Tigers!

Peter in Acts 2:14-21 ties the speaking of tongues and other things on the Day of Pentecost back to Joel 2:28-32.

Sheshbazzar

Yet Joel 2:28-32 says nothing at all about speaking in tongues. And the things that it does say, have never actually happened.

delusional

I don't know what it was, but its effects seem to have been pretty far reaching.



Because, self evidently, not all Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah. In fact it seems to be the case that the majority didn't. They would have had trouble throwing the Christians out of the Synagogue had they been a minority.


I would say that Luke was putting his own interpretation upon something he had heard about second or third hand.

Luke draws upon Mark, therefore Luke was written after Mark. Mark was written sometime between 60-65AD. By 65, according to a very strong and ancient tradition, Paul was dead (having died in the Neronian persecution).


"Who says Luke was with a fake Paul?" Some of the letters attributed to Paul are thought not to have been written by him. Nothing startlingly new about that, but there has never been any dispute that Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were all written by the Paul who appears in the Acts of the Apostles. Colossians is disputed. Virtually nobody thinks Paul wrote Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, or Titus. Absolutely nobody thinks he wrote Hebrews.

Doug Shaver

That doesn't make Paul a liar.

aa5874

Well the writer called Paul will have to prove he was not lying. Some of the information found in the letters with his name are blatant fiction.


1 Corinthians 15.3-6

delusional

Well the writer called Paul will have to prove he was not lying. Some of the information found in the letters with his name are blatant fiction.


1 Corinthians 15.3-6How come you are in a position to know what Paul did or did not hear from other people?

As somebody said earlier in this thread, they are a reference to verses in Hosea. You don't interpret those verses in that way? Fine. But Paul did, and so did the early Church. They were not lying; at most they may have been wrong.

You seem to be forgetting that Paul was writing at a time when his audience could check out that kind of claim for themselves.

aa5874

You should know that the conversion of Saul/Paul was fiction as described in Acts of the Apostles.

It is not really self-evident until there is corroborative evidence to show that there was a creature called Jesus Christ, the Messiah, born without sexual union, during the days of Pilate.

Can you find a corroborative source for the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Nothing in the NT and church writings is self-evident about Jesus Christ, the Messiah, offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union.



That is not self-evident.

The author may have been making stuff up in the second or third century.

Where do you get your dates of g Mark from? Up to the writings of Justin Martyr, middle of the 2nd century, or even later, near the end of the 2nd century, Tatian in the Diatesseron, never mentioned that anyone called Mark wrote any gospel.

And this is consistent with the fact that it was Irenaeus near the end of the 2nd century who first mentioned a gospel with the name Mark.

You may need to add one hundred years to your assumed date of writing for the gospel of Mark.


So, why is it that all the KJV bibles that I have still show that a writer called Paul wrote every single letter except Hebrews?

If the authorship of the letters were all confimed by having the name Paul, then the writer Paul did write all the letters, except Hebrews.

So, tell me how was it confirmed that in the 1st century, a writer called Paul wrote Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon?

You must know. Please tell me.

delusional

You can believe it was an epileptic fit, you can believe what you like, but it happened, and it turned his life around. If you think you know better, YOU are the one who has got to come up with the sources.


There is the whole body of evidence in the NT testifying to his existence. If you want to reject it you have got to come up with a reason for doing so other than your preconceived agenda. There arte the extant writings of first century authors like Ignatius, who apparently has no doubt about his historicity. Tacitus apparently has no doubt about his historicity. How much do you want? They were all writing in the first or early second century, and you live in the twenty first century, so how come you know better than them?


Who wrote they gospel has no bearing upon when it was written. 60-65 is the generally accepted date for its composition, except amongst some conservatives.


Matthew draws upon Mark. Ignatius was quoting Matthew in the early second century. Therefore Mark was written well before the end of the first century. In any case, having Mark written around 165 would hardly help your case; it would just make it even more certain that Paul couldn't have known Luke's Gospel.

The ascriptions in the KJV reflect what was believed to be true in 1611.


How come you have suddenly gone from being hyper-sceptical to wanting to take every ascription absolutely at face value?

The present day beliefs about the authorship of the epistles is based upon the internal evidence. For example, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus all seem to be addressed to a Church which had begun to acquire an institutional structure, rather than to the house churches as they existed in Pauls's day.

aa5874

I have already said the source was fiction.

You are the one who is coming up with alternate explanations to the obvious fiction. You need to recognise fiction.

Something too good to be true probably is.

Have you ever read Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9? They clearly stated that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost who floated through the clouds witnessed by the disciples. And further, the authors of the NT, church writers and non-canonised writers claimed he was raised from the dead.

Now, Tacitus never mentioned the name Jesus and no church writer ever mentioned the passage from Tacitus even Eusebius did not.

Something has gone wrong with the passage from Tacitus, it would seem it was rejected, may be it was forged later, maybe it was fiction, but something went wrong. Eusebius, in the 4th century, used a forged passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 instead of Annals 15.44 which should have been known for over 200 years before Eusebius.

You must notice that your statement is without logic.

If a person in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th century wrote gMark, then it must be obvious it was not written 60-65 CE. You must realise by now that it is of importance to know who wrote the gospel of Mark.


You must show me the word "Matthew" in the epistles of Ignatius because if you do not, Ignatius may have been quoting from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as written about by Justin Martyr.

Please show me the word "Matthew" in the epistles of Ignatius.

You mean all the KJV bibles that I have were written in 1611 and that no new findings of any scholars will ever be implemented in those printed in 2009?


I don't really know how it was deduced that some writer called Paul wrote letters in the first century. I thought it was because the name Paul was in the letters.

The name Paul is missing from Hebrews, it is claimed Paul did not write Hebrews. The name Paul is in Timothy, it is believed by the church writers that Paul wrote Timothy.

So, please tell me about the internal evidence for Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, I Thessalonians, Philiuppians and Philemon. And then after that tell me about the external evidence.

Or to make it easier, tell me about the external evidence first.

aa5874

A simple exercise to show the dependency of the letters of the writer called Paul on the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles is to completely ignore them, that is, do not make any references to the Gospels or Acts at all. Just read or study the letters of the writer called Paul as is.

It would soon be noticed that the writer called Paul becomes fragmented and incoherent. The character called Jesus Christ, the son of the God of the Jews, becomes a mystery. It is not known how this Jesus Christ became significant. There is no background information, no history of this Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

All that will be known is that the Saviour was dead and was raised on the third day. The writer made many references to Jesus our Lord and Saviour being dead and was raised and is coming back a second time. And although the writer mentioned the Lord was crucified, no explanation of how, why, where or when this crucifixion took place.

The letters on their own have very little information of the writer himself, there is virtually nothing about him. The writer, too, becomes a mystery. He writes from unknown locations, there are no dates of writings, no description of place of abode, and virtually no chronology to follow.


How did these very vague letters become sacred?

The writer spends a lot of time writing about the law, and circumcision, sacrifice, redemption and revelations from Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour, but without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, the letters really do not make much sense.

Who was Jesus Christ? The letters on their own do not answer that fundamental question.
Where did Jesus Christ come from? Again the letters on their own is a disaster.

Who caused Jesus Christ to die and why? No answer.

Why is Jesus Christ revealing a gospel to the writer? The letters by themselves do not provide any answers.

It is soon realized that the letters of the writer called Paul are directly dependent on the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
Without the Jesus stories and the stories of the Apostles, the writer’s revelations, the characters in the letters and Jesus Christ do not add up.

Now, by simply putting just gLuke and Acts of the Apostles with the letters of the writer Paul, all of a sudden, a coherent and comprehensive picture emerges. The chronology can be followed. The Jesus stories and the letters now have some meaning or becomes more understandable.

Based on the compilation of evidence, the writer called Paul was dependent on the Jesus stories as written by the authors, not on revelations from Jesus Christ at all. Paul’s gospel was indeed from man.

Paul's lies knot him up.