Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[angellous_evangellous]

My bad. I misunderstood what you said earlier. Now I guess you'll harp on this instead of discussing any of the other issues as an excuse.

No, I hate it when people do that.

I am glad we cleared it up, though. Thanks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now back to Paul..how do we explain this discrepancy in Acts?

So what does this have to do with Paul?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now back to Paul..how do we explain this discrepancy in Acts?

Just for poops and giggles (and not pretending that Acts has any bearing on Paul)

Version One:

Acts 9:3-17: "…[Saul] was approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'…The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.…there was a…disciple at Damascus named Ananias…laid his hands on Saul and said, `Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Version Two:

Acts 22:6-21: "While I was…approaching Damascus…a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying…Saul,Saul, why are you persecuting me?...those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice…I could not see because of the brightness of the light…those with me…led me to Damascus…

This is interesting. I've found that the ESV translates "hear" in "Version 2" as "understand." So one can say that they heard it but didn't understand it. I've read it in the Greek and this flows nicely, but is forced IMHO.

I also checked the textual variants, and as far as I can tell, there's no effort by later copyists to correct a "discrepancy." This could mean that the early copyists, who knew the text very well and did correct many perceived errors, for some reason read it in a way (I don't know how right now) that did not present the same discrepancy that we see in whatever translation you used.

 

[Shermana]

So what does this have to do with Paul?

Well what other account is there that Paul actually saw Jesus other than this seemingly contradictory recollection in Acts?

 

[Shermana]

Just for poops and giggles (and not pretending that Acts has any bearing on Paul)



This is interesting. I've found that the ESV translates "hear" in "Version 2" as "understand." So one can say that they heard it but didn't understand it. I've read it in the Greek and this flows nicely, but is forced IMHO.

I also checked the textual variants, and as far as I can tell, there's no effort by later copyists to correct a "discrepancy." This could mean that the early copyists, who knew the text very well and did correct many perceived errors, for some reason read it in a way (I don't know how right now) that did not present the same discrepancy that we see in whatever translation you used.

It's not just the ESV, but also the NIV and NLT (which I often use for certain things though its wrong on others like here) that tries to reconcile this discrepancy by saying that it means to "Understand", but however, as you can see, it appears the only time it is ever used as "Understand" as opposed to physically hearing....is in these translations of that verse. Everywhere else it is used as "hear". 191. ????? (akouó) -- to hear, listen

What this has to do with Paul is very important as to whether or this account of his receiving a Holy Revelation of Yashua is legit or has some holes in the story. Can you find other examples of the word being used for "understand"? What is the word used in other languages like the Vulgate?

There are many other claimed "discrepencies", like 700 horsemen or 7000 horsemen for example, or whether Midian was totally wiped out or not and others (one could interpret it to mean that they were mostly wiped out), that the copyists kept on copying. Whether they are doctrinal or scribal errors is up to debate.

Copyists kept on copying 1 John 5:7 in the Vulgate for example in a way that was not in the Greek, and the English versions didn't account for this until the 19th century.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good, so now as you can see, you lose.

:help:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I will give you this however, this article does a good job actually explaining why the Qumran community might not have been the Essenes.

http://www.cornerstonesociety.com/Insight/Articles/essenes.pdf

But it instead links the Qumran community as possibly the early Christians, as I hypothesized on the other thread.

Your hypothesis so beautifully reflects the attitude toward scholarship which enables it - both charmingly worthless.

The Early Christians

Of further interest is that one of the other terms of self-definition used by the Qumran community was ‘Keepers of the Covenant’, in Hebrew, Nozrei ha-Brit. This is the origin of the term Nozrim, which was one of the first Hebrew names for the group which later became known as ‘Christians’.[ix] Modern Arabic Nasrani, meaning ‘Christians’, comes from the same source. Also derived from the same source is the term ‘Nazorean’ or ‘Nazarene’, the term of self-definition used by the first Christians in the Gospels and the Acts. The later village of Nazareth may derive its name from the presence of Nazarene

Masterful. :biglaugh:

<wink>

Let no one allow the observation that the Habakkuk Commentary is dated to 111 BCE - 2 CE dampen Shermana'a enthusiastic embrace of this silliness.​

</wink>​

 

[waitasec]

Acts 9:3-17: "&#8230;[Saul] was approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'&#8230;The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.&#8230;there was a&#8230;disciple at Damascus named Ananias&#8230;laid his hands on Saul and said, `Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Version Two:

Acts 22:6-21: "While I was&#8230;approaching Damascus&#8230;a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying&#8230;Saul,Saul, why are you persecuting me?...those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice&#8230;I could not see because of the brightness of the light&#8230;those with me&#8230;led me to Damascus&#8230;

This is interesting. I've found that the ESV translates "hear" in "Version 2" as "understand." So one can say that they heard it but didn't understand it. I've read it in the Greek and this flows nicely, but is forced IMHO.

I also checked the textual variants, and as far as I can tell, there's no effort by later copyists to correct a "discrepancy." This could mean that the early copyists, who knew the text very well and did correct many perceived errors, for some reason read it in a way (I don't know how right now) that did not present the same discrepancy that we see in whatever translation you used.

i don't think the word for hearing or the understanding is the discrepancy...

one account says they did hear/understand the other says they didn't.

 

[outhouse]

i don't think the word for hearing or the understanding is the discrepancy...

one account says they did hear/understand the other says they didn't.

and many claim zero fiction

 

[imaginaryme]

Paul is the real deal. Arrogant, self-affirming, uptight little creep; but the real deal.

 

[outhouse]

Paul is the real deal. Arrogant, self-affirming, uptight little creep; but the real deal.

how does that answer this????

Paul..fake liar or apostle?

 

[Shermana]

Your hypothesis so beautifully reflects the attitude toward scholarship which enables it - both charmingly worthless. Masterful. :biglaugh:

<wink>

Let no one allow the observation that the Habakkuk Commentary is dated to 111 BCE - 2 CE dampen Shermana'a enthusiastic embrace of this silliness.​

</wink>​

Why don't you explain why exactly. I don't see why that would dampen by this hypothesis, the community kind of lived for awhile and probably kept storing documents up until then too. I dismiss the dating of Daniel at 160 B.C. too, do you know why they gave that date? Purely out of ideology, they couldn't accept the fact that Daniel was written before Antiochus. But regardless, how does that disprove anything? Did I say that this group only existed around the time of Jesus and not before? You say I dismiss scholarship, yet you had no idea who Baur is, and you completely write off the Tubingen school. Trying to cover for your own hypocrisy?

I notice you ONLY harp on this one single issue, any particular reason? Why do you ignore the actual specifics about Paul? Why did you even bring up the Essene issue on this thread to begin with? Are you trying to attack one subject with another?

 

[Shermana]

Paul is the real deal. Arrogant, self-affirming, uptight little creep; but the real deal.

Real deal liar? Yes we can tell by the fact that he can't keep his story straight about his alleged vision of Jesus.

 

[imaginaryme]

how does that answer this????

Paul..fake liar or apostle?

It doesn't answer for the one called outhouse, as I and thee are fundamentally different questions.

In the general sense, I say apostle; but only as I have a valid Pauline theology that stands against - without being opposed to - the cultural Christianity of my context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why did you even bring up the Essene issue on this thread to begin with? Are you trying to attack one subject with another?

Quite right. See here.

 

[Shermana]

Quite right. See here.

Wow I didn't realize you were such a fan. If anything I learned that the Qumran community may not have been the Essenes, but the evidence still suggests that their practices were very similar to early Christians. And they were possibly called "Nazoreans" and maybe even had a community called "Nazareth".

So do you have anything on the subject of Paul? We can discuss the Qumran community on that thread instead.

 

[imaginaryme]

Real deal liar? Yes we can tell by the fact that he can't keep his story straight about his alleged vision of Jesus.

His theology evolves from 1 Thessalonians to the masterwork of Romans. If it is necessary for the listener to hear words of "absolute purity," then I would not recommend the words of Paul. If the listener can find wordless measure of cultural context in a story of becoming (rather than one of being) then Paul's is the story to tell.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So do you have anything on the subject of Paul? We can discuss the Qumran community on that thread instead.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Shermana]

His theology evolves from 1 Thessalonians to the masterwork of Romans. If it is necessary for the listener to hear words of "absolute purity," then I would not recommend the words of Paul. If the listener can find wordless measure of cultural context in a story of becoming (rather than one of being) then Paul's is the story to tell.

So what do you mean by "His Theology evolves"? Are you saying it changes as he goes on? Just like his story about the voice?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is interesting. I've found that the ESV translates "hear" in "Version 2" as "understand." So one can say that they heard it but didn't understand it.

As those who have raised children can attest.

The point is this. If there is a contradiction, it is a blatant one, and it is extremely difficult to explain why it was not subsequently redacted. This is a particularly difficult question for those who presume that Paul and those who immediately followed him had few if any scrupples when it came to such things.