Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 08:55:48 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  Pontius Pilate
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Pontius Pilate  (Read 1897 times)
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2012, 03:24:05 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

---


Pilate would have been more than happy to cruxify Jesus whether he was guilty or innocent.

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: http://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.


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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2012, 03:47:43 pm »
Ignore

What was the nature of Christ?

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.

---

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

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?!



« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 03:50:43 pm by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2012, 03:57:29 pm »
Ignore

What was the nature of Christ?

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.

---

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

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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2012, 04:30:15 pm »
Ignore

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.

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

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.

...and...

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.

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.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 04:33:01 pm by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2012, 04:48:17 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28063
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 07, 2012, 07:35:48 pm »
Ignore

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.

sorry, missed responding to that point...

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.


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

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.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2012, 08:58:54 pm »
Ignore

What are your views on the Bible True Federalist?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28063
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2012, 12:11:02 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2012, 01:41:03 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The ending of Acts where it ends, is explained by Luke dying before it was finished.
sorry, missed responding to that point...

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.

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.

---


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

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.

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.

---

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.

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).

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 01:12:56 am by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2012, 02:09:34 pm »
Ignore

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.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 01:16:30 am by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2012, 03:55:32 pm »
Ignore

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 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.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2012, 04:06:49 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2012, 06:51:27 pm »
Ignore

Ernest,

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

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.

I agree mostly...
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2012, 07:37:54 pm »
Ignore

Ernest,

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

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.

I agree mostly...


typical fundamentalist ^ reduced to name calling
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28063
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2012, 11:52:17 pm »
Ignore

Ernest,

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

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.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28063
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2012, 12:18:54 am »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2012, 12:43:47 am »
Ignore

How does it feel to be mostly in agreement with the dumbest poster in the history of the Atlas Forum?
You think he's dumber than Derek?  I guess you have a new yardstick to use for dumbness.

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

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28063
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2012, 12:48:03 pm »
Ignore

How does it feel to be mostly in agreement with the dumbest poster in the history of the Atlas Forum?
You think he's dumber than Derek?  I guess you have a new yardstick to use for dumbness.

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

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.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines