Question about Jews

[Holyspirit213]

Who is the messiah? Isn't it true that Jesus Christ claimed to be a messiah?

[Holyspirit213]

I mean if the Jews were so committed to Abraham's teachings shouldn't they know that murder is a sin in the eyes of god? Point given, yeah they didn't think Christ was messiah, even though how can a group of preachers kill a man for speaking the word of god? He didn't kill anyone I think all he wanted to do was preach the word of god.. It's confusing

[JoeyKnothead]

I mean if the Jews were so committed to Abraham's teachings shouldn't they know that murder is a sin in the eyes of god? Point given, yeah they didn't think Christ was messiah, even though how can a group of preachers kill a man for speaking the word of god? He didn't kill anyone I think all he wanted to do was preach the word of god.. It's confusing

We might ask the same of Christians who do all that stuff you're getting onto the other bunch about.

[Tex]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

Tex: As you can only say. Since you seem to forget I have the internet, just as you do.
My source said it was written 2 years after Saint Paul's imprisonment.

[Goat]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

Tex: As you can only say. Since you seem to forget I have the internet, just as you do.
My source said it was written 2 years after Saint Paul's imprisonment.

Really?? Let's see those sources. I'll show mine.

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Another detail is worth noting. In Acts 25:13, Luke writes, "When a few days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a visit to Festus." Luke assumes a knowledge of who this Bernice was in his Greco-Roman readers. This would be most easily assumed after she had been made famous by her affair with the emperor Titus in c. 69 CE. Juvenal mentions her in his Satires in the book on "The Ways of Women," while Suetonius comments on "his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage" (Titus 7.1). This lends further probability to a post-70 date of Acts.

And

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

It seems that the 'conservative early side' is a good 20 years after Paul died.

Now, if, as some people have proposed and suggested, Luke did indeed use Josephus as a source, then it could very well be early second century.


Let's see your source, and their reasoning. What evidence do they present for their claim?

[Tex]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

Tex: As you can only say. Since you seem to forget I have the internet, just as you do.
My source said it was written 2 years after Saint Paul's imprisonment.

Really?? Let's see those sources. I'll show mine.

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Another detail is worth noting. In Acts 25:13, Luke writes, "When a few days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a visit to Festus." Luke assumes a knowledge of who this Bernice was in his Greco-Roman readers. This would be most easily assumed after she had been made famous by her affair with the emperor Titus in c. 69 CE. Juvenal mentions her in his Satires in the book on "The Ways of Women," while Suetonius comments on "his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage" (Titus 7.1). This lends further probability to a post-70 date of Acts.

And

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

It seems that the 'conservative early side' is a good 20 years after Paul died.

Now, if, as some people have proposed and suggested, Luke did indeed use Josephus as a source, then it could very well be early second century.


Let's see your source, and their reasoning. What evidence do they present for their claim?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm

As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.

[Goat]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

Tex: As you can only say. Since you seem to forget I have the internet, just as you do.
My source said it was written 2 years after Saint Paul's imprisonment.

Really?? Let's see those sources. I'll show mine.

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Another detail is worth noting. In Acts 25:13, Luke writes, "When a few days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a visit to Festus." Luke assumes a knowledge of who this Bernice was in his Greco-Roman readers. This would be most easily assumed after she had been made famous by her affair with the emperor Titus in c. 69 CE. Juvenal mentions her in his Satires in the book on "The Ways of Women," while Suetonius comments on "his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage" (Titus 7.1). This lends further probability to a post-70 date of Acts.

And

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

It seems that the 'conservative early side' is a good 20 years after Paul died.

Now, if, as some people have proposed and suggested, Luke did indeed use Josephus as a source, then it could very well be early second century.


Let's see your source, and their reasoning. What evidence do they present for their claim?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm

As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.

Well, there are problems with that analysis. .. First of call, it is highly dependent on the Gospel of Mark, and Mark was written 'after peter died'.. .. peter died in 60.

That blows that entire analysis to shreds right there.

A lot of scholarship has happened since the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia was written.. and much of the claims in there have been superseded by better scholarship. It's sort of obsolete.

[kayky]

I mean if the Jews were so committed to Abraham's teachings shouldn't they know that murder is a sin in the eyes of god? Point given, yeah they didn't think Christ was messiah, even though how can a group of preachers kill a man for speaking the word of god? He didn't kill anyone I think all he wanted to do was preach the word of god.. It's confusing

I believe it was the Romans who crucified Jesus--not the Jews.

[Tex]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

Tex: As you can only say. Since you seem to forget I have the internet, just as you do.
My source said it was written 2 years after Saint Paul's imprisonment.

Really?? Let's see those sources. I'll show mine.

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Another detail is worth noting. In Acts 25:13, Luke writes, "When a few days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a visit to Festus." Luke assumes a knowledge of who this Bernice was in his Greco-Roman readers. This would be most easily assumed after she had been made famous by her affair with the emperor Titus in c. 69 CE. Juvenal mentions her in his Satires in the book on "The Ways of Women," while Suetonius comments on "his notorious passion for queen Berenice, to whom it was even said that he promised marriage" (Titus 7.1). This lends further probability to a post-70 date of Acts.

And

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

It seems that the 'conservative early side' is a good 20 years after Paul died.

Now, if, as some people have proposed and suggested, Luke did indeed use Josephus as a source, then it could very well be early second century.


Let's see your source, and their reasoning. What evidence do they present for their claim?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm

As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.

Well, there are problems with that analysis. .. First of call, it is highly dependent on the Gospel of Mark, and Mark was written 'after peter died'.. .. peter died in 60.

That blows that entire analysis to shreds right there.

A lot of scholarship has happened since the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia was written.. and much of the claims in there have been superseded by better scholarship. It's sort of obsolete.

Tex: Question.....Do you even believe that the person who wrote Acts traveled with Saint Paul....As the scholars do?

[cnorman18]

I have a question, too: What does any of this have to do with the title question? I see no "questions about Jews" here.

[99percentatheism]

I mean if the Jews were so committed to Abraham's teachings shouldn't they know that murder is a sin in the eyes of god? Point given, yeah they didn't think Christ was messiah, even though how can a group of preachers kill a man for speaking the word of god? He didn't kill anyone I think all he wanted to do was preach the word of god.. It's confusing

We might ask the same of Christians who do all that stuff you're getting onto the other bunch about.

Could you name one denomination that preaches murder and killing is acceptable Christian behavior?

Man I'm searching my mind about almost all of them and I can't think of even one that "do all that stuff . . ."