Duvduv

Here is the unfolding of the character Saul before he gets morphed into Paul.

ACT7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
ACT8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
ACT8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Then comes chapter 9 in which the new career of young Saul is described in relatively few words with little explanation or insight into what was going on after his revelation, baptism and beginning of preaching.

He meets disciples in Jerusalem who are afraid of him without explaining WHY.

We don't see him again until chapter 11 and then only very briefly, and only once in passing in chapter 12.

This is all perfectly strange for a new figure of such importance who experienced such a tremendous revelation of the Christ.

We only see him again in chapter 13, but it isn't until verse 9 that the name Paul in parentheses is introduced with no reason or explanation whatsoever.

Duvduv

Bernard, you may have overlooked my posting to you:
#7084254 / #346

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Yes, I do not see we have reasons to complicate the picture furthermore. GLuke and Acts were written by a Roman woman from the Roman colony of Philippi in Macedonia around 85-90, with 'Acts' written several years after the gospel (because of evolution in the issues and doctrines). "To Theophilus" is window dressing, probably just to say, hey, I am writing to a VIP, so it is not lies. That Theophilus is either imaginary, or maybe a known Roman VIP (Theophilus being a nickname or an alleged "secret" name), not a persecutor of Christians, who, that's very important, died years before 70.
The so-called clues are common stuff in Acts and the Pauline, such as Paul in cities like Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Antioch, Ephesus, etc., meetings in Jerusalem etc. Two time intervals in Acts are most useful, as I recall. Despite the difference with the Pauline, Acts is not all crap.
But important for me is it does work (the reconstruction from the Pauline, Acts, etc.) even up to a year to year basis. And the reconstruction showed me that Christianity is crap. And we agree on that.
I do not hesitate to declare a work composite whenever I see one. Such as Daniel and Revelation and gJohn, and almost any other NT writings, to a lesser degree, because of the additions and interpolations to the original texts.
Among the lies in "Acts":
The church of Jerusalem was not started by the Galileans, but by some activist hellenized Jews, no resurrection bodily reappearances (and the empty tomb is an invention of "Mark"), no Pentacost event, the council of Jerusalem was NOT before Paul went to Europe (and Philippi), everything put in the mouth of Peter and Paul is invented, etc. plus many embellishments.

Chili

Interesting line here, how come the apostels were so at peace and who were they? were the Paul's? or do you think maybe this was his Getsemay event. I am not telling you, I never read acts, but do the see internal spiral here just before the great collision that knocked him of the high horse he was riding. Or is that alllegory too?

Chili

Sure and was she a female too? or do you not know.

The woman is the seat of wisdom but is not an advocate and will expose only as reponder to Theopholus here, which may just be a pen-name for the unknown author who was in dialogue with her. That is the basis of Platonic inquiry that so reveals from the innermost depth of our being.

aa5874

You have ZERO sources of antiquity that identified the author of Luke and Acts as a woman.

Bernard Muller

But there are many clues in gLuke and Acts which lead to a Roman woman from Philippi Macedonia.
All my arguments are here: http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html then search on 5.

outhouse

there is actually a fairly decent sized backing for a female author.

I dont follow it, but quite a few proffesionals do

aa5874

Again, you have ZERO sources of ANTIQUITY that identified the author of Luke and Acts as a woman.

I am really interested in EVIDENCE, WRITTEN statements from antiquity not opinion.

Please, name the book [OF ANTIQUITY], chapter and verse that support you.

aa5874

Please, I am NOT really interested in numbers at all. I need DECENT evidence from antiquity.