Duvduv

They would only be random if the person writing Acts was writing off the top of his head instead of based on a "tradition" about Paul that differed in some ways from that of the Paul in the epistles.

outhouse

its pretty obvious, the epistles were not Glukes authors source

aa5874

It is pretty obvious that the Pauline epistles are NOT earlier than gLuke. Again, we see an author who appears to have NOT attended a Pauline Church or heard of the Pauline gospel of Salvation by the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV None of the Five Canonised Gospels contain such a teaching.

The Pauline gospel is the LAST Gospel.

Duvduv

.....It is pretty obvious that AA keeps replaying the same recording over and over and over again and is fully committed to his speculations and lack of interest in relating to challenges that are presented to him.......

DCHindley

I think you'll find that the Herodians are only mentioned 2 times in all the preserved literature we have from antiquity (and those are in the NT Gospels), and there is nothing in these citations to suggest they were a priestly party. The Jewish Encyclopedia is guessing when it connects them with the priestly family of Boethus, from which the Herodian family chose several to be high priests. Eisenmann appears to call anyone connected to a Herodian princely household a "Herodian." That Paul had to work for a living indicates he was not related to the Herodian princes by blood, but would have been a "retainer" of the household. If anything, I'd guess his father was a freedman who fully converted to Judaism, and Paul (Saul) was brought up in one of the households as part of the "extended" family.

DCH

aa5874

Did you NOT admit that you are speculating??? So accusing me of speculation is rather disingenuous.

You must accept responsibility for what you admit.

ALL you do is speculate over and over.

Now, it is NOT speculation at all that the authors of the Synoptics did NOT state that Jesus was resurrected for the Remission of Sins. It is a fact.

It is NOT speculation but a fact that it is claimed that WITHOUT the resurrection that people would REMAIN in sin in 1 Corinthian. 15

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The fact that NO author of the Canonised gospels used the Pauline claim about the resurrection then it can be logically deduced or reasonably deduced that 1 Cor. 15.17 was written AFTER the Synoptics where the Synoptic Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that his resurrection was for Remission of Sins.

Examine Sinaiticus gMark. This is not speculation. This is fact. It is written that the disciples of gMark's Jesus did NOT even understand what the supposed Jesus was talking about.

The Pauline writings are after c 70 CE and once that is understood then we cannot accept any statement about Paul in Acts or the Pauline writings.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen but the Pauline writer did NOT admit to it and there is NO non-apologetic source that can help.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee.

I find it implausible that Paul could have been a Roman citizen and was ALLOWED to preach in many regions of the Roman Empire, and in Rome itself, that Jesus was Lord and had a name above every name on earth and that even the deified Roman Emperors should BOW to the name of Jesus.

Paul, a Pharisee, a Jew, a supposed Roman citizen was allowed to preach for over 17 years that a dead and resurrected Jew, Jesus born of the seed of David was LORD in the Roman Empire.!!!!!

When did those 17 years pass??? In what century??? Under which Emperor???

Which Emperor would allow Paul to preach that Jesus was LORD, that Jesus had a name above the Emperors of Rome and that every one in the Roman Empire should bow before the name of Jesus????

Constantine would have allowed Paul to make those claims if he lived in the 4th century.

Under Constantine Paul makes sense.

This is NOT speculation. This is a logical deduction.

outhouse

Thanks

ive been reading many of the other scholars as well on this and paul lately.


I do think the herodion case is weak, its not decisive, but it could possibly be a roman. No real way to know for sure.


I think your guess is as good as it gets really, sucks were limited to such a small amount of sources to work with.


Ive always held he was a roman, but thought it would be worth exploring.


That and I was in a debate in another forum on teh same topic

Duvduv

And if an explicit statement that the resurrection is pivotal for remission of sins appears only in the epistles, then one can "logically infer" epistles and the gospels emerged from different "traditions."

aa5874

What??? You admitted that you speculate now all of a sudden you are now claiming "one can "logically infer" epistles and the gospels emerged from different "traditions" because of an explicit statement that the resurrection is pivotal for the remission of sins appears only in the epistles.

Well, I have logically deduced that the Pauline gospel of Resurrection for the Remission of Sins is AFTER the Gospels since no gospel author made such a claim.

Duvduv

And you still believe the author(s) of the epistles knew all about the gospels or at least GMark, right?