Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 09:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They had no such authority. It was a Roman occupied city, and Paul had no such authority.

The Jews had their own laws. The Roman's didn't care if a Jew killed another Jew. You can see that this is true by reading Josephus.

Then why did they have to take Jesus to the Romans for execution ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 11:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 09:58 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The Jews had their own laws. The Roman's didn't care if a Jew killed another Jew. You can see that this is true by reading Josephus.

Then why did they have to take Jesus to the Romans for execution ?

Probably because of their own laws. It was the eve of the Passover, "Preparation Day." It's part of the Passover celebration. Their own laws may have forbid them from stoning Jesus during the Passover Celebration. They could imprison him, but they could not execute him.

That, or they really hated him and wanted to make a big example of him by getting him crucified which, according to their own doctrines, verifies that he was not a Messiah because he would be "hung on a tree."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 08:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 05:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Galatians (which you said was more reliable as you agreed it was written earlier) says that Paul was nowhere near Jerusalem for about 14 years during the formation of the early Church. Therefore he could not have been persecuting the Way sect in Jerusalem (as Acts claims) during that time.

One of the biggest problems with understanding many of these ancient texts is the inclusion of chapter and verse into the text. It is actually a bane to understanding it.

Now regarding Galatians, what you see in Chapter 2:1 is not the beginning, for the beginning starts in:

Gal 1:13 - 1:18  

For you heard my manner of life when I was in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with surpassing zeal, and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace,  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood;

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.


Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

Paul had already been converted for about 17 years in relation to his statements in Gal 2:1. The year at the time he went back to Jerusalem after 14 years would have been about CE 50-51.

Quote: Acts also says he was well known to the Church in Jerusalem, (which totally contradicts what he says in Galatians). At least one of them is not telling the truth.

I think this is answered by my previous statement in this post.

Quote: By what authority was Saul dragging anyone anywhere, in Jerusalem?

By the authority of the high priests; the Sanhedrin.

The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. These were all Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus.

2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem.

3. Paul entered into the equation, and begins persecuting Jews from the Church of Jerusalem. He raided households and threw Jews in prison for blasphemy. This caused many of these Nazarene Jews to flee Jerusalem to regions of Judea and Samaria, as indicated in Acts 8:1. Only the apostles remain in Jerusalem, obviously holed up in some secret place.

4. Paul, for some reason, becomes converted and heads off to Arabia and Damascus for 3 years.

5 Meanwhile, those who had become scattered from Jerusalem due to the stoning of Stephen "traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the Word to no one except the Jews." (Acts 11:19)

6. But then Barnabas finds Paul in Tarsus and takes him down to Antioch, where they preached for a whole year. This is where Paul's influence begins, and where the church begins to splinter. This is exactly when the term "Christian" was coined.

7. Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to fetch somebody to minister to those in Antioch (Acts 11:30). They returned from Jerusalem with John Mark in Acts 12:25.

8. The very next chapter is where you actually begin to see Paul splinter away from the Church of Jerusalem. It begins in Acts 13:13, with Paul in Antioch in Pisidia, he begins to preach his version of the Gospel. His version is not well received by many of the Jews there who subscribed to the Church of Jerusalem, and the following is exactly where we see the splinter between the Church of Jerusalem (The Nazarenes) and this new "Christian" sect:

Act 13:46  But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken to you first. But since indeed you put it far from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

And right there is the origin of the new splinter that became known as the Christian church. Next we see that the Gentiles rejoiced, but the Jews did not. Instead ...

Act 13:48 - 50 And hearing, the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the Word of the Lord was carried throughout all the country.

But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief ones of the city, and raised a persecution against Paul and Barnabas. And they threw them out of their borders.


And now we see Paul preaching to the Gentiles, and the rest is ... history.

The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus.


THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS. If you have any, produce it. I've asked you for this before, and you ignored me, so I'm not holding out any great hope.

"2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem."

You have no evidence for this, either.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2016 09:22 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 07:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 06:38 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  True, the oral tradition does need to be considered as a possibility, despite the fact that we can only make educated guesses as to what it would be. Nonetheless, it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable the influence of oral tradition.

With that said, though, Paul's letters don't seem to employ much that would come from oral tradition, aside from Jesus being crucified, his resurrection, and a couple quotes (Last Supper and mention of Pilate) possibly from the oral tradition or the Q source, which was likely an oral source also.

For example, only Acts and Peter ever mention the word "Christian." Paul never mentions it. Nor does Paul's letters ever mention any conversion on the road to Damascus such as Acts describes.

Therefore, Paul's letters alone must be considered the only reliable source for information regarding Paul.

Acts might help, but not much.

You and I appear to have a different definition of 'reliable'. Drinking Beverage

Not really, because you're right. It would be better said that Paul's letters alone might be considered as a somewhat reliable source for information regarding Paul, but that is only if we can sift through his bias and his bullshit, while desperately trying to navigate the narrow passages through his big fat fucking ego.

On second thought, fuck that. I'm taking the easy way out.

The Apostle Paul Never Existed!

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 08:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  One of the biggest problems with understanding many of these ancient texts is the inclusion of chapter and verse into the text. It is actually a bane to understanding it.

Now regarding Galatians, what you see in Chapter 2:1 is not the beginning, for the beginning starts in:

Gal 1:13 - 1:18  

For you heard my manner of life when I was in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with surpassing zeal, and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace,  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood;

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.


Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

Paul had already been converted for about 17 years in relation to his statements in Gal 2:1. The year at the time he went back to Jerusalem after 14 years would have been about CE 50-51.


I think this is answered by my previous statement in this post.


By the authority of the high priests; the Sanhedrin.

The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. These were all Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus.

2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem.

3. Paul entered into the equation, and begins persecuting Jews from the Church of Jerusalem. He raided households and threw Jews in prison for blasphemy. This caused many of these Nazarene Jews to flee Jerusalem to regions of Judea and Samaria, as indicated in Acts 8:1. Only the apostles remain in Jerusalem, obviously holed up in some secret place.

4. Paul, for some reason, becomes converted and heads off to Arabia and Damascus for 3 years.

5 Meanwhile, those who had become scattered from Jerusalem due to the stoning of Stephen "traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the Word to no one except the Jews." (Acts 11:19)

6. But then Barnabas finds Paul in Tarsus and takes him down to Antioch, where they preached for a whole year. This is where Paul's influence begins, and where the church begins to splinter. This is exactly when the term "Christian" was coined.

7. Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to fetch somebody to minister to those in Antioch (Acts 11:30). They returned from Jerusalem with John Mark in Acts 12:25.

8. The very next chapter is where you actually begin to see Paul splinter away from the Church of Jerusalem. It begins in Acts 13:13, with Paul in Antioch in Pisidia, he begins to preach his version of the Gospel. His version is not well received by many of the Jews there who subscribed to the Church of Jerusalem, and the following is exactly where we see the splinter between the Church of Jerusalem (The Nazarenes) and this new "Christian" sect:

Act 13:46  But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken to you first. But since indeed you put it far from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

And right there is the origin of the new splinter that became known as the Christian church. Next we see that the Gentiles rejoiced, but the Jews did not. Instead ...

Act 13:48 - 50 And hearing, the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the Word of the Lord was carried throughout all the country.

But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief ones of the city, and raised a persecution against Paul and Barnabas. And they threw them out of their borders.


And now we see Paul preaching to the Gentiles, and the rest is ... history.

The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus.


THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS. If you have any, produce it. I've asked you for this before, and you ignored me, so I'm not holding out any great hope.

"2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem."

You have no evidence for this, either.

The evidence for this has already been discussed to the point of ad nausium throughout this thread. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that you deny it or reject it.

But you go ahead and continue to believe your pet theories, because nobody else does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 09:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:The so called "pastoral epistles" are often said to be written in the early second century.

Often said? is there any consensus?

Quote: "Paul's" "genuine" letters are sometimes said to have been written by Marcion, and I was reading an article last night that claimed all the Pauline epistles are second century (I can't find it now.) You need to read more widely.

Sometimes said by whom? And who says all the Pauline epistles are second century?

Are you getting your information from mythicists, deniers, and/or radicals? You see, you often rail against the consensus that I use, while you yourself constantly look for a consensus to dispute it. Problem is, the consensus you try to use are usually a combination of dead people who's scholarship is outdated by at least 200 years, or non-scholars, or some radical fringe scholar nobody takes seriously.

Quote:Just for the record, my opinion is that Paul's genuine epistles were originally written in the 50's and 60's, yet I'm not arrogant enough to state that as absolute fact.

It is never an act of arrogance to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Quote:PS. Just found it...
http://www.egodeath.com/thefabricatedpaul.htm

So ... your "esteemed" scholar is, as I predicted, "fringe scholar" Hermann Detering? Aside from being branded a radical and a raging lunatic, you do understand that this is the same guy who uses texts written in the 3rd century to come to the conclusion that Paul is really Simon Magus, right?

For fuck sakes, Mark. Is it not possible for you to escape this conspiracy theory bullshit?

Quote:Thankyou

So you are thanking Mr. Ball for giving you a translation that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the Greek? The syntax of the sentence makes that translation impossible. But this is what you get when you adhere to a mythicist instead of actual scholarship.

Here's about 20 translations. Please show me just one that translates it as "made evident."

New International Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

New Living Translation
Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes? Isn't it because of my work that you belong to the Lord?

English Standard Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

New American Standard Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

King James Bible
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

International Standard Version
I am free, am I not? I am an apostle, am I not? I have seen Jesus our Lord, haven't I? You are the result of my work in the Lord, aren't you?

NET Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Am I not a son of freedom? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Yeshua The Messiah Our Lord? Are you not my work in my Lord?

GOD'S WORD Translation
Don't you agree that I'm a free man? Don't you agree that I'm an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus our Lord? Aren't you the result of my work for the Lord?

King James 2000 Bible
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not you my work in the Lord?

American King James Version
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not you my work in the Lord?

American Standard Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

Douay-Rheims Bible
AM not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

Darby Bible Translation
Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

English Revised Version
Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Webster's Bible Translation
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are ye not my work in the Lord?

Weymouth New Testament
Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Can it be denied that I have seen Jesus, our Lord? Are not you yourselves my work in the Lord?

World English Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Aren't you my work in the Lord?

Young's Literal Translation
Am not I an apostle? am not I free? Jesus Christ our Lord have I not seen? my work are not ye in the Lord?

You will need to dig deep into your X-Files to find a translation that agrees with Mr. Ball, "Mr, Mulder."

Consider

Dear bird brain, you made the claim that "virtually all scholars...."

I pulled you up.

Now, you are saying "all scholars who agree with me...agree with me."

You are so full of shit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS. If you have any, produce it. I've asked you for this before, and you ignored me, so I'm not holding out any great hope.

That is totally true. Jesus was a apocalyptic Jew, who thought the end-times were immanent.

Quote:"2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem."

You have no evidence for this, either.

Also true. The members of the Way sub-sect of Judaism remained Jews. At the end of the 1st Century, the High Priest had to have the Expulsion Curses read, as they (as Jews) were causing trouble in the synagogues. There is no evidence Peter "propagated" anything. The first gospel had no resurrection. IF that were the important impetus of cult growth, it would have been in the Gospel of Mark.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:Dear bird brain, you made the claim that "virtually all scholars...."


Hey, Mark. I bet he thinks that any scholars who don't agree with him aren't TRUE scholars!

The shitheads are famous for that routine.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
08-08-2016, 09:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 09:49 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Often said? is there any consensus?


Sometimes said by whom? And who says all the Pauline epistles are second century?

Are you getting your information from mythicists, deniers, and/or radicals? You see, you often rail against the consensus that I use, while you yourself constantly look for a consensus to dispute it. Problem is, the consensus you try to use are usually a combination of dead people who's scholarship is outdated by at least 200 years, or non-scholars, or some radical fringe scholar nobody takes seriously.


It is never an act of arrogance to reach a reasonable conclusion.


So ... your "esteemed" scholar is, as I predicted, "fringe scholar" Hermann Detering? Aside from being branded a radical and a raging lunatic, you do understand that this is the same guy who uses texts written in the 3rd century to come to the conclusion that Paul is really Simon Magus, right?

For fuck sakes, Mark. Is it not possible for you to escape this conspiracy theory bullshit?


So you are thanking Mr. Ball for giving you a translation that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the Greek? The syntax of the sentence makes that translation impossible. But this is what you get when you adhere to a mythicist instead of actual scholarship.

Here's about 20 translations. Please show me just one that translates it as "made evident."

New International Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

New Living Translation
Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes? Isn't it because of my work that you belong to the Lord?

English Standard Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

New American Standard Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

King James Bible
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

International Standard Version
I am free, am I not? I am an apostle, am I not? I have seen Jesus our Lord, haven't I? You are the result of my work in the Lord, aren't you?

NET Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Am I not a son of freedom? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Yeshua The Messiah Our Lord? Are you not my work in my Lord?

GOD'S WORD Translation
Don't you agree that I'm a free man? Don't you agree that I'm an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus our Lord? Aren't you the result of my work for the Lord?

King James 2000 Bible
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not you my work in the Lord?

American King James Version
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not you my work in the Lord?

American Standard Version
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

Douay-Rheims Bible
AM not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

Darby Bible Translation
Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

English Revised Version
Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Webster's Bible Translation
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are ye not my work in the Lord?

Weymouth New Testament
Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Can it be denied that I have seen Jesus, our Lord? Are not you yourselves my work in the Lord?

World English Bible
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Aren't you my work in the Lord?

Young's Literal Translation
Am not I an apostle? am not I free? Jesus Christ our Lord have I not seen? my work are not ye in the Lord?

You will need to dig deep into your X-Files to find a translation that agrees with Mr. Ball, "Mr, Mulder."

Consider

Dear bird brain, you made the claim that "virtually all scholars...."

I pulled you up.

Now, you are saying "all scholars who agree with me...agree with me."

You are so full of shit.

You and Mr. Ball were both slaughtered on that issue by (gulp!) Mr. Ball right HERE.

So if you took your head out of your egocentric ass you would have cared to read it.

Either that, or you need better crack.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 01:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 12:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They (the contrradistion) are HUGE essential parts of the story. One (Acts) says he was in Jerusalem a LOT, and familiar with ALL the players. Paul (in Galatians) totally contradicts this narrative, and says the opposite. They are two entirely different stories. At least one is a lie. You cannot possibly be an historian.

No ... no ... no.

You said "At least one is a lie" when any intellectually honest historian would say "At least one is inaccurate."

A lie is best defined as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What historians see in these ancient texts is not a lot of outright lies, but rather heaps and heaps of inaccuracies.

They also understand the nature of these ancient religious cultures, which bear absolutely no resemblance to modern cultures. You- via the historian's fallacy- will determine it to be lies, but actual historians know precisely what it is.

Acts is simply the works of an author who absolutely believed that the information he gathered was accurate according to his sources, and according to his own experiences. There was no intent to deliberately lie because he actually believed everything he wrote.

Paul's letters are the works of yet another religious person who also completely believed in what he was writing about. Paul may have been somewhat delusional, or motivated out of fear, or wrote what he wrote under the motivation of several different variables. But to say "he lied" only demonstrates a narrow-mindedness in which that is all you want to see, at the expense of what the truth may actually be.

My position is not a position that "somebody lied," but rather the more intellectually honest position that "somebody is inaccurate" for the simple reason that not every time that people make mistakes should they be considered a liar.

If that were the case, then every time you made a mistake on an exam, well by golly, you're nothing but a god damn good for nothing liar, right?

Big Grin

The book of Acts is not full of "mistakes," it is full of lies.

You are sugar coating it. The authors knew they were lying. They lied about Paul, about miracles, and about what people believed. There are scores of lies in Acts. I could reproduce them for you, but you wouldn't read it.

Paul lied too. Often. He wrote about his own delusions. He knew he was lying. It was a means to an end.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: