Originally Posted by aa5874

Galatians 1.19 has NO historical value if it was written in the 2nd century by a frausdster. We have NO credible corroborative source for the date of composition of Galatians and we have NO date of writings in the letters themselves.

We cannot be going over the same verse over and over when there is other evidence to look at.

1. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and "Commentary on Matthew" 1

2. An Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation. See the Muratorian Canon"

3. A Pauline writer claimed that there were already Scriptures which stated Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. See 1 Cor. 15.

4. Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Paul at all as an early Apostle nor do they acknowledge his letters and that he preached the Jesus story.

See "First Apology" and the "Apology"

5. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Saul/Paul wrote letters to churches--Saul/Paul and his group acted as "Post-men" for the Jerusalem church in Acts. See Acts 15.

6. In "Against Heresies" 2.22 it is claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age so the Pauline writer could NOT have preached Christ Crucified during the time of King Aretas c 37-41 if Jesus was 30 years old at c 29-30 CE.

7. No Pauline letters have been dated to the 1 st century. See P 46.

8. Letters that place Paul before c 70 CE are forgeries. See the Seneca/Paul letters

9. It has been deduced that the Pauline letters have multiple authors. See "Forged" by Ehrman.

10. No author of the Gospels wrote about the Pauline revealed gospel--Salvation by the resurrection. See Romans and 1 Cor.15

Please, let us do history.

We cannot be going around in circles day after day.

The Pauline letters are the WORSE sources to be blindly accepted as authentic and historically accurate.

Even Apologetic sources have EXPOSED that the Pauline writings are NOT credible and were NOT written before the Fall of the Temple.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Paul 'blamed' the Jews for the crucifixion?

According to 1 Thessalonians, Paul clearly says the Jews killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets.

What part of 'the Jews killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets' assumes that it was the Romans who actually did it?

Originally Posted by Logical

The Jews could have "killed" Jesus by delivering him to the Roman authority and accusing him of things that resulted in his being executed.

If you were to frame someone in a way that results in his hanging, then it's accurate to say you have killed him.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So the Pakistanis killed Osama bin Laden, by telling the Americans where he was?

Originally Posted by tanya

But, that is not an accurate translation.

If we are going to insist (Earl, Toto, spin, aa5874, Iskander, Huon, Steven) on (correctly, in my view) challenging Diogenes, for ignoring the text of one of Paul's notorious letters, replacing "Jews killed Jesus", with "only Romans could crucify, as shown by history", then, too, we ought to be consistent, and acknowledge, that 1 Corinthians 15: 3, DOES NOT INDICATE "scriptures".

Scriptures are "HOLY" documents. There is nothing literal, in this letter, about "holy document", just plain vanilla document, implying the gospels, which, when composed in the second century, CE, would have been simply, "writings":

κατα τας γραφας

Nothing there, about "scriptures".

Originally Posted by tanya

But, that is not an accurate translation.

If we are going to insist (Earl, Toto, spin, aa5874, Iskander, Huon, Steven) on (correctly, in my view) challenging Diogenes, for ignoring the text of one of Paul's notorious letters, replacing "Jews killed Jesus", with "only Romans could crucify, as shown by history", then, too, we ought to be consistent, and acknowledge, that 1 Corinthians 15: 3, DOES NOT INDICATE "scriptures".

Scriptures are "HOLY" documents. There is nothing literal, in this letter, about "holy document", just plain vanilla document, implying the gospels, which, when composed in the second century, CE, would have been simply, "writings":

κατα τας γραφας

Nothing there, about "scriptures".

Originally Posted by tanya

But, that is not an accurate translation.

If we are going to insist (Earl, Toto, spin, aa5874, Iskander, Huon, Steven) on (correctly, in my view) challenging Diogenes, for ignoring the text of one of Paul's notorious letters, replacing "Jews killed Jesus", with "only Romans could crucify, as shown by history", then, too, we ought to be consistent, and acknowledge, that 1 Corinthians 15: 3, DOES NOT INDICATE "scriptures".

Scriptures are "HOLY" documents. There is nothing literal, in this letter, about "holy document", just plain vanilla document, implying the gospels, which, when composed in the second century, CE, would have been simply, "writings":

κατα τας γραφας

Nothing there, about "scriptures".

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I bet I could find some place on the net saying Israel or the Jews invaded Iraq, but I'd have to wear a HAZMAT suit to look for it.

Originally Posted by Iskander

A fair trial at a Court of Law could find them guilty of murder. Some would find the verdict was influenced by politics , but many would welcome it as originating in wholesome natural law