Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-17-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul as a Roman citizen is a legend created midway through Acts to likely to add the rationale to Paul's legendary end in Rome. We know from Romans that Paul intended to come to Rome on his own to preach the gospel (Rom 1:15, 15:22), so Paul in Acts suffering gross machinations from the despicable Zionists is likely just a ploy of the Lord Jesus to get himself proclaimed in Rome (Acts 23:11).

The thing to observe is when Paul is arrested, beaten and shackled in Philippi (Acts 16), on a bonkum charge that Jewish beliefs are contrary to Roman custom, he does not peep a word about his being a citizen. It is only when he and Silas are released, Paul claims his rights.

Best,
Jiri

Reading Acts, you can tell the guy is just making it up as he goes along.

LOL and paul doesnt?

Paul is writing letters not theology like Acts and the fiction is quite evident

I thin Acts is trying to tone paul down as they should. must have been quite the rumors going around the first few hundred years.

aa5874 · 04-17-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....I thin Acts is trying to tone paul down as they should. must have been quite the rumors going around the first few hundred years.

The author of Acts did the very opposite. He dedicated about 15 chapters to Paul and EXCLUDED Peter. In fact, Peter is NOT ever mentioned in Acts of the Apostles AFTER Acts 15. 11.

Please examine from Acts 15.11 to the very end of Acts 28, Saul/Paul is MENTIONED 119 times and Peter is mentioned ZERO times.

Please, NOTICE that the travels of Paul is DOCUMENTED and supposedly Witnessed by the author but there is NOTHING whatsoever about Peter's travels after Acts 15.11.

The author of Acts wrote about MANY, MANY visits of Paul in at least Seven Regions of the Roman Empire and sometimes more than once.

It was Peter who was toned down and then completely Ignored after Acts 15.11.

sotto voce · 04-18-2012, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...That's not known. It may be that their protests were ignored, or unheard in the haste and uproar. The evidence is that, because they released the prisoners after one night, the magistrates realised they had acted under crowd pressure, even before they knew that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

What evidence ?

The evidence is that, because they released the prisoners after one night, the magistrates realised they had acted under crowd pressure, even before they knew that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens.

That's not "evidence." That's the plot of the story line.

Let's see evidence that it is invented.

[indent][i]"The fabrication of the Christians
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

So why have the wicked so consistently opposed it?

Julian is better described as an academic.

Given the choice of doctorate, or empire, which would he have let go?

Quote:

Why have the powerful so consistently believed it?

Quote:

$tatu$ quo

Mammon?

Duvduv · 04-18-2012, 10:50 AM

Acts 9 doesn't explicitly mention a window, but that's not a big deal. Both authors knew of a legend about "Paul" going down the wall, but not much else, including not even the presence of "disciples." In one case it's the Jews who want *to kill* and in the other the official of Aretas who wants *to arrest.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....A better question is of course whether the fellow written about in Acts and whose name appears on epistles even existed at all. Acts is one book as compared with the Islamic hadiths which number in the thousands, and there are still reasons to question the existence of Mohammed. So Paul all the moreso....

There are many many questions but the author of Corinthians claimed he was the Guy in the Basket by the wall in Damascus during the reign of King Aretas just as it is mentioned in Acts of the Apostles.

1 Cor 11

Acts 9

Quote:

.... the Jews took counsel to kill him:24But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

It seems as though the author of Acts and the Corinthian writer agree on the content of the basket but is it fact or fiction?? Both the author of Acts and the Corinthian writer are known fiction writers.

Toto · 04-18-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Acts 9 doesn't explicitly mention a window, but that's not a big deal. Both authors knew of a legend about "Paul" going down the wall, but not much else, including not even the presence of "disciples." In one case it's the Jews who want *to kill* and in the other the official of Aretas who wants *to arrest.*

...

Perhaps one author knew of the other and reshaped the story to his own purposes. Perhaps the first author knew of a Septuagint basis for the story. Or maybe it wasn't a story, but a metaphor. Or a private joke. Or a reference to the popular culture of the day, that is lost to us.

No big deal. Unless you think you can derive some actual history from it.

Duvduv · 04-18-2012, 11:59 AM

Entirely possible. Though I tend to think that these stories were not entirely invented out of thin air, but were based on other tales about Paul, etc. Yet the passage in Josephus knew more about the Baptist than did the authors of the epistles and of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Acts 9 doesn't explicitly mention a window, but that's not a big deal. Both authors knew of a legend about "Paul" going down the wall, but not much else, including not even the presence of "disciples." In one case it's the Jews who want *to kill* and in the other the official of Aretas who wants *to arrest.*

...

Perhaps one author knew of the other and reshaped the story to his own purposes. Perhaps the first author knew of a Septuagint basis for the story. Or maybe it wasn't a story, but a metaphor. Or a private joke. Or a reference to the popular culture of the day, that is lost to us.

No big deal. Unless you think you can derive some actual history from it.

aa5874 · 04-18-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Acts 9 doesn't explicitly mention a window, but that's not a big deal. Both authors knew of a legend about "Paul" going down the wall, but not much else, including not even the presence of "disciples." In one case it's the Jews who want *to kill* and in the other the official of Aretas who wants *to arrest.*

...

Perhaps one author knew of the other and reshaped the story to his own purposes. Perhaps the first author knew of a Septuagint basis for the story. Or maybe it wasn't a story, but a metaphor. Or a private joke. Or a reference to the popular culture of the day, that is lost to us.

No big deal. Unless you think you can derive some actual history from it.

But, you have missed a very important point. The stories could have been made up. The stories of the Pauline writer and Acts may have been invented to give the impression that there were apostles and that Paul knew them when no such characters ever did exist.

It is claimed Paul stayed with the Apostle Peter for fifteen days but there is NO record of Peter outside Apologetic sources. Peter seems to have existed in a Vacuum.

Duvduv · 04-19-2012, 08:19 AM

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.

aa5874 · 04-19-2012, 08:44 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.

Your statements show that you are NOT certain about how the stories originated. Assumptions and speculation do NOT clarify anything. You are merely contradicting yourself.

outhouse · 04-19-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Perhaps one author knew of the other and reshaped the story to his own purposes. Perhaps the first author knew of a Septuagint basis for the story. Or maybe it wasn't a story, but a metaphor. Or a private joke. Or a reference to the popular culture of the day, that is lost to us.

No big deal. Unless you think you can derive some actual history from it.

But, you have missed a very important point. The stories could have been made up. The stories of the Pauline writer and Acts may have been invented to give the impression that there were apostles and that Paul knew them when no such characters ever did exist.

It is claimed Paul stayed with the Apostle Peter for fifteen days but there is NO record of Peter outside Apologetic sources. Peter seems to have existed in a Vacuum.

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

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

04-19-2012, 08:19 AM	#28
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.