arnoldo

I suppose the writer of Acts failed to realize that Isaiah 53 wasn't a reference to Jesus in the following passage. . .

which correlates to Isaiah 53:7

Why would the writer make such a mistake?

Toto

The writer of Acts believed that Jesus was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures. That is in fact the basis of early Christianity. But it requires an idiosyncratic non-Jewish reading of the scriptures.

IamJoseph

Paul is in the NT, and constitutes the Gospel import even more so than anything subscribed to a Judean Jew called Jesus. The descriptions of Saul in Josephus is exactingly similar to what the NT says of him: have you even read saul's speech before Agrippa and Queen Berenice, and their responsa to him? Clearly, we see Saul speaking of his visions on the damascus road, his visions are not from man, etc; the response of Agrippa clearly alligns with why the Judeans expelled Saul - that Saul was speaking 100% hellenism than anything resembling the hebrew bible. This is affirmed by the great war that occured in 70 CE [5 years after Paul was sent to Rome], and the eventual severing of christianity supposedly deriving from its mother religion. here, hellenism won the battle - but lost the war.





Ok. Yes, but it needs a link with a concordance search engine: Josephus wrote large volumes, resembling a telephone book, and his writings do not follow a dates chronology - it s all over the place. Do you have such a link with a search facility?


No - Josephus is not legend; the NT is more so. We can prove Josephus via other avenues - we can prove nothing in the NT. When Josephus says Paul requested to be tried in Rome, and that this was granted him - it means you have to provide alternative proof he died elsewhere.

You are also ignoring the decree of Heresy over all Jews - which applied even to those Jews who alligned with Rome [called the 'peace party'] and all the temple preists. You are also ignoring that some 1.5 Million Jews were genocided by Rome solely because they were jews and rejected Rome's decree. here, both Paul and Jesus would be seen as enemies of Rome - more so than the NT's premise Rome would harken to a jewish conspiracy.

Rome displayed what was represented by the Nazis against the Jews, namely the issue of Monotheism posed the greatest threat to its divine emperor doctrines - the reason Briton was also burnt to the ground. Rome feared this belief would spread as rebellions throughout its empire - a situation which makes the Gospels very feasably crafted by Rome - than any divergent jews. If this is true, it represents a great tragedy for humanity - namely genuine believers became hoodwinked by the greatest hoax in history - with no way out: the Gospels alligned belief in the Creator with the negation of another peoples as encumbent.

This means a christian and/or a muslim sees it as if they are contradicting their core belief in a creator - if they 'DON'T' also believe Jews killed off their Lord or Prophet, respectively. You want to tell me how this propostrous premise can ever be recitified or reconsiled? Its so terrible that even if all the Jews are eliminated - christianity and islam will have an irresolvable face off!

Such a premise can NEVER be legitimate, and it contradicts the first advocation in Genesis, well before any religions appeared: all humanity was blessed equally via their primal matriachal and patriachal representations in Adam and Eve. Cursing, villifying and negating any sector of humanity clearly contradicts the Hebrew bible - and all of humanity itself. Its ubsurd to say to someone, you killed my Lord but still I will try hard to not kill you. Not possible - you end up feeling guilty if you kill Jews and then again if you don't - you are conradicting the fulcrum import of your belief. And never mind how this effects the bad Jews who have no way out of this situation! It smacks of depraved Roman guile usng the scapegoat ploy. :constern02:

IamJoseph

Also, a non-muslim, and non-other belief reading. It is also an escapable reading of Hellenism and Romanism's divine man belief. Simply put, one has to think if they possessed 4000 years of genes of one method of Monotheism, how would they confront the gospels. Would they read Isaiah as some christians like to - then why would they be emersed in numerous existential wars with the ancient Egyptians, Babylon, Hellenism, Romanism before? A: because christianity imposed on Jews the only unaccepable demand the mind can muster - exactly as did the ancient Greeks and then the Romans. There was certainly no love here which can be alligned with such a demand, only its antithesis.

Toto

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

Try searching with google

aa5874

I will show again that the writer called Paul is a late writer, that is, he wrote after the short ending of gMark.

It is claimed that two early codices, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus, do NOT contain Mark 16.9-20, and it must be noted what information is found in those 11 verses.

I will examine the added passages with the words of Jesus as given.

Mark 16.15-18 So, the original author of gMark appear not to have known or was not aware of any words of Jesus where he told his disciples that they would speak in new tongues or take up serpents.

The original author of Mark was therefore not aware of Acts of the Apostles or the letters of the writer called Paul where the apostles received the Holy Ghost and spoke in new tongues, and when the writer Paul claimed to have also spoken in tongues and was bitten by a snake but did not suffer any ill-effects as found in Acts.

The late addition of Mark16.9-20 also tends to support the writings of Justin Martyr where Justin did not write anything about Acts of the Apostles, including the baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in new tongues, taking up serpents or the letters of Paul.

Based on the later insertion of verses 9-20 of Mark 16, it can be deduced that the original author of gMark preceeded Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul.

The letter writer Paul was a fraud, a fabricated first century character, and was involved in the scheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

show_no_mercy

Paul only talks about speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians. Maybe the original writer of Mark was unaware of 1 Corinthians, and Mark's interpolator inserted 16:9 - 20 after discovering 1 Corinthians.

aa5874

But, you would also notice that the last words of Jesus before ascension, according author of gMatthew, did not include talking in new tongues or handling serpents.

Mt 28:19 - Again, this is another indication that the author of gMatthew wrote before the letters of the writer Paul or Acts of the Apostles.

So, the original authors of both gMark and gMatthew are not aware of Acts of the Apostles and the letters of the writer Paul with respect to talking in tongues, the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the taking up of serpents.

Now, look at gLuke.

The author of gLuke is said to be a disciple of Paul, it will be noticed that the author's last words of Jesus before ascension are consistent with Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul, the disciples are told to go to Jerusalem to wait for power from on high.

Luke 24:49 -
The disciples, based on Acts 2, got their power from on high on the day of Pentecost while in Jerusalem.

So, let's recap.

1. The original author of gMark is not aware of the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and handling serpents.

2. The original author of gMatthew is not aware of the promise the baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and handling serpents.

3. Acts of the Apostles and the letters of the writer Paul appear to have been written after both gMark and gMatthew.

4. The author of gLuke wrote about the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost where the disciples spoke in tongues, which is consistent with Acts and the letters of the writer Paul.

5. The gospel of Luke is considered to have been written after gMatthew and gMark.

6. It appears that the fabrication of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul may have been written around the same time, or that the authors were familiar with each other's writings.

7. Justin Martyr did not write anything about the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues or handling serpents. Nor did Justin Martyr make any mention of any sacred scriptures called Acts of Apostles or letters from a writer called Paul.

8. The first time it is known that there was an author of a gospel called Luke who was a discple of Paul was late 2nd century by Irenaeus.

The writer Paul is a fabricated first century character, the writer is a fraud. This writer is no earliear than the 2nd century.

arnoldo

Then how did Tertullian reference both the Apostle Paul and the Acts of Apostles in the following passage?

IamJoseph

My understanding is that Paul never wrote anything himself - he had a vision problem, and it is claimed he had assistant writers. Paul also never met Jesus. The only non-theological reference is Josephus, and there is much suspicion this work has been tampered with, and all originals destroyed. Does anyone know of another document mentioning Paul [aside from the NT]?