Response to Apollos

Andalus wrote: Luke for example is considered to be a good historian by many scholars.   Which ones?    William Ramsay, one of the world�s greatest Archaeologists, who was trained in a Liberal university.   Dr. Henry J. Cadbury, a liberal scholar who wrote �Acts as History�.   I. Howard Marshall,, who wrote �Luke, Historian and Theology�.   N.T. Wright, a leading New Testament Scholar.   Gerald O�Collins, Kirsopp Lake, and many Liberal scholars.   This is in addition to Conservative scholars who I believe you discount.       Rubbish. Let us clarify. Acts is historical with regards to the evolution of early Christian thought, and how one group thought, but that does not mean "historical" in terms of accuracy of events. The story is conjured up by a person who as a fan of Paul 30 years after the "Paul" world tour. Apollos, you have the nasty habit of comitting the fallacy of equivication. We must always clarify what "historical" means.     There is a consensus that Paul�s writings were written by Paul and written before 68 AD. Since Luke and Paul corroborate each other and much of what Matthew, Mark, John, and Peter describe, there is great deal one can be confident about from following the consensus where it exists and following good historical scholarship on other areas. BS! There is no such "consensus" that Pauls writings were written by Paul. In fact, almost half of his supposed letters are considered forgeries by as many scholars who would claim them to be Paul's.

Edited by Apollos - 12 July 2009 at 10:42am

Apollos wrote: Andalus wrote: Luke for example is considered to be a good historian by many scholars.   Which ones?    William Ramsay, one of the world�s greatest Archaeologists, who was trained in a Liberal university.   Dr. Henry J. Cadbury, a liberal scholar who wrote �Acts as History�.   I. Howard Marshall,, who wrote �Luke, Historian and Theology�.   N.T. Wright, a leading New Testament Scholar.   Gerald O�Collins, Kirsopp Lake, and many Liberal scholars.   This is in addition to Conservative scholars who I believe you discount.       Rubbish. Let us clarify. Acts is historical with regards to the evolution of early Christian thought, and how one group thought, but that does not mean "historical" in terms of accuracy of events. The story is conjured up by a person who as a fan of Paul 30 years after the "Paul" world tour. Apollos, you have the nasty habit of comitting the fallacy of equivication. We must always clarify what "historical" means.     There is a consensus that Paul�s writings were written by Paul and written before 68 AD. Since Luke and Paul corroborate each other and much of what Matthew, Mark, John, and Peter describe, there is great deal one can be confident about from following the consensus where it exists and following good historical scholarship on other areas. BS! There is no such "consensus" that Pauls writings were written by Paul. In fact, almost half of his supposed letters are considered forgeries by as many scholars who would claim them to be Paul's.     Andalus,   I am not referring to the evolution of Christian thought. I have provided a few names of respected scholars to substantiate my assertion. Would you please do likewise to support your assertions?

Alright!  I give up!  I can't figure out how to paste a response from Word onto the forum!  Anybody have any pointers, because  I am dumbfounded.  

Apollos wrote: Islamispeace,   I am sorry but it is difficult to distinguish your comments from my statements without re-reading the previous posts. (I prefer not to do that).   What is the upshot of our discussion, according to you?   What do you think I am being inconsistent about in my approach to history - which I suppose you think you are consistent on?   Apollos

Sorry about that, Apollos.  I'll try to figure out how to format it.

I don't think you are being inconsistent per se.  Your methodology is certainly flawed, I think.  For example, when you talked about the alleged parallels between Jesus and Isaac, you overlooked certain important points which ended up proving your theory wrong.  Its those kinds of flaws in your argument that I am talking about. 

Let me see if I can figure out how to correctly format my response.  I use Word to write it and then paste it on the forum.  It never formats but I was able to get it to work in the past after fiddling around with it for a while.  Let's see what happens.