judge

One wonders why Spin is hiding all information about this?

aa5874

Your claim is NOT credible. It was derived from your imagination. You did NOT present a source for your claim that the name of the father of Jesus is Joseph just as I expected.

The father of Jesus is NOT recorded as Joseph in the NT.

Matthew 1:18 NIV The father of Augustus was recorded as Gaius Octavius in the Life of the Twelve Caesars.

See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Augustus*.html

You have invented the name of the father of Your Jesus.

tanya

Revelations 20:2, Byzantine version:

dog-on

Heavy Horses...great record.

spin

You old fuddy-duddy. Aren't you supposed to be listening to Ozzie Osbourne's European grandchildren? Music school death-metallers?

dog-on

How funny you should say that. The first two albums I ever owned were none other than Heavy Horses and We Sold Our Souls For Rock And Roll.

DCHindley

If that album makes one a "fuddy duddy" then what does it make me, as the first Tull album I owned was Aqualung? :worried:

DCH

angelo

Isn't it reading too much in the Pauline writings seen that the first epistle was written sometime in mid century. 20 years after the supposed conversion and the end of the supposed life of Jesus. All this time it was orally transmitted with ample opportunity for additions or subtractions until finally written down. Then like the rest of the gospels, copies of copies of copies were produced and re-written by none other than the christians themselves. A literal reading of any book in the whole of the bible cannot be taken at face value. It is mythology historicised.

Duvduv

The bottom line is that the fact of the glaring contradictions between Galatians 1 and Acts 9 means that the author of Galatians did not know about Acts 9, and vice versa. They would not have been satisfied to have contradictory stories about the same alleged biographical event of "Blessed Paul" stand side by side (even if the texts were not yet considered holy writ) especially if they assumed that Paul wrote Galatians.

However, what if it were the case that in the early days they did not believe that epistles were actually written by Paul but only reflected a competing "oral tradition" about Paul that they considered no more or less authentic than the story in Acts? Presumably in that case they could live with the two contradictory versions existing side by side.

spin

This is just your conjecture. You can't make any argument with this. "They would not have been satisfied" according to you.

You know what later christianity made it: a Peter led apostolic movement just like Acts. Apostolic succession was so important to the proto-orthodoxy for it justified its preferred state through the apostles as a group. You have so much gospelly material in Acts. Paul is basically the lone shepherd herding his flocks. The world's been carved up between gentile and Jew with the latter being the work of the pillars in Jerusalem. Peter's outreach is to the nations. Acts is miracly while Paul, at worst, is hallucinatory with no miracles at all. Obviously Acts is much closer to an orthodox church than Paul. Paul seems to be a necessary accommodation, not something that reflects orthodoxy. Acts is easy to see as a manifestation of orthodoxy--Paul certainly isn't. That all strongly suggests that Acts is later.