused the disciples to speak in tongues? What about Peter healing the crippled guy? Other miraculous healings? The guy who fell out the window from the third floor being resurrected? Paul’s immunity to venomous snakes? Angels opening up the prison doors? Those are miracles, and are by definition extremely unlikely, and so any legitimate historian would have to admit that those cannot be historically verified. They are baseless assertions, stories, and myths created for theological reasons - not history.

Acts says upon Paul’s visionary conversion, he went straight to Jerusalem to meet the apostles. Paul however, writing before Acts was written, says he did not go straight to Jerusalem, but went to Arabia for a few years, then went back to Damascus, and when thereafter he went to Jerusalem the only ones he saw was Kephas and James. So Paul was writing a response to some rumor or tradition that said he went to Jerusalem after his conversion and explicitly denied such a thing, saying he was not lying. Sorry, I believe Paul over whoever wrote Acts.

So no, historians do not consider Acts a historical document, rather they consider it a literary document for theological purposes. It’s historians’ jobs to determine what is most likely to have occurred in the past, and so things that are least likely to have happened (miracles) with no supporting evidence, cannot be determined to be most likely what happened. Acts is non-historical to historians. Period. And that’s not a lie.

Can you find a dogmatic Christian who has a PhD in ancient history? I’m sure you can. But that person would not be a legitimate historian. The consensus of historians is that Acts is mostly fiction, though there may be some kernels of historical events, most cannot be corroborated.

---

You are correct that miracles cannot be VERIFIED. That doesn't mean they didn't happen nor does it mean historians dismiss them as you insinuate. This is, in no way, evidence that they didn't happen as you so wish. It's simply a limitation of the discipline. Every historian acknowledges this but it weakens or even negates your argument so you can't.

Second, the work, like many ancient writings can contain different forms of literature, including theological interpretations while still preserving historical information. This is so widely known and accepted that I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just plain ignorant.

Third, regarding Paul vs Acts, by your standard, we'd have to dismiss a ridiculous amount of historical writings due to a discrepancy. One discrepancy doesn't (nor should it) dismiss the entire book. That's just lazy.

Fourth, dismissing Christian historians is an ad hominem, not a legitimate argument. They are subject to the same standards and peer reviews as your favorite atheists.

Finally, in light of you asking me for sources, I'll need to see some sources verifying Acts is "non-historical" according to scholarly consensus.

quote:

---

There are a few different ways to attempt to solve it, but none are successful

---

Actually the exact opposite is true. For years, uninformed skeptics tried to create a superficial contradiction but actual, real scholarship supports the reliability of the text.

quote:

---

Judea was added into the Syrian providence and counted in 6AD

---

It seems that you are assuming Judea didn't pay taxes despite Luke's use of the word apographe. Jerusalem likely had been paying tribute to Rome since Pompey conquered it in 63BC.

quote:

---

10 years apart and pointing in the wrong direction

---

This is mistake #2. You are likely relying on the institution of tributum soli and tributum capitis when Archelaus was deposed. If so, it overlooks Luke's prote in 2:2. This opens multiple possibilities. 1 - the tax was a multi year tax. 2 - Quirinius was governor more than once. 3 - Legatus was a broad term in which Quirinius could have been superior to the immediate magistrate of Judea and a 2nd census ascribed to him as he had superceding authority. 4 - it's also possible that during the jubilee, an oath of allegiance and a general property registration would be required, which Herod would have been obligated to comply with.

quote:

---

Imagine writing that Covid happened during the Obama administration and sycophants 2,000 years later twist into pretzels trying to pretend there's an explanation.

---

The same is true of biblical criticisms. People who have an emotional need for Christianity to be false fall for all sorts of amateurish junk in a desperate attempt to assuage their fragile egos.

quote:

---

It seems that you are assuming Judea didn't pay taxes despite Luke's use of the word apographe. Jerusalem likely had been paying tribute to Rome since Pompey conquered it in 63BC.

---

Tribute, not taxes. There were exactly zero Roman censuses of Judea prior to 6 AD.

Sorry.

quote:

---

So teach atheism

---

That course would take one sentence to teach.

"Some people don't believe in a super natural deity"

End of course

quote:

---

More twisting into pretzels

---

Or, possible

quote:

---

Even Quirinius being a ranking Syrian official directly before taking over the Governorship is extremely unlikely

---

This is not unlikely

quote:

---

Not good evidence

---

According to you. There are historians who disagree with you

quote:

---

"and again governor of Syria"

---

Ah. So you don't know biblical Greek. That's all you had to say

quote:

---

I spent weeks looking into this 20 years ago and its why I stopped believing

---

Wow. That was idiotic. You are mentally weak

quote:

---

they had to travel to their place of origin

---

Prove this didn't happen

quote:

---

The accuracy of those stories has never been proven to be factual

---

Well this is a lie

quote:

---

You are correct that miracles cannot be VERIFIED. That doesn't mean they didn't happen nor does it mean historians dismiss them as you insinuate. This is, in no way, evidence that they didn't happen as you so wish. It's simply a limitation of the discipline. Every historian acknowledges this but it weakens or even negates your argument so you can't.

---

A legit historian has to make a case based on what is most likely. A miracle is the least likely - actually impossible, and that’s what makes it a miracle. A legit historian, without overwhelming evidence, cannot say that something that is impossible is most likely. I don’t think this fact weakens or negates my argument. It rather was my argument to begin with. You acknowledge my argument, but then say this doesn’t mean the miracles didn’t happen. That’s true, but the only reason one would believe they really happened, based on them being impossible, and without any evidence, would be that the person has a dogma, a faith, not based on logic or evidence but a simple will to believe something that gives them comfort.

quote:

---

Second, the work, like many ancient writings can contain different forms of literature, including theological interpretations while still preserving historical information. This is so widely known and accepted that I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just plain ignorant.

---

I think the issue is you don’t understand that a document filled with wild claims of miracles, plus some material that conflicts with other known sources (Paul’s letters), plus known falsehoods such as the church starting as a unified body… even if there are some things in Acts that might be historical, it’s difficult to separate the reality from the fantasy. Therefore historians label Acts as being not historically reliable. Isn’t it funny how you think you know something so well, that if someone else contradicts you think they are being deceitful or disingenuous. I know you aren’t lying - you really believe what you are typing. You simply don’t know what you don’t know.

quote:

---

Third, regarding Paul vs Acts, by your standard, we'd have to dismiss a ridiculous amount of historical writings due to a discrepancy. One discrepancy doesn't (nor should it) dismiss the entire book. That's just lazy.

---

It’s about a pattern of falsehoods. It’s not one discrepancy.

Take Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum”. A Jew wouldn’t write about Jesus not being a man and being the messiah and being resurrected. That’s a Christian interpolation. Some people want to strip out all the fanciful stuff and say Josephus was just writing about a Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. That’s fine, you can do that, but that entire part about Jesus to me is suspect and is historically unreliable. If it’s historically unreliable, it can’t be used to corroborate a historical Jesus.

quote:

---

Fourth, dismissing Christian historians is an ad hominem, not a legitimate argument. They are subject to the same standards and peer reviews as your favorite atheists.

---

Maybe you are confusing historians with theologians? Or maybe I should have wrote differently. A Christian theologian held to the same standard as a secular theologian can only go as far to say Jesus most likely existed as a historical man and likely was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Once he starts saying that Acts is historically reliable, he is no longer a historian but a Christian apologist.

quote:

---

Finally, in light of you asking me for sources, I'll need to see some sources verifying Acts is "non-historical" according to scholarly consensus.

---

GENRE AND NARRATIVE COHERENCE IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
by
Alan Bale
A thesis submitted to the
University of Birmingham for
the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

quote:

---

Now, however, the question of Acts’ genre has come full circle and is again raising the question of historicity. Is Acts history or fiction? In the eyes of most scholars, it is history—but not the kind of history that precludes fiction. As Pervo has suggested, Acts is probably both fiction and history at the same time. If we can adapt MacDonald’s term, perhaps we should say that Acts is historical mythomachia.

---