Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-19-2012, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I prefer the view that the writer(s) wrote what they thought the story was concerning Paul in Damascus. The detail of who was after him is not a major issue, and it certainly could have been smoothed over by ensuring that the Acts story corresponded to the epistle story, or vice versa.

So it would be clear that both authors had stories about Paul independent of each other, which superficially resembled each other.

pretty close take

just remember, paul never had a turn on the road to damascus, that part is all fiction in Acts. paul states himself that it just came to him, and he felt it in his heart or [within him] so to speak.

I think if anything paul viewed a chance to take hold of the reigns and direct the movement in his own direction, and ran with that chance. Cost him his life, but it worked.

Duvduv · 04-19-2012, 09:01 AM

Of course the Paul of the epistles never quotes verbatim anything his Christ said to him anywhere, including Damascus. Or a blinding revelation.

It's rather interesting that the authors of the epistles and Acts couldn't even agree on who was seeking out Paul in Damascus or what they wanted to do with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I prefer the view that the writer(s) wrote what they thought the story was concerning Paul in Damascus. The detail of who was after him is not a major issue, and it certainly could have been smoothed over by ensuring that the Acts story corresponded to the epistle story, or vice versa.

So it would be clear that both authors had stories about Paul independent of each other, which superficially resembled each other.

pretty close take

just remember, paul never had a turn on the road to damascus, that part is all fiction in Acts. paul states himself that it just came to him, and he felt it in his heart or [within him] so to speak.

I think if anything paul viewed a chance to take hold of the reigns and direct the movement in his own direction, and ran with that chance. Cost him his life, but it worked.

Toto · 04-19-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I prefer the view that the writer(s) wrote what they thought the story was concerning Paul in Damascus. ...
So it would be clear that both authors had stories about Paul independent of each other, which superficially resembled each other.

That's your personal preference, but there's no support for it. :huh:

Duvduv · 04-19-2012, 12:31 PM

There is support in the disparity in the stories themselves and the lack of any documented link between Acts and the story in 2 Corinthians 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I prefer the view that the writer(s) wrote what they thought the story was concerning Paul in Damascus. ...
So it would be clear that both authors had stories about Paul independent of each other, which superficially resembled each other.

That's your personal preference, but there's no support for it. :huh:

Toto · 04-19-2012, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is support in the disparity in the stories themselves and the lack of any documented link between Acts and the story in 2 Corinthians 11.

The disparity in the stories is not the sort of random differences you would expect from two different independent traditions.

It's not clear what sort of documentation you would expect.

aa5874 · 04-19-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

well think about it for a second.

we are left with a roman version of what happened, not a jewish one. Of course some illiterate fishermen are not going to leave a trace, they took their message to only jews, where it failed during their lifetime.

Only paul spreading his message to romans kept the movment alive.

back then there was already a group of people [god-fearer's] who were gentiles worshipping Yahweh in the synagogue's with jews

You invent your own stories.

Even the Romans claimed Peter, a supposed illiterate fisherman, was Bishop of Rome.

See "Prescription Against Heretics", and "Against Heresies".

We are conducting a SERIOUS investigation so idle speculation is NOT of no real value.

outhouse · 04-19-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

You invent your own stories.

false, mine are in line with modern unbiased scholarships

Quote:

Even the Romans claimed Peter, a supposed illiterate fisherman, was Bishop of Rome.

Sources please.

Quote:

See "Prescription Against Heretics", and "Against Heresies".

other sources, because these are way to old to be useful for early historicity

Quote:

We are conducting a SERIOUS investigation so idle speculation is NOT of no real value.

Thee is only so much information at hand with this so called "serious"

aa5874 · 04-19-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

You invent your own stories.

false, mine are in line with modern unbiased scholarships.

What??? Your inventions match those of schorlarship!!! Well, said!!!

You make me laugh when you say there is UNBIASED Scholarship.

Please show that modern scholarship is unbiased or else I will consider your claim as false.

Quote:

Even the Romans claimed Peter, a supposed illiterate fisherman, was Bishop of Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

[Sources please.

YOU REMOVED THE SOURCES--"PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERESIES" and "AGAINST HERESIES"

Quote:

See "Prescription Against Heretics", and "Against Heresies".

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

[other sources, because these are way to old to be useful for early historicity

Well, it makes NO sense for you to tell me anything about Paul and Jesus. The earliest dated sources for Jesus and Paul are WAY TOO OLD to be useful for early historicity.

We are living in the 21 st century so if it is your view that sources are TOO OLD to be useful then you might as well stop making any claims about the historicity of Jesus and Paul.

There are NO sources for Jesus and Paul dated by paleography or scientific means to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Based on your own statement your are really wasting time arguing for the historicity of Jesus and Paul when you are BLATANTLY using material that are FAR TOO OLD.

Duvduv · 04-19-2012, 03:24 PM

How can you be so sure? The Paul of the epistles is quite different than the Paul of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is support in the disparity in the stories themselves and the lack of any documented link between Acts and the story in 2 Corinthians 11.

The disparity in the stories is not the sort of random differences you would expect from two different independent traditions.

It's not clear what sort of documentation you would expect.

Toto · 04-19-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How can you be so sure? The Paul of the epistles is quite different than the Paul of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The disparity in the stories is not the sort of random differences you would expect from two different independent traditions.

It's not clear what sort of documentation you would expect.

But the differences have a clear theological pattern. They are not the sort of random differences you find in different traditions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.