What happens next?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Wow, she who claims one can only know what is written ASSumes somebody else is "irritated".
I assure you, there was no irritation whatsoever.



Yup.

Your prose with its list of three suggested, by that emphasis, irritation.

[Cow Poke]

Your prose with its list of three suggested, by that emphasis, irritation.

wrong.gif

[rogue06]

It's one of them thar undeniable truths.



Laughing --- I had a friend who did CIA Ops in South America - and some of them hated the fact that his group called them selves "Americans" because "We are Americans, too!"

Bigly

I heard that multiple times during various jaunts down south.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A strong case can be made that it dates from the end of Paul's ministry. In fact, I think that is the consensus view.

Re the dating of Epistle to the Hebrews, what "strong case" would that be?

[Sparko]

Setting yourself up as a polite and most proper debator doesn't wash with me, Sparko.

Lead by example eider. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you. But you obviously could not answer my points so instead you start tossing out insults instead. Ad Hominem. It just makes you look ineffective.

[Sparko]

It remains a textual fact. And the argument from silence can be used to allege anything, including Jesus having a bicycle.

That is why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. So, stop using it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. So, stop using it.

The text stands. Paul never uses that particular word when referring to himself. He never referred to himself an American either.

[Sparko]

The text stands. Paul never uses that particular word when referring to himself. He never referred to himself an American either.

Acts 22 ² When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: ³“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Acts 22 ² When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: ³“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city.

We have been over this in the past.

Acts is not Paul's writing. That is a statement put into the mouth of Paul by the author of that text.

Paul never tells us where he came and he does not use the particular term Ἰουδαῖος when writing about himself.
.

[Sparko]

We have been over this in the past.

Acts is not Paul's writing. That is a statement put into the mouth of Paul by the author of that text.

Paul never tells us where he came and he does not use the particular term Ἰουδαῖος when writing about himself.
.

So you only accept what someone in history said if it was written by the person himself? That must really limit your knowledge base.

Luke was a known traveling partner with Paul and recorded his words and actions.

Regardless, you don't accept anything in the bible as history even when Paul is the author. So nobody really cares about what you think about it.

[eider]

Lead by example eider. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you. But you obviously could not answer my points so instead you start tossing out insults instead. Ad Hominem. It just makes you look ineffective.

No no, Sparko.
NIt more debating baddies that you don't guy understand?

[Cow Poke]

No no, Sparko.
NIt more debating baddies that you don't guy understand?

Lemme guess --- you found JimL's stash.

[Sparko]

No no, Sparko.
NIt more debating baddies that you don't guy understand?

Um what?

[rogue06]

Re the dating of Epistle to the Hebrews, what "strong case" would that be?

You could start by checking Wiki:

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.^[32]

The text itself, for example, makes a contrast between the resurrected Christ "in heaven" "who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord" and the version on earth, where "there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." (NIV version)

The author of Hebrews^[1] refers to the system of sacrificial ritual in the present tense, with the "Old Covenant" under which it had been established is described as being "ready to vanish away." This complete lack of any evidence demonstrating the end of the Temple sacrificial system that happened when Jerusalem fell and the Temple destroyed, indicates it was written before 70 A.D.

Paul is thought to have been executed some time during 64 to 65 A.D.

Many also point to Hebrews 12:4

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 12:4

In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.

© Copyright Original Source

As demonstrating that the Neronian persecution had not yet taken place (it started after the Great Fire of Rome in the summer of 64 A.D.)

As an aside, Clement of Rome quotes from it in his letter to the church in Corinth around 90-95 A.D., which at least provides us with a terminus ad quem




1. there have been arguments over who wrote it dating back to the very beginning. This stands in sharp contrast to other "anonymous" books in the Bible such as the Gospels, where everyone seemed to know exactly who wrote them and there was no debate over it.

[rogue06]

Lemme guess --- you found JimL's stash.

Looks to be particularly potent.