Paul did not write Acts.
Luke wrote the book of Acts , which is not a book in the first place , but collection of letters.
It is written in that way.
The author of Luke wrote Acts. This author, as they tell us at the beginning of their writing, is creating this text as part of a commission to someone, and they have gone out and found all the sources they could find. They never give us their name, and only later tradition names him Luke.
The book of Acts is not a collection of letters. No scholar supports that view. It is just the second part of the book of Luke.
You can't just jump to such conclusions.
First and most important , nobody would do that , 'I am A Roman citizen and i used that right'.
Would you if you were in that situation?
What I would do in a situation is irrelevant. And Paul does just that in Acts. He basically says, I'm a Roman citizen, I demand to be treated as such. Paul is portrayed as using a rhetorical question, can you legally flog a Roman citizen who isn't found to be guilty, to stop from being flogged.
I didn't jump to any conclusions. Acts and the Letters of Paul stand in contrast in quite a few instances. Paul contradicts what is written in Acts numerous times. This means they can't both be correct. Logic suggests that when it comes to Paul, we take his word as the primary source, not Acts. So if Paul doesn't mention something, and seems to contradict such a notion, we should take him more seriously.
Nono , these are basic mistakes.
We see clearly that he did not wrote Acts.
Not a basic mistake. Paul, as you admit here, didn't write Acts. Acts is our only source for Paul being a Roman citizen. So Paul, himself, never states he was a Roman citizen. Thus, there is no reason to think he was a Roman citizen.
Well yes , he never mentiones that as every normal person would do.
Here's the issue. You claim no normal person would simply claim they are a Roman citizen. Yet, in Acts, that is what Paul does. The entire argument for Paul being a Roman citizen is based on something you claim no normal person would do. So, by your logic, having Paul claim to be a Roman citizen, as happens in Acts, is not normal, and one would think we can dismiss that claim. Thus, Paul is not a Roman citizen.
From mid 2nd century BCE to 70 AD.
That's like 6 generations.
And Luke reports about that in Acts.
More like 4 or 5. Paul wasn't born or even lived in 70 A.D., so you can't count all of that time. Paul was born in the first half of the first century. More so, we don't know if Paul's grandparents were Pharisees. We are only told that his parents were. So yeah, not a massive amount of time.
Yes we have , you assumed that Paul wrote Acts , and everything you said goes in deep water.
I never assumed Paul wrote Acts. I in fact suggested otherwise by discounting Acts.
Ok , he was Jewish.
Where did you get the 'stressed'?
He talks about being Jewish quite frequently, and his pedigree. I would say that is stressing the fact that he is Jewish.
Acts says otherways , the first time the word "Christians" was used by the People in Antioch
Acts is prior to Romans.
It is more clear that you should start this again from the beginning.
Acts may be before Romans in the Bible, but Romans was written by Paul, probably in the 50s. Acts was written by the author of Luke at the end of the 1st Century, decades after Romans.
After the Great Fire yes , and days after that , not years.
The great fire is long after Paul. It has no bearing on this discussion.
Yes , because he is explaining what he dis when he was persecuting them as a Pharasiee.
He was persecuting them as a Jew. He then sided with them, as a Jew. In specific, as a Pharisaic Jew. He never denounces that.
He does not have to say it , he has to show it.
He continues claiming he's Jewish. And again, Christianity is part of Judaism and remains that way until long after Paul is dead.
Christianity is not a religion , it is a belief in one man who claimed to be God.
And what is with this 'Part'?
Paul is the greatest missionery in Christianity.He was not part of that movement , he ministered himself in that cause.
Christianity, by definition, is a religion. Paul was part of the Christ movement.
Neither Jews ,neither Scholars agree on this.They considered them apostates from the minute they worshiped Jesus.
No they didn't. There is no evidence for that. In fact, all mainline scholars disagree with your statement here. Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christainity argues the position I am. Fredrickson in From Jesus to Christ, argues the same position that I am. We have E.P. Sanders and his three book series on Jesus and Judiasm that agrees with this position. The position I'm taking is the standard, mainline position here.
It seems to me that this is just above your head.That's what i notice from your answers.
You don't understand the line of evidence , and not to talk about narrative and Textual Criticism.
Maybe you should read Galatians again.
This is an ad hominem. The position I'm taking is the standard position taught in mainline colleges and seminaries. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there is something wrong with me. You can certainly do better.
This what you do is a forgery.
Have you studies all of the earliest evidence?
The Pastoral Epistles, which are First and Second Timothy, and Titus, are almost universally recognized as forgeries. They were not written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul. We know this because if we study these in comparison to the authentic letters of Paul, we notice some things that really stick out. First, the Pastoral Epistles disagree with the core texts of Paul. Second, the writing style does not appear to be of the writing style of Paul. They differ significantly. Three, the word choice and grammar differ from core Pauline Texts. Fourth, they appear to be talking about a later time in history, a time in which Paul was probably already dead. There is sound reason as to why most scholars discount these texts.
20 scholars max which have been answered like trilion times that a bloody consensus does not solve anything and they will be stuck with that for their whole study.
The original Gospels which are lost or stealed or whatever were there before Paul' and Peter' death.
Otherwise it does not make any sense that nobody wrote nothing about their death.The death that could have culminated the ministry of the 2 Apostoles who had the most influence on the next generations.
That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries are taught in mainline colleges and seminaries. Every treatment of them by scholars for at least the past 100 years have discounted them. It's not 20 scholars, we are looking at all NT scholars. This is what has been taught for generations. A consensus doesn't solve anything, but it does suggest something. And when we break down those texts, as I did above, there is a reason why the consensus is this way.
The original Gospels don't appear until after 70 A.D. Paul and Peter are dead by then. And it makes sense that their deaths aren't mentioned because it wasn't part of the story being told. The Gospels end after the death of Jesus. Why would they then jump forward decades to say, oh yeah, Peter and Paul died too?
Ask any scholar where did Paul died , or do you take on consensus only when it's neccessary?
Most scholars would say we don't really know.
Wrong.
Jesus was his leadership.
I understand that.
It is because you don't know much about traditional Christianity.
Paul doesn't go to Jesus to get permission. He goes to James, who was the head of the movement after the death of Jesus. James was in a leadership position.
And I know a lot about traditional Christianity. You resorting to ad hominem doesn't change that fact.
