aa5874

Jesus died FIVE times and still LIVES?

It is COMMONLY THOUGHT that JESUS LIVES or that he SURVIVED the crucifixion.

If Jesus was a man and SURVIVED the crucifixion then it is NOT known when he REALLY DIED.

And if he was a man, whenever he DIED, it was NOT for the sins of Mankind.

If Jesus was a Man, then "Paul" claimed Jesus SURVIVED the crucifixion which would IMPLY that Jesus NEVER died for the sins of mankind at the time of his crucifixion as "Paul" would have us believe.

hjalti

Well, some people would question the authenticity of that verse telling about the first visit

TedM

I know 'dullness' is not a strong criteria, but as far as history of a new faith goes, I would think the duller it is the more likely it is to be true.

And I've done zero research on the subject. The first and second parts (generally) seem sufficiently different to give some credence to a 're-working' over time or multiple authors, so I'm not sure how one can discern whether parts were originally earlier, or whether your sources took an approach that considers multiple authors/time periods.

judge

How do we date Herods death to 44 CE?

aa5874

Well, Acts is NOT dull at all. After Jesus FLEW through clouds and AFTER the day of Pentecost when the disciples had something like FIRE on their heads, the disciples became MULTI-LINGUAL, raised the dead, and thousands were converted in a day.

Acts is too good to be true.

And Acts contains the fictitious BLINDING BRIGHT LIGHT story that Messed up "PAUL'S EYES and HEAD".

Doug Shaver

To my current knowledge, not by anyone whose historiographical opinions I care about.

Doug Shaver

It's my understanding that none of the extant manuscripts can be reliably dated any earlier than the third century. Assuming the original was composed in the mid-second century, there seems to have been plenty of time for the known variations to appear afterward.

DCHindley

Judge,

Sounds like dogsgod (ooooh, a palindrome) is referring to Agrippa I, who was king of the Jews (his kingdom was actually even larger than Herod the Great's) ca. 40-44 CE.

Too many folks follow the NT habit of calling all Herodian princes "Herod", without further distinction.

DCH

dogsgod

Agrippa I also known as Herod Agrippa or simply Herod (10 BC - 44 AD), King of the Jews, was the grandson of Herod the Great, and son of Aristobulus IV and Berenice.[1] His original name was Marcus Julius Agrippa, and he is the king named Herod in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Bible, "Herod (Agrippa)" (Ἡρώδης Ἀγρίππας). He was, according to Josephus, known in his time as "Agrippa the Great".[2]

Agrippa's territory comprised most of Israel, including Iudaea, Galilee, Batanaea and Perea. From Galilee his territory extended east to Trachonitis. wiki

maryhelena

There is an interesting point made in the Wikipedia article on Agrippa I (a ruler who did not use the Herodian ‘Herod’ on his coinage...). “.....so the king described in the Bible may as well be an amalgam of several different royals”. If this is the case, then dating Paul in connection with Agrippa I is a dubious endeavour. If Acts is using “Herod” as an amalgam it would suggest that the time period covered by Acts is much wider than is generally supposed, ie Acts is condensing the actual historical time period that is relevant to the origins of Christianity. Hence, there would be no way to connect Paul to the reign of Agrippa I, a rule which ended around 44 ce.

Agrippa I
Agrippa I a heartless and cruel king who died by being eaten up with worms? Methinks that’s a far better description of Herod the Great and his campaign against the Hasmonean rule in Jerusalem. Seems to me that the historical tape of 37 bc is being replayed, in Acts, with a new cast of Christians..

Herod the Great

my bolding