Duvduv

With regard to Pilate, is the dating wrong because so little is actually known about him that his historicity is actually in question, or is the dating wrong for Claudius Tiberias who is given as reigning until 37 CE and Pilate the prefect until 36 CE?

rlogan

The most visible person making faith-based arguments here is you, and not just a small leap of faith but one particular large and incoherent one.

On the one hand you insist Acts is incompatible with Pauline theology, but on the other hand it can't be written by someone following that incompatible theology. You have not submitted any reason for this other than saying it doesn't make sense to you. Yet, you harangue a nonexistent class of "scholars" who say the authors are the same.

There is something going on with you that we can't see. It could be a disorder of some kind.

Toto

His historicity is NOT in question and never has been. Two prominent ancient authors wrote about him, and there is archaeological evidence.

The dates are based on the work of Josephus.

Duvduv

That's rather funny. I have repeatedly pointed out ideas and events that don't match between the epistles and Acts. On the other hand Acts venerates Paul.
Thus two different tradition based on context and inference. But your subtle insults are rather immature but I'll overlook them.

rlogan

Hypocrisy much? This is what a disordered person does: deny the very thing they are doing while they in the middle of doing it: not overlooking, and delivering an insult about immaturity while saying you are not doing that.

Civil debate also requires not insulting your opposition by relentlessly avoiding the main question Toto has asked repeatedly. That is the thing you are overlooking scrupulously.

A little narcissistic to pretend you are the one doing that when what you are actually doing is arguing against the most important differences of all.

A classic disengenuous tactic is to "occupy the field" of the opposition, commandeering the opposition's point as if it were their own, but distorting it to their own ends.

The wording here is quite important because we have the vague statement about ideas that "don't match" without acknowledging what those things actually are. This is how you avoid dealing with Acts presenting Paul as the messenger boy of Peter: just ignore it.

It's called selective attention/inattention in the literature on disordered thinking.



How a person can weave elements of truth into a convoluted web of self-contradictory rubbish is beyond me. Of course there are two different traditions being acknowledged by Acts - Pauline vs. Petrine branches. The fact that Paul is mentioned at all means the Pauline branch is being acknowledged.

Duvduv

OK, rlogan. I am now not allowed to reiterate what I said before for fear of incurring your wrath and argumentum ad hominem. However, you can read my posting in the other thread. There are TWO different traditions of PAUL. That's my point. But your comments are too abstract for me to work with.
In any case, you want to call "Paul" the messenger boy in one breath and in the next you want to say that his "tradition" is acknowledged by the author who calls the messenger boy an apostle....i.e. the sacred tradition of the "messenger boy," when all that strikes me is that the author of Acts was writing a story of two individual who for some reason he venerated, but without any political agenda to diminish Paul. He tells us about the great revelation that "Paul" had and which no one else had AND tells us of his missionary work to gentiles (which was mostly to Jews).
So for the moment, take a deep breath and relax.

rlogan

*yawn*. The manipulator paints his target as an "angry person", irrational with supercharged emotion in contrast to the manipulator who is self-framed as cool-headed and calm.

It doesn't work on me. When someone doesn't have an argument, this is what they do. You are also using projection, which is where the manipulator is using argumentum ad hominem (angry person) while accusing his target of it.

You have a background in these tactics, obviously - but to what end you are putting them is unclear.

That is called evasion. The "too abstract" comment is pretty hilarious since there is nothing abstract whatsoever: Acts is written after the epistles, and by the victorious Catholic (Petrine) branch of Christianity.

Generally a manipulative opponent is following an easily identifiable objective, but in your case it is not clear to me what you are up to.

It is literally true that Paul carries the written message(s) from Peter to his church in Acts, so this isn't me "calling" him a messenger boy. Obviously this is something you can't admit to for whatever reason.

This is the tactic of denial, and wow does your list of tactics bear a striking resemblance to disordered thinking.

I can't help what "strikes" you, but you need to be able to explain it coherently in order for it to even qualify as an argument. Acts 15 has Peter directly stating that "everyone knows" it is Peter who is ordained to carry the message to the gentiles, and Paul is there to seek his direction on that very thing.

I noticed you don't actually quote Acts or refer to it when making these incoherent arguments.

Continual evasion of Toto's main question is again duly noted.

Duvduv

What's next? You're going tio bring me before the Holy Inquisition and Torquemada because I don't meet your standards of psychology or Freudian "analysis"? And your so-called messenger boy has unique revelations of the Christ and a job to bring gentiles into the fellowship yet he remains a mere messenger boy? I don't see it that way and I deserve deep psychoanalysis from you?
Very interesting .....!!

aa5874

Again, your claim is erroneous. Paul was NOT a messenger boy in Acts. The Church considered Saul as a extremely significant evangelist and Barnabas went in SEARCH of Saul.

The very FIRST time people were called Christians in Acts of the Apostles was under the TEACHING of Saul and Barnabas in Antioch.


Acts of the Apostles" 11 It is just complete propaganda that Paul was a messenger boy in Acts.


Acts of the Apostles 18 In Acts of the Apostles Saul/Paul was NOT a messenger boy. Paul was the foremost evangelist For the Church based on Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles 19 It is so disturbing that even though we have Acts of the Apostles Canonised that people still put forward the most blatant erroneous claim that Paul was a messenger boy when he traveled with CHOSEN Men of the Church and Evangelised the Jews and Gentiles in Acts for YEARS.

Duvduv

If for the sake of argument the NT texts were all produced by a 4th century imperial committee, what would account for their putting together a package of epistles in the name of "Paul" that doesn't reference the world of the historical Jesus if they already had intentions of producing a gospel about the historical Jesus?

Presumably that committee could have creatively integrated Paul into a historical Jesus story or vice versa especially since there are different religious teachings in the gospels and epistles.

And even if the committee was not an imperial one, what would have been the religious purpose of producing a set of epistles for their religious sect before or after Acts? Would it serve as a manual or something, to then be followed by gospels that presented alternative religious idea?