steve43 wrote:
"You guys" refers to those who use every means possible in order to date Acts as late as possible. The goal is to undermine Christianity. Same with Josephus. It probably would have been better if he had not referred to Jesus or James the Just at all. As it is, he is casually dismissed as a charlatan and fiction writer by "you guys." All because of the two references.
Fun to see how "you guys" reinforce each others specious arguments. Sham scholarship at its best.
Your point about Tacitus still makes no sense to me.
So that's where all this nonsense is coming from. What a load of bunk. So I should ignore your comments here for the same reasons I should ignore the knee-jerk nonsense of MrMacSon. You have no intention of engaging in a rational discussion.
How can anything I argue or suggest ever come even close to "undermining Christianity"? Why would I ever bother with such a pointless exercise?
I have more things to do with my life than go on some quixotic crusade to "undermine Christianity". I have never (not that I recall) ever attempted to undermine anyone's faith.
I can point to scholars who date Acts very early who are atheists and I can point to scholars who date Acts very late who are Christians. How on earth does the date of Acts affect anyone's faith?
I'm quite willing to date Acts early if I think that makes best sense of the evidence as I understand it. I certainly don't bet my house on Acts being very late but it is the best explanation that accounts for all the evidence, I think. I'm quite willing to change my mind given new understanding.
But if you are worried that genuine scholarship is undermining fundamentalist traditions that are in fact extra-biblical (e.g. that Acts was written before Paul was executed) and your faith stands or falls on believing Acts was written before that date, then you have a rather problematic faith upon which to base your salvation.
I thought you were here to present reasonable arguments about the scholarly research. Clearly I was quite wrong.