"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Answering these in reverse order: I never claimed Acts was written by an eyewitness, I said it was written in the manner of an eyewitness (as opposed to an omniscient narrator),

No you did not. You wrote re Luke's writings "they were widely accepted by other eye witnesses" [My emphasis] You made no mention of those texts being "in the manner of an eye-witness".

Any scholar and historian worth the diploma on his wall would know that Luke's intent was to present an accurate history,

Then kindly provide the names of those scholars and supply detailed citations from their works. Otherwise we can dismiss that remark as nothing but your subjective opinion.

it is, in fact, a recounting of attested historical events as Luke himself states in his previous letter to Theophilus:

These were not historically attested events. Where are the corroborative extraneous [i.e. non Christian] literary sources?

Scripture Verse: Luke 1:1-4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

© Copyright Original Source

None of that makes it historically veracious. You need some corroborative extraneous sources and you have none.

It is also a fact that Luke's contemporaries, which included living eyewitnesses

Where are their written accounts? Where are the accounts of other people who witnessed these things?

, accepted his writings as accurate and authoritative and worthy of preservation by the early church.

What the early church deemed to be "accurate and authoritative" constitutes a thread of its own.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have stated that there is no correct interpretation of the text. You also say that the meaning is clear.

So, does that mean that the interpretation is clear, but not correct?

Regarding the interpretation of the texts of course it is all opinion but Pervo and other academics like Vermes have informed opinions unlike Mountain Man who thinks it is all attested historical fact.

[CivilDiscourse]

Regarding the interpretation of the texts of course it is all opinion but Pervo and other academics like Vermes have informed opinions unlike Mountain Man who thinks it is all attested historical fact.

So, are you telling MM that his interpretation is wrong?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, are you telling MM that his interpretation is wrong?

Yes he is claiming the events in Acts [and I assume] pertaining to Acts 5.1-11 are attested historical facts.

He needs extraneous corroboration for that contention and he has none.

[Sparko]

Regarding the interpretation of the texts of course it is all opinion but Pervo and other academics like Vermes have informed opinions unlike Mountain Man who thinks it is all attested historical fact.

And you don't even see your own use of confirmation bias in saying that? You are assuming that the bible is NOT historical fact, then using that assumption to dismiss MM's opinion in favor of someone who believes as you do.

But whether is is historical fact or not, extracting the meaning from the text should not change.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes he is claiming the events in Acts [and I assume] pertaining to Acts 5.1-11 are attested historical facts.

He needs extraneous corroboration for that contention and he has none.

Sounds like something I would imagine a non-christian would stay out of.....sort of like how men should stay out of abortion...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sounds like something I would imagine a non-christian would stay out of.....sort of like how men should stay out of abortion...

You can leave this thread as well you are now simply trolling me.

[CivilDiscourse]

You can leave this thread as well you are now simply trolling me.

I am not trolling you, I have remained on topic. The fact that you are inconsistent on your behavior is something others have pointed out.

However, I will leave this thread, and let others remind you of how you find certain things "interesting" except when you do it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And you don't even see your own use of confirmation bias in saying that? You are assuming that the bible is NOT historical fact,

I have never stated that "the Bible is NOT historical fact" [my emphasis] please stop attributing things to me that I have not written.

then using that assumption to dismiss MM's opinion

MM is claiming these events are attested historical facts. He needs some corroborative extraneous non Christian first century source evidence. And he has not got any.

But whether is is historical fact or not, extracting the meaning from the text should not change.

The meaning of the text has to be considered by reading it critically [in its original language] and dispassionately, and recognising the context in which it was composed and the reasons why it was composed. Informed interpretations can then be premised on that understanding.

[Sparko]

I have never stated that "the Bible is NOT historical fact" [my emphasis] please stop attributing things to me that I have not written.

Do you assume that the bible is historical fact? Hmm?

MM is claiming these events are attested historical facts.
He needs some corroborative extraneous non Christian first century source evidence. And he has not got any.

It's his opinion, just like it's your opinion that it is not historical fact. Do you have an non-Christians first century sources that support your contention that it is not historical fact? Your special pleading and demanding of ridiculous hoops to jump through are nothing but your same old handwaving away anything that doesn't agree with you. Your motives are transparent.

The meaning of the text has to be considered by reading it critically [in its original language] and dispassionately, and recognising the context in which it was composed and the reasons why it was composed. Informed interpretations can then be premised on that understanding.

And yet you are ignoring 2000 years of such interpretations and translations by biblical scholars and translators in order to accept the opinion of a single 20th century scholar who is obviously hostile to Christianity, solely because he agrees with you.

[Mountain Man]

No you did not. You wrote re Luke's writings "they were widely accepted by other eye witnesses" [My emphasis] You made no mention of those texts being "in the manner of an eye-witness".

Then kindly provide the names of those scholars and supply detailed citations from their works. Otherwise we can dismiss that remark as nothing but your subjective opinion.

These were not historically attested events. Where are the corroborative extraneous [i.e. non Christian] literary sources?

None of that makes it historically veracious. You need some corroborative extraneous sources and you have none.

Where are their written accounts? Where are the accounts of other people who witnessed these things?

What the early church deemed to be "accurate and authoritative" constitutes a thread of its own.

"In fact, Luke's writings have the mark of authenticity precisely because he doesn't deal in the inner thoughts and motivations of his subjects, presenting his narrative in the manner of an eye witness who can tell you what happened, but not necessarily why."

And when I said that his writings "were widely accepted by other eye witnesses" I meant eyewitnesses other than the ones he interviewed during his research. You can deduct two-points from my score for lack of clarity.

Yes, they were historically attested events since everything Luke wrote was based on eye witness testimony. Of course when you say "corroborative extraneous sources", you mean writings that the Church did not see fit to preserve as part of the Biblical canon, which is a little game skeptics like to play, pretending that the writings in the New Testament can not be used to corroborate each other since they are commonly bound between the same covers despite the fact that each was independently composed (as in not the product of collaboration and collusion) and each presents additional unique details that are not found in other New Testament writings. For instance, we can see in Paul's own letters that he corroborates many details related in Acts even though his writings are focused on doctrine rather than historical narrative. So when you ask, "Where are the accounts of other people who witnessed these things?" the answer is that they were preserved as part of the Biblical canon. Furthermore, you have not given a good reason why we even need "extraneous sources" before it is reasonable to accept the New Testament writings with their numerous attestations and corroborations as historically accurate.

As for scholars who understand the purpose of Luke's writing, there is eminent archeologist Sir William Ramsay who wrote, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians." There are, of course, many others who hold this view, but I assume you can find them if you're genuinely interested. Sorry I couldn't find any pedophiles who are of this opinion since you seem to care a great deal about what they think.

But seriously, why all this bobbing and weaving and running down rabbit trails? Do you really find this preferable to simply acknowledging that you misunderstood the reason why Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God?

[mossrose]

Have you not realised yet that there are [apparently adult men] posting here who still exhibit the mentality of twelve year old boys?

Either that or there are some individuals who have some very unhealthy fixations about me.

I would recommend that they seek out professional help.

You're the one that seems to exhibit a liking for lewd and lascivious behaviour. Not the Christian men around here.

And you definitely hate men. That comes out of your "mouth" so often around here that we can't help but notice it.

[Esther]

As I wrote to you earlier today his horrendous personal life does not affect his scholarship and he is still respected for his work on Acts.

Would you denounce Einstein because of his atrocious behaviour towards his wives and children?

How about Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell Jnr and their indiscretions?

We are all only as strong as our weakest link.

[rogue06]

The point I am making is that you cannot dismiss a person's academic credentials because they are an unpleasant individual or someone with disturbing habits. The two are not connected. Richard Wagner was a remarkably unpleasant man but he wrote some wonderful music. Winston Churchill suggested gassing the Arabs and expressed racist views. Does that detract from his war-time leadership of Britain?

I would also remark that the term "pornography" is thrown about a lot in the USA for things that in Europe would not even raise an eyebrow.

I do not know the details of the images Pervo had on his computer but I do know that some people in America considered Sally Mann's photographs of her own children to be "pornographic" and for some individuals the merest fleeting glimpse of genitals or a nipple or a naked child throws them into paroxysms of horror and causes them to scream "pornography".

I do often consider that, rather like beauty, pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

This goes to directly to one of the ways I meant "It is a difference between the secular world and the religious one." To clarify, take for example, science. It really does not matter if the person who makes a discovery or postulates a theory is a cannibalistic puppy-rapist who poisoned town wells for kicks. The only thing that matters is whether or not their discovery is valid and holds up to scrutiny. In religion the man and the message are more intertwined. If you're asking folks to follow you, to trust you to help shepherd them, you better be able to show that you're a good and upright shepherd, not merely that you know how to do it.


Moreover, I do often consider that you really do have a fixation on child nudity.

[rogue06]

He was a reputable and respected scholar.

A brief search reveals no notable awards or positions like the holder of a respected seat on the faculty or even heading a department.

That doesn't make him disreputable or despised (although his personal behavior might have), but doesn't exactly make him a "respected" scholar