Problems at the biblical criticism subreddits again — OT festivals, Bart Ehrman, Luke-Acts

At the two where I'm banned.

At Ask Biblical Scholars, someone asking "How can you debunk Unitarianism?" Violates sub rules on invoking theological belief, but had been up there for 3 days when I saw it. Poster is a thrown-off Jesuitical heretic hunter.

==

Also there, somebody talking about "Fulfillment of Leviticus 23." (That's about, per the P author, Yahweh designating various festivals.) Claims parts of it have been fulfilled in light of a Rapture. Poster is a premillennialist of some sort, possibly a Messianic Christian to boot. (The "Feast of Trumpets" is today's Rosh Hashanah, and that's proof of being a Messianic Christian.) Post had been removed from other subs, but up at ABC for 3 days. See his video at another sub. Dude, you ARE nuts.

And, I can be banned there and mods don't do shit about stuff like this.

++++++++

At r/AcademicBiblical?

A question about the status of women in antiquity in general, based on Augustine's Confessions. Breaks the rules.

==

Here, some general nutter claims that Bart Ehrman does NOT do critical source analysis, then doubles and triples down on that in comments.

==

Here's someone confused. They claim Luke and Acts must have different authors because Acts contradicts Paul's letters. Totally irrelevant. Just as irrelevant is a commenter claiming that Luke never indicates in Luke that he intended to write a sequel, quoting a JVM Sturdy:

Nothing in Luke’s Gospel suggests the author intended to write a sequel. The prologue (1:1-4) certainly does not advocate this view. Acts does, however, suggest at an early point – in its prologue, no less – that it is the work of the author of Luke. I regard this as a fictitious attempt to claim a literary relationship with Luke through deliberate stylistic imitation.

And? Hundreds, if not thousand of authors have written books not intending to write sequels, but eventually doing so.

And, there's the introit to Acts, despite what the author says. JVM Sturdy, you're wrong. The book is actually called "Redrawing the Boundaries: The Dating of Early Christian Literature," and appears Not.Even.Wrong.

Per this link, I think that the Luke-Acts differences on relationship to the Jews is some issue, but not insurmountable. I disagree on Acts using the Pastorals. The piece cited for that uses the Westar Institute as point of takeoff, making it a bit dubious IMO right there. (I mean, I know how Westar sucks.) And, it claims all the letters inspired Acts. Erm, how do you explain the contradictions between Acts and the genuine Paulines? And, the idea that a post-Trajan final version of Revelation circulated enough to be used by the author of Acts (and occurring before it)? Laughable.

It's more examples of what I've said before: Some hot young bucks with "out there" ideas attract too many r/AB commenters like moths to the flame.