Oh yeah - it’s the same mindset that gave us the great Earth Mother of the pacifist, matriarchal, sexually-free Old Europeans, of Gimbutas et al - so beloved of NeoPagans.
Let me explain that.
- Someone made up a story.
- Someone else believed it.
Gullibility runs rampant, but neither (1) nor (2) makes it a fact.
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Sorry, I’ve been wanting to do that for a while now.
When, as support for your arguments, you make claims as wrong as “the Book of Acts … was likely written a few centuries after the events,” you should expect to be challenged on it. I was tempted to say something, but ITR Champion refuted it better than I could have.
Isn’t Pantera buried, somewhere in Germany? 
Done and done. Jesus existed.
Actually, I understand it that if there is only one or two references to a historical figure, then Historians say “We have a reference that says…” or, “Plutarch gives an account of”. To have something verified as a true historical fact they need multiple unbiased sources, do they not? Maybe they break the rules with Spartacus, but, they shouldn’t. Spartacus could easily be a made up boogeyman to scare Romans into watching over their slaves.
I am not a historian, but I think ITR’s point is that historians aren’t in the business of certifying that something is a True Historical Fact.
so you’re disputing the claim that historians treat a historical figure that has multiple, unbiased references differently than they do a figure that has a vague one line reference written via heresay
That’s not what I said.
yeah, but it’s the real bottom line isint it? one line in a book about a guy who lived two villages over 20 years in the past who was the brother of someone else doesnt really prove anything, does it?
What does “prove anything”? What do you mean by “proof”?
Prove: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Here’s the truth about Acts as I read in Wiki and other sources which back Wiki:
There several possibilities for who Theophilus was, so Acts might date to the time of Paul (highly unlikely) all the way up to the 3rd-4th century (more likely). Who knows which one the author of ACTS was referring to. One guess is as good as the other, so the Christian apologists will go with 60 AD while doubters will go with Theophilus of Alexandria in the 4th century. Until an authentic copy shows up that dates earlier than the 2nd century your guess is as good as mine.
Sorry, mistake above I was referring to Theophius of Antioch bishop of Caesaria Maritima in the second century
I am looking at the Wikipedia article, and I am baffled as to where you are getting the “3rd-4th century” from, unless you’re somehow confusing that fact that the earliest manuscripts we currently have date from then with the idea that that’s when the content itself was originally written. But I know of no reputable scholar, Christian or non, who dates Acts that late.
lol, salon and huffpo.
Are you stating this as a fact, or referenceing what the second line of argument is?
If as a fact, then I’d like a cite, please. If as a reference, I’ll keep a sock in it.
You need a better variety of kook from whom to get your information.
Theophilos simply means “God Lover” and it is unlikely that it refers to any actual person rather than being a generic address to the Christian community.
Given that Acts is included in the Muratorian Canon, dating to around 170, any claim that moves it to the third century is bogus. As ITR champion noted, writers of the second century quoted and referenced it. Your dates are just silly. (And no serious Christian scholar would date Acts to 60, so even that part of your claim is nonsense.)
That is really NOT how it works. If you make a claim, it is up to you to support it. We have no obligation to disprove anything. We can simply dismiss your claims as something you misread, misunderstood, or imagined. If you wish to present a thesis, it is up to you to defend it. Given the number of errors you have posted, thus.far, that have been refuted, you might want to go back, re-read your sources, taking notes, this time, so that you can support your claims.
You’re correct. In post #173 I corrected myself as I meant to say Theophilus of Antioch, not Alexandria. Some scholars believe the writer of Acts was writing to Theophilus of Antioch in the middle of the 2nd Century. That would remove the writer from Paul by at least 100 years, therefore the writer could not have accompanied Paul on his journeys and therefore would not have observed the events recorded in Acts first-hand. Obviously then the writer is getting all his stories of Peter and Paul second, third, fourth…the sky’s the limit…hand. :dubious:
I’m a skeptic, as you can tell. Unless there’s concrete evidence I go with the doubters. Too much of this stuff is taken on blind faith and Christians parade blind faith as if it were some kind of virtue and it’s not. It’s pure foolishness.
Sometime, try being skeptical of the skeptics, and doubting the doubters. It’s only fair…