Re: 'Chrestus' = Christ
- On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Earl D wrote:
> Yuri's uncritical acceptance of Acts' character of Stephen is in theI beg to disagree, Earl. My acceptance of Stephen's historicity is
> same category.
> Robert Eisenman is not the first or only scholar to reject him as aSo you will give Eisenman's arguments now?
> and a recent post quoted a long passage from Schoeps to that effect.I don't think you've read that passage carefully. Schoeps does not reject
the historicity of Stephen in that passage.
> I won't go so far as to claim that Stephen is entirely fictionalSo you don't have a clear position on this issue? I find this quite
> (though he may well be),
> just that Acts cannot be used to testify to his secure existence,"Secure" needs to be defined. How secure do you want it to be?
> and certainly that we cannot rely on Acts' portrayal of the StephenAnd where did I say this? There seem to be at least two sources used in
> martyrdom as accurate historical reporting.
this account. It is a creation of Luke.
> Yuri's "Big Bang" scenario based on Stephen is not borne out in theRemains to be demonstrated.
> 1st century record.
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian