Talk Elections

“Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him” (Mark 14:10-11). Once Jesus had been arrested, his followers abandoned him and fled. Again, we see Jews in abandonment. Many of them had abandoned Jesus as had recently happened when fleeing Jerusalem. Where I see a disconnection with history in Mark, is when Jesus is taken to be prejudged by the Sanhedrin Council before he was taken to Pilate.  Traditionally, they were not allowed to meet at night. Also, Jesus’ followers could not have witnessed what went on at either his appearance before the Jewish council or his arraignment by the Romans if they had abandoned him.  Mark’s portrayal of the sequence of events shows that the charge of sedition against Jesus was not only false but invented by his Jewish enemies.  “Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree” (Mark 14:55-56).  The trial is shown as a pretense in order to put him to death. The only blasphemy seen is when Jesus’ identity is questioned.
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61)?  It is Jesus’ response that strikes opposition with the Sanhedrin. “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’, and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:62).  This causes the high priest to tear his robe and the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus to death. However, this entire trial is extremely unlikely to have happened. Had the events occurred as described by the Gospel of Mark, then the Sanhedrin would have violated its own legal practices concerning examining witnesses, self-incrimination, courtroom procedure, sentencing, and assembling at night. A more likely scenario would have been Mark’s second version of the council meeting to discuss this case the following morning as if nothing happened the night before. This more accurate scene is also the meeting described in Luke.
“As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate” (Mark 15:1). The Jews had Jesus cruxified in order to prevent the Romans from becoming angry and destroying the Temple. They did not want the Romans to retaliate due to affiliation with Jesus any more than Christians wanted the Romans to retaliate after the war due to affiliation with the Jews. The author avoided mentioning anything that would provoke Roman antagonism. Mark emphasizes the role of the Jews and defended Jesus rather than blaming the Romans. Pilate only carried out a Jewish verdict according to Mark. On a deeper level, the Gospel of Mark also offers a model of how to act when put on trial. Peter’s three denials, the first two being servant girls and the third being a bystander; of knowing Jesus was an example of how not to act whereas Jesus confessing to being the Messiah and Son of God would have been how Mark wanted his contemporaries to act. When the cock crowed for the second time, Peter remembered what Jesus said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:72). Peter then broke down and wept. Contrasting Jesus’ courage with Peter’s denial gives a choice to Jesus’ followers that they must take sides in a war that has no neutral ground. Further evidence of reconstruction can be seen in Mark’s portrayal of Pontius Pilate.
According to Josephus, Pilate displayed contempt for his Jewish subjects, illegally appropriated funds from the Temple treasury, and brutally suppressed unruly crowds. However, Mark along with the other gospels, shows a very passive Pilate who never actually gives the sentence or orders the execution, but is reluctantly forced by the chief priests. “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you” (Mark 15:4).  Many Christians would have been hearing similar charges brought on them as they faced trial for being Jews even though they did not participate in the war against Rome. Rather than demonstrating anger or impatience, “Pilate was amazed” (Mark 15:5).  This is not at all the historical Pilate as will be mentioned.  “For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over” (Mark 15:10). Jews are at odds here with Jesus as Jews would have been at envious of each other after the war, especially those who lost power.  Another feature I would like to point out from the Pilate scene is Barabbas.  “Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:7). Notice how during and after the war, murderers and rebels being sentenced to death would have been very common and hit home with many listeners. It was likely how Mark felt Jerusalem was going. Instead of following the righteous, they follow the path of murderers. Barabbas though is likely to have been a creation of Mark’s.
“Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:6-7). Let us now point out that there were insurrections taking place just before and at the time that Mark was being written. During and after the Roman-Jewish War, there would have been many prisoners who were in Roman custody. Such a notion would have resonated with the audience Mark was trying to reach. “So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, ‘Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead” (Mark 15:8-11). Being released as a custom is nowhere to be found in the era in which Jesus lived. Had that been the case, it is very doubtful that Pilate would have honored it anyways. Releasing a criminal would have made about as much sense back then as it would today. Imagine the governor of a state pardoning a sentenced murderer every year on Easter. While this is funny to see the President of the United States do with turkeys every Thanksgiving, it would be looked at much differently if it were actually humans on death row. “Pilate spoke to them again, ‘Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?’ They shouted back, ‘Crucify him’” (Mark 15:12-13). What we have here is more blaming of the Jewish authorities in order to make the case that the Jewish leaders have misled their people and now the message of Jesus is to be followed. “Pilate asked them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify him!’ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be cruxified” (Mark 15:14-15). Philo does tell us of a similar tradition performed near the time of festivals though where governors could “postpone the execution until after the festival, or they could allow burial of the cruxified by his family” (Crossan 141).
“Rulers who conduct their government as they should and do not pretend to honor but do really honor their benefactors make a practice of not punishing any condemned person until those notable celebrations in honor of the birthdays of the illustrious Augustan house are over” (Against Flaccus81-84). Here we see the Roman rulers honoring their own holidays but not holidays of the Jews. “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been cruxified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow the ordinary rites” (Against Flaccus 81-84). The whole point of Philo’s Against Flaccus though is because Flaccus performed inhumane actions and the policies and events described in this work are regarding Emperor Caligula’s birthday on Aug.31, 38. “For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of the emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained. But Flaccus gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross” (Against Flaccus 81-84). What Flaccus did do however was delay the execution of prisoners, but not release them! “Instead he ordered the crucifixion of the living, to whom the season offered a short lived though not permanent reprieve in order to postpone the punishment though not to remit it altogether” (Against Flaccus 81-84). Here we have a historical citing of an actual tradition based on Roman holidays that at times was not completely honored even by the Romans themselves.


Basically Pilate was recreated in order to blame the Jews whom were at odds with a sect of their own known as Christians while showing the Romans in a more positive light. I'll give the author of Mark that demonizing the Romans would've led to even more executions and we may not even have the gospels today had he showed the crucifixion as strictly Roman. At the same time, history shows that if the Jews decided or were behind the order to execute Jesus, then they would've stoned him to death. I find Luke's passion narrative the most accurate.

There's actually a Pontius Pilate thread here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149035.0), though it's framed in terms of asking people's opinion of him.

Hmm that's interesting and I hope I didn't upset anyone by starting a new one. He was vile and disgusting man who was removed from office in 36 CE for slaughtering Jews when they were tricked. I'm not sure if I mentioned it above or not. Then his position was eliminated in 44 anyways. Interesting enough Caiaphas from the passion narrative was removed along with him suggesting that they were co-conspirators. This furthers the idea that Caiaphas would've been a puppet for Pilate as opposed to the traditional view that Pilate was passive. What are your thoughts on him?

No, not upsetting. We just might want to get a moderator to merge them into a Pilate Megathread of sorts.

He was certainly an immensely vile and unlikeable historical figure. My interpretation of the reasons for the Gospels portraying him somewhat more sympathetically than the historical record and his role in the Crucifixion should indicate is that it's something to do with how the Gospels engage in a lot of subversion or role reversal of expected portrayals, such that the in-groups in Jewish society come off somewhat worse and the out-groups, be they 'unclean' people, minorities, the underclass, or in this case foreign tyrants, come off somewhat better.

why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and the Jews in a bad light, when the gospels declare us ALL guilty of Jesus' death?!  In fact, in the gospels, Jesus spells out the absolute necessity of his death - for the forgiveness of everyone's sins.

knowing this, there is absolutely no need or motive to blame this or that group, both Jews and Gentiles were active in his death.  so your whole conspiracy theory, made up of nothing but conjecture, inserts a motive where there is no need for motive.

at least attempt to learn what the Gospel is all about before making up baseless and needless stories

Tidewater,

your theory that the gospels attempt to make the Jews look bad and while attempting to make Rome look good...is tantamount to claiming the story of Joseph in Genesis attempts to make the Jews look bad while making Egypt look good...

...but you fail to realise that in both the story of Jesus and the story of Joseph, it is EXPLICITY STATED that their rejection by the Jews was absolutely necessary to save both Jews and Gentiles.

with all your education, how did you miss the entire plot?!

jmfcst, has it occurred to you that many people, including many Christians, prefer to read the Bible both historically and religiously?

Why would the gospels need to show Rome in a good light and Jews in a bad light?

Let's see here.  First, they didn't necessarily show Rome in a "good light" but were apologetic in order to evade persecutions. They were at odds with the Jews after the war from 66-73 as many who eventually joined the Christian movement fled to the Galilean countryside while the rest of the Jews stayed and fought, most of whom died. This caused ideological and theological differences. Jews added liturgy of condemnation in their services in order to specifically denounced Christians shortly after.

All guilty of Jesus' death? Yes depending on how you look at it. ALL meant "all Jews" when considering that era's biblical interpretation.  As for forgiveness of sins, it was specified in the gospels but not prior to; 30-70 CE. Eventually Matthew perverted Jesus into fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies. I'm about to tear into the author of Matthew regarding his leaning on the Hebrew Bible.

I agree there is no need to isolate the Jews for the death of Jesus, but the author of Mark did that and the others followed suit. What we see when reading the gospels is nothing more than 1st century politics within Judaism.

I entertain no conspiracy theories here.

what does that have to do with introducing hack motive that is contrary to the entire plot?

Pilate was the opposite of how he was drawn by the gospels.

everything you claim is contrary to the plot of every single book in the NT.  And any
"scholar" worth his salt acknowledges that at least much of the NT was written prior to 66AD, e.g. Paul's letters

Tidewater,

how are the gospels' depiction of the guilt and/or innocence of Jews and Gentiles any different than in the Genesis story of Joseph?  Is the writer of Joseph's story attempting to make  Egypt look good for political purposes, while hanging the Jews who sold Joseph into slavery out to dry at the same time?

Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat? There is actually an economic argument to be made from that story about the 7 fat cows and the 7 ugly cows, but what exactly do you mean? Btw I'm actually a Christian and don't necessarily doubt Jesus as my savior, but am constructively critical of scripture.

you claim to be a Christian who knows scripture, yet you're asking me to explain to you the parallels between the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus?!...both prophesied to their fellow Jews their coming authority, both were rejected by their fellow Jews, in both stories the Jews lied, in both stories the Gentiles were somewhat complicit, in both stories the Gentiles would be more receptive...etc, etc, etc.

yet I don't see you making up any conspiracy theories about the story of Joseph, even though it is just as blunt towards the guilt of the Jews as the story of Jesus.

in any case, my wife is now out of the restroom and I have to go

I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE. Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT? Pilate was a terrible person and history tells us that. What do you make of the fact that the story about Carabas was actually written prior to the gospels? It is where they got much of the passion narrative a generation later.

Because it's exactly what Tidewater is doing here, and because there are hackish elements to the way the Gospels were written. They play to specific audiences and are hackish to the sensibilities of those audiences. That doesn't somehow magically make them not divinely inspired any more.

They do play to specific audiences.

Mark- post-war literature to the Galilean countryside
Matthew- TRIES to relate the Hebrew Bible to Jesus and fails miserably
Luke- seems to be later at a time when Christians are attempting to mostly recruit Gentiles
John- written to combat Celsus and the "heresies" going on in the late first century

John keep in mind rebuttled the Thomist Christians. "Doubting Thomas" comes from the Gnostics who believed that salvation was from within. Notice how ONLY JOHN has Thomas doubting Jesus' resurrection. Thomas in John's gospel has to "see for himself." This is heresy as only Christ could  bring about salvation but to Thomas, salvation is within.

Yes they were both cleverly written.

So, you're a "Christian", yet you don't believe in prophecy....got it.  What next, do you moonlight as an astronomer who doesn't believe in gravity?

Also, the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome...so, if Acts was written prior to Paul's death, then so was Luke and also the written gospel accounts referenced in Luke.

---


well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?!  how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?!  how does one make that jump?

Are you kidding or high? Paul references what was known about Jesus' life but doesn't quote the gospels. This is insane and absurd to even suggest. I've never heard a serious scholar once suggest that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. Paul even speaks of the resurrection in spiritual terms at first. In other words there wasn't a physical resurrection at first in all likelyhood regarding the evolution of Christianity. There is no jump, but only historical analysis. Paul knew nothing of the gospels and really only perverted Jesus' message which is no longer with us.

I presume by Carabas you are referring to karabas, a type of mock-king referred to by Philo?

Incidentally, while trying to decipher that reference to Carabas I came across a most peculiar website (http://www.metrum.org/gosen/index.htm) that makes the claim that the gospel accounts were based upon a now lost tragedy written by the Roman playwright Seneca the Younger about the death of Jesus.

The idea that one or more of the gospel writers may have adapted the structure of Greco-Roman tragedies for their text strikes me as quite plausible, but I find it quite fanciful to go from that to inventing out of whole cloth a lost play by arguably the most famous Roman dramatist of the 1st century.

Pilate was certainly an HP outside of the Bible. The fact that he was so horrible outside of the Bible while in the Bible he was a victem of peer pressure who saw no guilt in Jesus is because Pilate was doing an Even Evil Has Standards (apologises for making a TvTropes reference) moment.

Yes the Carabas/Karabas story was written by Philo. Whether or not it happened like that or happened at all, the fact is that it was written in 38 CE prior to any New Testament source. That's interesting that you mention the piece by Seneca but I'd have to read more about it. I tend to argue that much of the way the gospels were written was a result from the fall of the temple in 70 CE combined with the outcast mentality towards followers of Jesus. Notice how Jesus is always hhelping the less fortunate. There is a Greco-Roman structure as you mention as well.

I'd suggest you read more broadly. I may not agree with Jmfsct's tack here, but you really need to find some material not written by Crossan/Borg, Ehrman, et al.

Paul obviously quotes from sources used by the Gospel writers (in Romans alone: 12:14 and 17, 13:7-9, 14:10, 14:14, 16:19). If you don't want to say that this was him quoting from the Gospels, fair enough, but it's splitting hairs at that point.

Dating the Gospels is tricky business, it's hardly an exact science, and any scholar that tells you otherwise probably shouldn't be considered "serious", as you put it. They could have been written in the 50s or the 90s, based on hard evidence alone there's no way we could say either way. There are/were scholars at respected institutions who would date Mark prior to 70AD, somewhere around 65AD iirc is the earliest date. Hugh Anderson of the University of Edinburgh (died 10 years ago), John A.T. Robinson from Cambridge (died in the 80s, did work on it in the 70s), C.E.B. Cranfield of Durham University, and Dennis Nineham of Oxford support or supported the early date. There are other guys who were/are evangelical but taught in first tier UK schools and would go with earlier dates. Furthermore there are quite a few scholars who say it could go either way: Joel Marcus at Duke, John Nolland at the University of Bristol are two. This is just Mark (there are others who hold to an earlier Matthew and teach at reputable schools). See, this is what one can do in 10-15 minutes of research, you should try it...


This is just hackish. There's such a vast array of material out there on the subject that for you to make such a blanket accusation is ridiculous and reveals a fair amount of immaturity. You know this? Really? Your appeals to scholarship fall flat here because I don't need to look anything up to name dozens of authorities who would call that statement absurd.

Scholarship doesn't involve placing colored beads into a hat based on whether you like something in the text or not. It's more serious than Dan Brown books and wild unfounded assertions.

I did NOT say Paul quoted the gospels - You misunderstood my point, so allow me to rephrase…

You made two statements:

1)   the historical account of the gospels were written post-70AD and much of the account was invented (at least in part) for political reasons in an attempt to make the Jews look bad and the Roman government look good.

2)   Paul’s letters were written prior to 60AD

My point is that Paul’s letters, and the account of Jesus’ life contained in Paul’s letters, is in complete agreement with the gospels and would be no different “politically” than the account of the gospels:  Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.) after being interrogated by Pontus Pilate (1Tim 6:13) and rejected by the Jews (1Thess. 2:15).

In summary: Regardless of the sources Paul used to glean that information, there is no difference between the political ramifications of the gospels and Paul’s account of Jesus’ life written prior to 60AD.  The only difference is that the gospels go into more detail, but only because going into detail was the intent of the gospels. So, the whole motive within your theory (gospels changed events surrounding Christ’s death in order to make Rome look good and Jews look bad, in post-70AD political climate) is shattered by the fact Paul’s letters, which you admit were written prior to 60AD, tell the same story and thus have the same political ramifications.

---

As far as your claim that no gospel was written prior to 70AD…the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome around 60AD.

So, if the book of Luke was written after 70AD, how do you explain that the historical account in Acts, which directly references the book of Luke, leaves off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome around 60AD?

I focus on Mark because it was the first written and the others stem from their or independent sources. I've read many of the above names you mentioned and particularly agree with Crossan and Pagels. Yes Paul may have been familiar with information in the gospels or earlier sources but not at all was he familiar with the gospels as we know them today because they weren't formed yet. I may not have been clear. Also, the work I've done in the past decade would take up hundreds of pages here so as I do post what I've written I ask 2 things. Please be patient and please don't copy and publish my work. I love discussing when the books of the Bible were written and what political motives the authors had. I only get fussy with fundamentalists who don't really understand what's going on outside of what they were taught at age 5. So let's go back to Pilate being a villain in real life. What is everyone's thoughts?

No, you’re being clear – you’re clearly dodging my point:  Paul’s description of Jesus persecution, which you admit was written prior to 60AD, is no different politically than the gospels, which you claim were written post-70AD with a post-war political slant to make Rome look better and the Jews look worse.

In other words, your argument of a post-war (70AD) political slant to the gospels is shattered by the fact that Paul paints the political picture in his PRE-war writings (60AD).

---



I highly highly highly doubt you’ll have to worry about that, professor.

---


I think everyone, including the NT, agrees Pilate was a scum.

So, there is not a lot to argue about in the case of Pilate’s demeanor:

Luke 13:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices..”

I’ve simply ignored your contention that the gospels try to cast Pilate in a good light, because you’re argument is soo asinine in light of how the gospels actually describe Pilate.  If I attempted to respond to every idiotic comment you made, I’d be here all day.

So, not only is your post-war-political-slant theory refuted by Paul’s pre-war letters (which tell the same story), there wasn’t even any basis for claiming the gospels treated Pilate kindly to begin with.  You’re whole argument is a crock.

are you going to answer the following, I'm only asking it for a third time:

Writings in antiquity took place well after the events took place. Yes, Acts and Luke mention things that took place prior to 60 CE. That has nothing to do with when they were written. The events recorded which are said to take place prior to that time were not written as Luke or Acts until later. The authors were writing about the events as if they were happening later in the first century anyways which further shows that the authors were not present during the time of Paul's ministry in the 50's and early 60's. For example, having the Pharisees being Jesus' primary enemies in Matthew and Luke as opposed to Mark where the scribes and priests are his main enemies, we see a development, one of which would have been the establishment of Pharisees as the leading party rather than the Sadduccees. Luke portrays the Pharisees as being more powerful than they would've been in Jesus' time or even before the fall of the temple. Also, Jesus debating the Jewish leaders in the synagogue at the beginning of Luke suggests that the author of Luke is thinking in terms of an established school system where the Pharisees taught and interpreted Torah. There is no way that line of thought came before the fall of the temple and the Sadduccees. Having the Pharisees impressed shows satire against them and puts Jesus in a positive light setting the tone for further disputes of law to come about throughout the rest of Luke's gospel. These are just a few examples of a post-temple mindset in Luke. The gospels can talk all they want about events that occurred in other NT books and prior to 70 CE but it doesn't mean that they were actually written prior to that.

[Made sight edits in the above quote to make clear who jmfcst was responding to.)

The arguments over the depiction of Pilate in the gospels are not so much whether Pilate was a good man but over his use in the Gospel accounts to establish who was to blame for the death of Jesus. This early mention of Pilate in Luke can be seen as setting up his later appearance when Jesus is brought before him.

In Luke he is used to show that it was the Jewish leadership and their followers who were responsible, as the sole reason Pilate sentences Jesus to death is to placate them.

By the way, that somewhat wacko website I mentioned earlier that posits a lost tragedy by Seneca about the crucifixion of Jesus, has a different take on the disagreement over punishment between Pilate and the crowd.  It posits that Barabbas is a corruption of the title 'karabas' and that in the Senecan original that the gospels were based upon Pilate made use of the schemes of the Jewish elders to get him to kill Jesus for them to advance Roman interests.   Pilate offered the crowd a choice between punishing Jesus as a 'karabas' or mock king, who would warrant a mere scourging and sending away and punishing him as someone who really was king, and the crowd chose the latter.  Hence the crucifixion happened not because Jews denied Jesus as Messiah, but because they accepted him as Messiah.

Not a shred of evidence for any of that of course, but it does make for an entertaining tale.

Finally someone else who gets it right. For the record, it wasn't simply making Pilate out to be a good guy for the sake of being a good guy as it seems that my words have been taken out of context, but it was drawn that way in order to make the Jews look responsible so they could claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

Messiah who died for the Jews that is.

You keep ignoring Acts, as if I’m going to let you slide...

The four gospels were intended to give a summary of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  In that regard, they are unabridged and are a complete history, even though they are not exhaustive…therefore the timelines of the four gospels, regardless when they were written, make perfect sense…so let’s set them aside and deal now with Acts…

Acts was intended to give a historical summary of the early church from the time Christ ascended…so, if Acts were written after 70AD, why would it leave off with Paul awaiting trial in Rome ~60AD and completely skip the outcome of the trial, the persecution under Nero (64-68AD) and the death of Peter, Paul, and Jesus’ brother James?   These 3, along with John, are the main 4 main Apostles of the early church, and 3 of them were martyred in the 60’s, included Pater and Paul who are the two main characters of the book of Acts.

The author of Acts had no problem presenting the martyrdom of Stephen and John’s brother, and you’re going to tell me the author supposedly wrote this post-70AD and chose to leave out the deaths of Jesus' brother James, Peter, and Paul in the 60’s?!

So, again, for the fourth time, my question to you is:  If written after 70AD, why does Acts, whose historical timeline spans ~30 years after Christ’s resurrection, leave the reader hanging in ~60AD?



 

We've discussed this point ourselves, and as I pointed out then a plausible possibility is that the writer of Luke-Acts intended to write more books but they either have been lost or were never written.  The fact that we lack a Martyrdom of the Apostles only leaves open the possibility of Luke and Acts being written before their martyrdom, but cannot be used to prove that they were.

Imagine if you will, that The Empire Strikes Back had been a flop so that Star Wars ended after two films.  The lack of The Return of the Jedi would not be an indication that Lucas never planned to film it.

Yeah, and all your answers are half-baked.

The author of Acts/Luke displays very logical starting and end points in the gospel of Luke, and a very logical starting point for Acts.

If written post-70AD, leaving off with Paul awaiting trial is NOT a good logical breakpoint, especially since Acts spends the last 4 years of its timeline detailing this particular arrest of Paul, from his arrest in Jerusalem (Acts ch 21), to his statement before the Sanhedrin (Acts ch 22), to his transfer to Caesarea (Acts ch 23) where he was examined by Felix (Acts ch24) and waited in prison for 2 years before getting a trail (Acts ch 24), to his trial before Festus and Aggripa (Acts ch 25-26), to his appeal to Caesar and transfer to Rome during which he was shipwrecked (Acts ch 27-28), to his subsequent two years spent awaiting trial in Rome (Acts ch28)…

…and you’re going to tell me that the author of Acts, who you say was writing post-70AD, spent the last 4 years of his timeline in his book covering this single arrest, which covers the last 8 chapters of Acts, is going to decide out of the clear blue to stop at that point, leaving Paul's fate and the story of this arrest hanging?!

That makes no sense whatsoever if he was writing post-70AD, especially in light of the author’s demonstration for choosing good logical starting and end points to his books.  

HOWEVER, since the author is clearly writing from an eyewitness standpoint during the later half of the book of Acts, claiming to have been on this journey as one of Paul’s companions and using “we” over and over again, it is completely logical that the author, unsure of the outcome of Paul’s upcoming trial and therefore unsure of his own safety, would complete his history of the early church and send it off to its recipients just prior to the beginning of Paul’s trail in Rome in 62AD.  That is, BY FAR, the simplest and most logical scenario explaining the endpoint of Acts timeline.

In addition to not mentioning the events of the 60's, everything in the Book of Acts is exactly what you would expect if it was written around 62AD...it touches on key points of early church history, going through about 90% of its timeline (~28 years) in the first 20 chapters, yet slowing down the pace of the time and spending the last 8 chapters to cover just 4 years....first 20 chapters cover 28 years, last 8 chapters cover just 4 years.

So, not only do we have the absence of MAJOR MAJOR events of the 60's, and a very abrupt and incomplete ending to the chronology of Acts, we also have the rapid dilation of time towards the later part of the book.

Again, this is exactly what you would expect if the book of Acts were written in 62AD just prior to Paul's trial.

another way to look at it:  

if the author was writing Acts post70AD, in light of the all the upheaval of 64AD-70AD (persecution under Nero, death of Paul/Peter/James, Roman siege of Jerusalem and subsequent destruction of the Temple)...

...why in the world would the author of Acts, if writing post70AD, dilate the timeline and spend the last 8 chapters of Acts covering just the 4 years from 59-62AD, when the events of 64-70AD are magnitudes more historically significant?!

I can only speak for myself and what seems logical to me...but if I were the author of Acts, who was clearly on the “inside” among the early church hierarchy and every interested in writing the history of Christendom…and I’m sitting around post70AD with Christendom just having gone through:  1) persecution under Nero 64-68AD, the death of 3 of the 4 main Apostles James/Peter/Paul, and the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple…

…I would NOT spend the last 1/3 of my book of Acts focused on Paul’s arrest and pretrial doings during the years 59-62AD. 

And looking over the gospel Luke and Acts, this author knows when to show down and dilate time to focus on important historical events as expected from a historian  (e.g. arrest/trial/death of Christ in Luke…day of Pentecost in Acts 3…Jerusalem Council in Acts 15…,etc,etc,etc).

I understand the significance of every single instance where this author chooses to dilate time and linger to detail an event….EXCEPT in the case of the dilation of time in Acts ch 21-28, if the book was written post70AD.  And even if the author was writing post70AD and had planned to write a third volume to cover the events from 62-70AD, there is still no reason to dilate the timeframe and spend the last 8 chapters focused on Paul’s arrest and pretrial doings during the years 59-62AD.

There is simply no historical reason to spend the last 8 chapter of Acts detailing ONE single arrest of a single Apostle and 4 years of associated pretrial antics, UNLESS it represents the up to date history of the church at the time Acts was written.

Period.

That assumes that the author of Acts was writing a history and not a hagiography of Paul.  It also assumes that the author ended where he did because there was nothing more he wanted to write.

But even if the author intended to write no more, it can't be taken as proof that it was because there was no more that could be written. Writing in a manner intended to be taken as having been written by someone of a previous era was not uncommon in that time. So even if one accepts your argument that the intent of the writer was to present the events up to the point Acts concludes, it can't be taken as proof that the actual writing concluded at that point.

My personal belief is that most likely time, place, and person of the writing of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles is c. 83-85 AD, in Boeotia, by either Luke or a scribe working at his direction or from his notes.  The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.

It's far from the only possibility, but I find it more plausible than it was written by Luke c. 60-62 AD in part because of that incompleteness you take as proof of it being written then.  According to tradition, Luke lived another two decades, dying in Boeotia in 84.  If it was written by Luke c. 60-62, then why did Luke not write a third book in the next two decades?  He had ample opportunity to continue writing and given the reception of his text after it had been written, every reason to believe that a continuation of what he had written would be warmly received by the early church.

Because the author was already aware of other books that referred to this. The author of Luke-Acts was interested in the historical spread of Christianity as bad as he was at it. Besides, I've never met anyone who takes Acts at face value. It is predominantly fiction in order to paint a rosie picture of the spread of Christianity. You think Paul was literally blinded and then saw the truth? Do you not see the resemblance of other mythologies of that era?

So, you’re telling me, that this author of Luke-Acts, a Christian historian who took pride in the boldness of Christian testimonies, is going to follow Paul’s arrest and interrogation by the Sanhedrin, his interrogation by Felix, his two year imprisonment followed by a trial before Felix’s successor Fetus and King Aggrippa II which ended in Paul’s very high risk appeal to Caesar (an appeal that many times ended in a death sentence with no remaining legal recourse), the trip to Rome and another two year wait for trial and Rome…and then not cover Paul’s trial before Caesar himself?!

Not only does that not make sense, it is contrary to the author’s body of work – he excelled in telling stories from the beginning to the end and even explicitly stated that was his intent, and what’s more, the author recounted dozens of testimonies before authorities in Luke-Acts!  And now he is going to take a pass on telling about Paul’s trial before Caesar himself after dilating the timeline of this story of that his story could follow Paul’s case for 4 years?!

In case you missed the above point:  the author left off Paul’s trial and testimony before Caesar…Caesar…Caesar!  The most powerful man in the world and the very authority Jesus Christ himself was accused of attempting to overthrow…and a chance to document the fulfillment of the prophecy an angel had given to Paul:

Acts 27:24 “‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar.”

And the author, contrary to all his previous accounts of Christians standing before doubting authorities, is just going to take a pass on Paul standing before Caesar and testifying about Jesus Christ?!  Horse Hockey!

So, again, there is only one possibility that completely solves this puzzle:  The author, who claimed to have traveled with Paul to Rome, sent his account off just prior to Paul’s trial before Caesar, which was a very high risk appeal which many times resulted in execution…because the author was unsure of the outcome, and thus unsure of his own safety and didn’t want his historical knowledge to die with him.

Not only does that scenario solve the complete puzzle, it is by far the scenario requiring the least mental gymnastics (in fact, it requires no mental gymnastics at all as it obeys common sense at every point), and fully explains author’s choice to dilate time in the last 1/3 of Acts and the inexplicable absence of the account of Paul’s trial before Caesar.

Scientist/investigator/historians are trained to accept the easiest scenario explaining all the evidence, but there simply is no reason to not accept a date of 60-62AD for the writing of Acts, except for the fact it gives too much credence to Christianity.  If this did not involve religion, the vast majority of “scholars” would accept a 60-62AD date for the writing of Luke-Acts.

No person can put himself in the shoes of the author, having written a highly detailed account in Luke-Acts, dilated the last 4 years of arrest and imprisonment and trials and appeal, and visualize passing on the opportunity to recount Paul’s trial before Caesar…it is simply inconceivable.

well, according to tradition, Paul helped established the church in Rome, which is in contradiction to Acts and Romans.  But, assuming the author did die in 84AD and wrote Acts in 60-62AD, why would he need to write another version, he had already given an account of the history of Jesus and the history of the early church?  But if he wrote Acts in post-70AD and already had his “pen to paper”, then dilating the last 4 years of 59-62AD and leaving off Paul’s trial before Caesar doesn’t fit with the rest of Luke-Acts.

My point is that there is no reasonable objections to a date of 60-62AD...to me, personally, it doesn't matter when he wrote it.  I'm just pointing out the hackery of "scholars" who can't bring themselves to contemplate a date of 60-62AD simply because it gives too much credence to Christianity.

Aside from the religious implications, there is no reason to not accept a possible date of 60-62AD date given the historical accuracy of its description of the Mediterranean region within 30-60AD and the way Acts ends compared to the rest of Luke-Acts.

Again, there are two unexplainable facts about Luke-Acts if written post70AD:
1)   The dilation of time that is common in historical accounts that lead up to the present time - the last 1/3 of the book dilates the years 59-62AD, focusing on Paul’s arrest, trial before Felix, 2 year imprisonment before trial before Fetus and Agrippa, his appeal to Rome, his arriving at Rome and his 2 year house arrest awaiting trial before Caesar himself…
2)   Paul’s trial and testimony about Christ before Caesar, the highest authority in human government, is left out, which would have completed the saga of Paul’s arrest in grand historical fashion.

No one writing Acts post-trial in 70AD or 80AD or 85AD, would have passed on giving the account of Paul trial before Caesar…not me, not you, and certainly not these “scholars”.

What makes you think the author knew anything about Paul going before Caesar? Remember it was much later that the book was written and contains mostly fictional accounts anyways. I have no idea why you take the book of Acts seriously. Remember Pilate was bad in real life.

Now that's the scholar. ^^ In ancient times it sometimes took centuries before a story was finally written. Look at the Epic of Gilgamesh for example. It took place between 2700-2500 BCE but wasn't written until centuries later, 2200 BCE at the earliest. J E D and P weren't written until centuries after the stories are said to take place either. Now in the NT we see less time between events and writings but still a few decades or even generations. Remember again that people were mostly illiterate anyway so there would be much less of a point in the author of Luke-Acts writing immediately or even a decade after the death of Paul. Word of mouth and oral tradition were held in higher standards than writings. I think Luke was written in the 80's after the Pharisaic leadership was already established in synagogues and therefore it is the case that its sequal; Acts, was written later. The author may have even died before finishing it.  Luke shows an awareness of an established order of Pharisees being in place which was foreign to any thoughts before the war ended. I've argued these things before and I'll argue them again to make my point that the books of the NT along with many books in antiquity were written far later than the actual events and much later than what Christians believe.

sorry, missed responding to that point...

The end of Acts is NOT truncated as if someone died before finishing it…so that theory doesn’t hold water. 

Son of Derek, you're whole starting point begins with you already concluding it was written much later...proving you are a hack.  You don't begin by examining the book itself for clues about when it was written, else you would know…


… the author is claiming to have accompanied Paul to Rome.


Archeological evidences backs up Acts as an wide ranging eyewitness account to the Mediterranean world as it was between 30-60AD.


The author of Luke-Acts paints Pilate as cruel and evil:

Luke 31:1 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.”

---

If you took the time to reflect on how the NT handles the reputations of the people within the narrative, you’ll find that, as good Christians, the NT writers do not smear someone’s reputation unless their actions overlap with the narrative.  So, apart from mentioning Pilate’s past evil deed in Luke 31:1 simply because it was brought to Jesus’ attention before Jesus begins a sermon on “repent or perish”, there was no reason to detail Pilate’s past atrocities if they did not directly overlap with the narrative.

Such is the case in all the gospels and the book of Acts: If the writers wanted to, they could have listed the evils done by everyone in authority, both Jew and Gentile.  But that is not what we read, rather, the only time a ruler’s evil actions were brought up, is when their actions overlapped with the story. 

I've already explained ancient writings being written much later than their occurrence. Your arguments begin with the conclusion that the books of  the Bible are somehow apart from this trend or hold some type of significance greater than other stories and myths from that era.  Pilate would have been more than happy to cruxify Jesus whether he was guilty or innocent. It would've been another body to hang in order to cause fear among the Jews. The authors take plenty of time smearing the scribes and Pharisees though. Fear of persecution caused the restraint on Pilate's bad character. It was easier for Mark and then the other writers who followed to blame the Jews rather than the Romans. Plus it was a conflict within Judaism anyways so of course the Jews in power and those who opposed the new messagge were going to be cast into bad light before the Romans.

As if this trend prohibited people giving accounts which lead up to their own present time?!  You do realize that the book of Acts is full of people giving account by discussing the events that led them to their point in time, right?

In fact, I would bet 99% of writings were written for the purpose to explain events that led to present circumstances.  To claim there was some writing style that prohibited writing in 60AD a history of the preceding 60 years, is laughable.

But, if Acts was written post70AD, then it’s extremely incomplete not to include Paul’s trial before Pilate given the fact it spent the last 1/3 of the book detailing this one single case against Paul.

It’s would be worse than documenting  a case for four years right up to the point of being heard by the SCOTUS, then leaving out the SCOTUS outcome.

---



Very true!  In fact, Pilate’s reputation for cruelty while hesitating to execute Jesus, is a testimony to Jesus’ nature.  To water down Pilate’s personality would have actually taken away from Jesus’ persona.

This forum has previously discussed Pilate's impression of Christ:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=136514.msg2920620;topicseen#msg2920620 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=136514.msg2920620;topicseen#msg2920620)

That single thread drew great interest on this forum, because EVERYONE understood the significance of the cruel Pilate being thrown off stride by the grace and lack of condemnation of being in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Everyone understood the testimony of Pilate’s hesitation, and it had NOTHING to due with attempting to make Pilate look good, rather it have everything to do with the nature of Christ.  Unbelievers actually asked me to lighten up in that thread because I was getting in the way of the profoundness of the account.

But, obviously, that is completely over your head, because you have come here with a theory that has the gospel writers intentionally watering down the significance of a ruthless dictator becoming completely disarmed by Jesus’ presence.

Everyone on this forum understood that…but you don’t.

Tidewater, here is an example from that thread of why your theory would be counterproductive to the witnessing value of Pilate’s confrontation with Jesus:

What was the nature of Christ? I doubt everyone on this forum is in agreement with that. You are more than welcome it had to do with Christ being God. Pilate would've had no probleme hanging another Jew for the sake of deterrence. They watered it down in order to evade persecution and further the image that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Anyone with any knowledge of the crucifixion in those times knows that Christ's death was purely Roman and that the passion narrative makes even more sense with no Jews present except for Jesus of course. Once again, having the Jews involved allows for painting the picture that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Bible.

Writing styles- You mentioned preventing people from telling the story up to their own present time. This is just rhetoric. No one ever stopped giving accounts up to their own present times. The longer time went on though, the more variations to stories arose due to the spread of Christianity reaching the educated and other nations.

Again Pilate was pretty much reversed and had to be in order to tell a story where the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

You claim to be a Christian, who supposedly has a relationship with Christ…and you’re asking someone to define the nature of Christ for you?!

He was filled with grace towards others, was gentle, did not lash out at those mistreating him, was not shocked and did not gasp in horror when confronted with sin, and he allowed himself to be presented to even the cruelest of the cruel.

---


For the 1000th time, if the gospels were written post70AD and slanted to make Pilate look good and inserted the Jews to make the Jews look bad…THEN WHY DOES PAUL TELL THE SAME STORY PRIOR TO 60AD?!

As for Paul, he tells the basics of the story but not Pilate's character. He was aware of the story, but not as a written story. I thought we established that. In fact in order to strengthen the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the role of Pilate in the story was changed very shortly after the crucifixion. Notice I've said nothing about when the first gospel was written when explaining this. Also, the nature of Christ is different for Christians and non-Christians. If you believe Christ was the Son of God then yes his presence would've had an influence on Pilate or was at least possible. Christ's nature had two parts; both human and divine. Fully human and fully divine. Stop taking me out of context as if I'm asking you to answer questions for my own knowledge. It was a way of pointing out that not everyone adheres to your brand of Christianity and that people can see characters in the Bible as mere personalities in order to better tell a story rather than humans who actually existed. Granted, most characters in the Bible lived but some didn't.

Now, you are being openly dishonest about your own argument:


...and...


As many posters on this forum know, if there is one thing I do not tolerate, it’s intellectual dishonesty.

You, sir, are lying, for you CLEARLY stated the account of Pilate was changed post-war and that no gospel was written prior to 70AD.  You are now on ignore, though I might use your arguments as examples of the stupidity of the world when I give the bible study this Sunday at church.

No gospel was written prior to 70 CE. The image of Pilate was changed in order to make the Jews look responsible for the death of Jesus. It was a purely Roman crucifixion based on all historical accounts. What more must I put forth for you to understand?

Considering you wasted two lengthy posts saying there was no possible explanation for why Paul's trial would not have been covered if Acts had been written after the trial, when I had given an explanation, that's a pretty big miss.


How does a truncation from death differ from a truncation due to reaching the present moment?   The structure indicates that the author was intending to conclude his work with the trial of Paul and that something prevented him from finishing it.

As for your "dilation of time" argument that the structure indicates that Acts was definitely written c. 60-62, if it were applied to Luke, that would assign a date of c. 30-36, which no one I know of holds to be the case, and for good reason.  That structure is common to many works, both historical and fictional, as the author glosses over the events prior to his focus, then settling down to cover what interests him now that the foundation has been built.

Incidentally, there is another aspect of Acts that is suggestive of a post-martyrdom date of composition.  We never learn in Acts why Saul was initially so virulently opposed to the Church.  While there are other explanations that serve, one that works is that the author both did not know and was unable to ask.  If the writing of Acts was contemporaneous with Luke's journeys with Paul, then why no interest in the early life of the main character?  It certainly seems out of step with the theory some traditionalists have, that Acts was written to assist with Paul's defense at his trial in Rome.

What are your views on the Bible True Federalist?

The Old Testament is a work of man dealing with God from the viewpoint of the Jews.  I don't think that the text we have today has been received without error in transmission, but it does convey accurately the principles of the covenant God made with the Jews. Trying to interpret the Torah as history in the modern sense is a profound mistake as that was not why it was written.  (There are elements of history embedded within the Torah, but taking the Torah as literal history is a mistake.)

The New Testament suffers from having been codified by Gentilizers who were in a love-hate relationship with the Jewish roots of their religion.  They loved the antiquity of it, but they hated not sharing the status of the Jews as God's chosen people.  My views are in between those of the Gentilizers who I feel are in error in denying the Jews any difference in status within the church, and those of the Judaizers who erred in thinking that one must be a Jew to worship God correctly.

Dude, the book of Acts includes an obvious purposeful ending, so your theory that the author died before finishing it is rejected outright.  So, the miss is on your part, not mine.

---


Please…I have already stated that the author of Luke-Acts dilates time when he reaches something important (e.g. arrest and trial of Jesus)…but my point is that there is simply no reason to dilate the timeline and cover only 4 years in the last 8 chapters, because there is nothing of significance of those chapters compared to the other times the author chose to dilate time

In other words, what is so important about Paul’s arrest and initial trials of the case that the author would choose to spend the last 1/3 of his book on?  The author is NOT tracing the spread of the Gospel to Rome because the church as already established in Rome long before Paul’s arrival (Acts 28:14-15), in fact the church was established in Rome long before Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (Rom 1:11-14; Rom 15:22-16:17).

So, since the author is obviously not showing how the gospel arrived at Rome by tracing Paul’s journey, what exactly is the significance of spending the last 8 chapters on this case against Paul just to leave off Paul’s trial before Caesar, if written post70AD?

Also, allow me point out just who the Roman Emperor was who ruled from 54-68AD, the very one who whoud have tried Paul’s case: Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus…a.k.a Nero!

You’re telling me this author is going to spend the final 8 chapters following this single case before the Sanhedrin/Felix/Fetus/Agrippa and leave off the conclusion of the case by not mentioning Paul’s trial and testimony before the infamous NERO!!!

Again, anyone in their right mind would conclude that there is overwhelming direct evidence from the book of Acts itself, that it was finished just prior to the final trial due to the high risk nature of the appeal to Caesar which often ended in execution.

---


It would be needless to discuss Paul’s early life prior to his contact with Christianity, regardless if Acts was written for the purpose of inspiring Christians with the history of the church (as Luke-Acts claims) or for his defense in trial (Paul was on trial for spreading Christianity, not for his prior life in Judaism).

Also, it should be noted the author spent only the last 3 chapters in Luke to address the LastSupper/Betrayal/Arrest/Trial/Crucifixion/Death/Burial/Resurrection/Accession of Jesus Christ and the first 20 chapters in Acts to cover the first ~28 years of church history...while spending the final 8 chapters of Acts addressing this one case of Paul’s.

So, comparing the endings of Luke and Acts:  3 last chapters of Luke discussing Jesus’ conclusion…as opposed to...the 8 last chapters of Acts discussing a single case of Paul’s WITHOUT conclusion.

So, if this author was writing post70AD, he obviously thought the lead up to Paul’s trial before Nero (without even mentioning the trial before Nero) was worth more space, and was thus somehow more important, than Jesus’ arrest/trial/death/resurrection/accession.

I think NOT!

But if he was writing pretrail and simply dilating time at the end of Acts to bring the reader up to date with the current situation, it all makes perfect sense.

Most of the Last Supper and Crucifixion are pure fiction for the purpose of fancying the story to attract new members to the Jesus movement. I know it's hard for alot of people to accept but it's the cold hard truth. Look at the other tendencies in ancient literature such as Carabas and what is mentioned in Leviticus. The author of Mark simply put the sacrificing of animals story as his passion narrative and plugged Jesus into the mix. From there the other gospel writers elaborated where Mark's story had failed and emphasized where it had succeeded.

I agree mostly. I have yet to encounter a theory that is more plausible than the J, E, D, P argument better known as the Documentary Hypothesis started by Julius Wellhausen in the 19th century. There are plenty of sources within each of those 4 categories, but it is most likely the case based on what we know of the political conflicts in ancient Israel from the Bible. After 2 Kings we see prophetic writings which eventually became greatly influenced when the Jews were held captive in Babylon 587-538 BCE. After returning, their prophecies spoke more of a Messiah to come, a ruler like King David. Keep in mind that is political as the monarch was essentially gone. Also, the Jews would've been in Babylon during the lifetime of Zarathustra who spoke of a very similar figure and the dualism of good and evil. A big problem today is that people take things from the Bible and apply them to the 21st century. Jonah and the whale, the 10 commandments, Red Sea which was Sea of Reeds, they still think Adam and Eve were 2 literal people when Adamah refers to mankind and Eve as the mother of all living. People don't even understand the use of eponyms in Hebrew mythology and believe that Abraham had 12 descendents who started the tribes of Israel instead of seeing it as a political story regarding the legitimacy and illegitimacy of different factions. I do think it tells us alot though about Jewish Law and how it was taken a couple thousand years ago as well as give us an appreciation for a rich history of Judaism.

When you get into the New Testament you open a whole new can of worms. I view the gospels as evidence of the conflicts between early Christians and at times the Roman Empire but they were careful not to blame Rome too much in the face of crucifixion. Many of the conflicts Jesus comes into were actually the conflicts that the first century Christians faced when dealing with the Jewish leaders a generation later. Paul's letters were intended for certain audiences in the late first century so to take them as referring to 21st century America is naive. I'm not saying that I disagree with Christian ethics as much as I'm staying I disagree that Christianity was at any time uniform. The book of Revelation records events that transpired under Nero and John of Patmos was simply warning that the end times were near. In fact if one is aware of the symbols used to represent empires in the first century, they will literally see Rome. This can be said for Daniel as different metaphors were used to warn of the Greeks by comparing them to Babylon.

Ernest,

How does it feel to be mostly in agreement with the dumbest poster in the history of the Atlas Forum?

typical fundamentalist ^ reduced to name calling

You think he's dumber than Derek?  I guess you have a new yardstick to use for dumbness.

Thing is, I don't consider myself all that much in agreement with Tidewater.  He goes too far in rejecting tradition for my tastes.

The division of the Bible into chapters is highly arbitrary and the chapters are not all the same length.  If you compare the final 3 chapters of Luke to the final 8 chapters of Acts, you'll notice that those 8 chapters together are only about 1/3 longer than the final 3 chapters of Luke.

But besides choosing a metric that exaggerates the difference in length, your idea that the length of text must correspond to the importance of the subject matter is ludicrous.  There is a fairly straightforward reason for Acts to slow down once Chapter 16 is reached.  The "we" passages indicate that from Acts 16 on, the author is making use not just of second-hand knowledge, but his own first-hand knowledge of events.  If Acts did not slow its pace at that point it would be surprising.  The author has more material to work with.

No, Derek (aka Tidewater...aka Jackass) has always been my yardstick for dumbness...unless, of course, you care to take his place.  ;)

Nah, he seems willing to work hard for the privilege of being called dumb by you.  I see no reason to deny him the fruits of his labors.