Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I loved closed minded people. One thing you can say with absolute certainty - bad lovers. Not that making love is the end all and be all. But you have to deal with new material each time you take off your clothes or else ... LOL An ad hominem attack- not unexpected but one of the oddest I've read. ...

"You have obviously don't have any clue about what some of "us guys" actually argue. What have you actually read by "us guys"? So you have no argument to refute my point. Just a personal swipe substitutes for reasoned justification of an argument, does it?[/quote] "You ...

Not in and of itself. Just another piece of evidence that supports an early dating of Acts. The only dating it logically supports is that Acts was written some time after Gallio. There is no logical connection between the Gallio date and a claim that Acts was written before or after 64. Gimme a bre...

Another Winged Frog theory?

No thanks.

I doubt that Mary Helen has read Josephus' "Wars" completely through. Anyone who does would not say that it is a product of Josephus' imagination or an embellishment of the facts.

If I am wrong, Mary Helen, please correct me.

Not in and of itself. Just another piece of evidence that supports an early dating of Acts.

You nay-sayers will never admit that Acts was a pre-revolt document. One interesting aspect is the Archeological evidence for one of the characters found in Acts, Julius Gallio. It was an inscription found at Delphi. By the same logic of your implied argument Tacitus wrote his Annals within four ye...

You nay-sayers will never admit that Acts was a pre-revolt document. One interesting aspect is the Archeological evidence for one of the characters found in Acts, Julius Gallio. It was an inscription found at Delphi. From Hagan's "Fires of Rome" Chapter 18 in Acts has Paul moving on to Cor...

I am close to giving anyone who brings up "scholars" or "scholarly consensus" my deaf ear. In discussing what can be concluded about ancient times, what we are talking about is reasonable speculation. Someone stated that he accepted Josephus as a real person. We know for a certai...

That Paul and Josephus are the same character is completely ludicrous on its face and hardly worthy of debate. But the people who espouse that theory are not really interested in history, they are interested in the debunking of Christianity. Neil seems to be only halfway there. He apparently accepts...