Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:07 PM

I know what the official doctrine is about the texts reaching back to the church but I don't share it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

... If the author of Acts knew the epistles there wouldn't be the large number of discrepancies. ...

Not so - the author of Acts knew the epistles but felt no need to follow them.

Quote:

If Acts came first and introduced Paul regardless of the issue of why the Christ doesn't get first billing, someone had an image of someone named Saul who for some reason got morphed into another character.
And it's worth wondering why this was the case.

Acts is generally considered to be a continuation of the gospel of Luke. Jesus gets top billing in the gospel, then rises to heaven at the beginning of Acts.

There are many possibilities for the Saul-Paul character. Note that he does not morph into another character, but that at a certain point, the author tells us that Saul was also known as Paul.

Note also that Saul is a Hebrew name which corresponds to the Aramaic Silas, and Silas is mentioned in the Pauline letters; Saul also corresponds to the Latin Silvanus, and there was a gnostic leader named Silvanus. But there is a complete paucity of information that could explain this.

You can find more on these topics in the archives.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:08 PM

How do you know it corresponds to Silas?

Toto · 01-02-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I know what the official doctrine is about the texts reaching back to the church but I don't share it.

This is not official doctrine. Official doctrine is that Luke was a companion of Paul and wrote Acts.

What don't you share?

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:24 PM

The doctrine of the link between Acts and the gospel of Luke.

Toto · 01-02-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know it corresponds to Silas?

Google it yourself.

Toto · 01-02-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The doctrine of the link between Acts and the gospel of Luke.

That is not doctrine. It is a well supported conclusion based on careful reading of the text. See www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-02-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

These are not verses promising collective bodily resurrection in the future messianic age.

Stay focused. Your claim was that the Hebrew Scriptures say nothing directly about resurrection from the dead.

Read it again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How was it that the Judeophile Christians who were so fond of the Hebrew Scriptures failed to notice that the Scriptures say nothing directly about resurrection from the dead?

See?

Now – let’s go slow. Here’s Daniel 12:1-2 again:

Daniel 12:1-2
At that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people, all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape. Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

Will you admit that this passage speaks of a future time when people ‘who sleep in the dusty ground’ will ‘awake’? (Y/N)

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:56 PM

If it were so straightforward there would have never been any disputes with Saduccees or even some Karaites about the future resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

These are not verses promising collective bodily resurrection in the future messianic age.

Stay focused. Your claim was that the Hebrew Scriptures say nothing directly about resurrection from the dead.

Read it again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How was it that the Judeophile Christians who were so fond of the Hebrew Scriptures failed to notice that the Scriptures say nothing directly about resurrection from the dead?

See?

Now – let’s go slow. Here’s Daniel 12:1-2 again:

Daniel 12:1-2
At that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people, all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape. Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

Will you admit that this passage speaks of a future time when people ‘who sleep in the dusty ground’ will ‘awake’? (Y/N)

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-02-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If it were so straightforward there would have never been any disputes with Saduccees or even some Karaites about the future resurrection.

Screw the Saduccees and the Karaites.

Stay focused.

Will you admit that Daniel 12:1-2 speaks of a future time when people ‘who sleep in the dusty ground’ will ‘awake’? (Y/N)

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 08:09 PM

Yes according to historically mainstream Judaism but not according to all sectarian groups. But the group referred to in those verses might still have not been interpreted to mean Everybody.

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

01-02-2012, 07:08 PM	#52
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	How do you know it corresponds to Silas?

01-02-2012, 07:24 PM	#54
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The doctrine of the link between Acts and the gospel of Luke.

01-02-2012, 08:09 PM	#60
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Yes according to historically mainstream Judaism but not according to all sectarian groups. But the group referred to in those verses might still have not been interpreted to mean Everybody.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.