The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[Shad]

You made a naked assertion. Assertions are not arguments. And I did not disagree with you - you were crashing a conversation, making a completely inane and obvious assertion that related in no way to the conversation OR the thread topic.

All of these idiotic posts about my competency seem motivated by the fact that you can post the most elementary facts about the Roman Empire and Paul.

Congratulations. Whether or not you will actually contribute to the conversation - or at least participate in it - remains to be seen.

I provided a source as part of answer to a question within the thread. I also answered another question before the above answer.

You can also get off your high horse as looking through your own posts you have contributed nothing but childish remarks, assertions and games a child, or adult-child in your case, plays.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I provided a source as part of answer to a question within the thread. I also answered another question before the above answer.

You can also get off your high horse as looking through your own posts you have contributed nothing but childish remarks, assertions and games a child, or adult-child in your case, plays.

I see you've graduated from sophomoric lunacy to complete fabrication. Congrats.

I responded to no post of yours that had a source.

EDIT: Oh, I see you're talking about your silly use of Acts. A verse with nothing else is a 'source.'

Sigh. I haven't been this low is a long time.

 

[Shad]

But you qualified your first statement regarding citizenship the word "only"


It was vague and you got rightfully called on it.


I don't have the papers and degrees to be a scholar, but we do have a few resident scholars that do..

Which was accurate. civitas (ancient Rome) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Birth. Granted by the People which is the State. Generals which are the military arm of the State. The Social Wars as part of a treaty which was part of the State. Military service again granted by the State. Casear, leader of the State.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dear god we've hit rock bottom.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which was accurate. civitas (ancient Rome) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Birth. Granted by the People which is the State. Generals which are the military arm of the State. The Social Wars as part of a treaty which was part of the State. Military service again granted by the State. Casear, leader of the State.

Thanks again, Capt. Obvious.

 

[Shad]

I see you've graduated from sophomoric lunacy to complete fabrication. Congrats.

I responded to no post of yours that had a source.

I stated what I had knowledge of. Rather than refuting anything I said with evidence you made assertions yourself and hid behind emoticons.

Look above....

Here are a few more

LacusCurtius ? Roman Citizenship (Smith's Dictionary, 1875)

Roman laws and Charts, Ernest George Hardy.
The World of the Citizen in the Republican Rome, Claude Nicolet
Ancient Rome: An Introductory History, Paul Zoch

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I stated what I had knowledge of. Rather than refuting anything I said with evidence you made assertions yourself and hid behind emoticons.

Look above....

Here are a few more

LacusCurtius ? Roman Citizenship (Smith's Dictionary, 1875)

Roman laws and Charts, Ernest George Hardy.
The World of the Citizen in the Republican Rome, Claude Nicolet
Ancient Rome: An Introductory History, Paul Zoch

Oh my, thanks. My stars I've never seen anything like this.

Forgive me, I was blinded by the radiance of your wisdom rather than guided by its light.

 

[Shad]

Most of the NT has no other source.

However I see clearly you have no interest in any discussion outside childish comments.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most of the NT has no other source.

However I see clearly you have no interest in any discussion outside childish comments.

There are interpretations of those sources. You know, interpretations that situate the writing within all of its various contexts in order to determine its meaning. And I don't know, maybe knowing that Acts is a novel [genre matters!] with no substantial historical credibility would have helped you use its evidence more responsibly.

But we know you're an expert in Roman slavery, not biblical interpretation, so we can forgive that little slip.

 

[Shad]

Interpretations of sources which no one has found. If you want to take this stance you might as well dismiss the NT completely.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Interpretations of sources which no one has found. If you want to take this stance you might as well dismiss the NT completely.

Only if I were an idiot. You see, I realize that the New Testament contains many genres - novel, gospel, epistle/speech, apocalyptic. Each genre serves its purpose - if we neglect the genre, we cannot possibly understand what the text says.

You see, your wonderfully insightful post that made naked assertions about Roman slavery outlined some of the ways that ancient folks became Roman citizens. You neglected the simple fact that Paul was a citizen simply because he needed to be one in the early Christian novel 'Luke-Acts.'
Paul was a citizen because it served an important role in the story. So he was a fictive citizen, not a real one - at least if you want to use Acts (and he nowhere says it in his own writing, hmmm).

 

[outhouse]

. So he was a fictive citizen, not a real one - at least if you want to use Acts (and he nowhere says it in his own writing, hmmm).

While I would agree it could go that way.

I see no reason to think a Hellenist such as Paul may not have been a citizen.

It is not known for certain, I tend to have the opinion he was. civus romani non optimo jure

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While I would agree it could go that way.

I see no reason to think a Hellenist such as Paul may not have been a citizen.

It is not known for certain, I tend to have the opinion he was. civus romani non optimo jure

Yes, I think so too. But using a single verse from Acts is not proof that he was. In fact, most of the evidence indicates that he was not a Roman citizen - his beatings, which he could have avoided by simply stating that he was a citizen; his occupation as a tentmaker is lower class (not upper!); and he never mentions it. The evidence, while not decisive, leans heavily toward the negative. In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all were it not mentioned in an early Christian novel.

******
And our dear friend contributed nothing to the discussion, except to point out the abundantly obvious, and demonstrating an inability to determine when someone is not disagreeing with him. Warmest congrats.

And similar to the ability that our dear friend has shown in using ancient evidence - with what little knowledge he does have - is able to make judgments on competency based on a lack of debate with the most elementary points of the topic.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I think so too. But using a single verse from Acts is not proof that he was. In fact, most of the evidence indicates that he was not a Roman citizen - his beatings, which he could have avoided by simply stating that he was a citizen; his occupation as a tentmaker is lower class (not upper!); and he never mentions it. The evidence, while not decisive, leans heavily toward the negative. In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all were it not mentioned in an early Christian novel.

******
.

So the trial must have been in Acts to which citizenship was needed for?

Im not sure Paul would have needed to mention it, but he was a motor mouth lol loves to talk.


What is funny is a place less credibility with Paul being a Jew then a citizen.

To me he fits squarely into context of a life long Proselyte, which is some circles would be considered a Jew, yet not in other places.

being a Jew during this period os a pretty complex definition

 

[outhouse]

except to point out the abundantly obvious

.

letting go of certainties, is something I am reminding myself the more I learn.

 

[Shad]

Only if I were an idiot. You see, I realize that the New Testament contains many genres - novel, gospel, epistle/speech, apocalyptic. Each genre serves its purpose - if we neglect the genre, we cannot possibly understand what the text says.

You see, your wonderfully insightful post that made naked assertions about Roman slavery outlined some of the ways that ancient folks became Roman citizens. You neglected the simple fact that Paul was a citizen simply because he needed to be one in the early Christian novel 'Luke-Acts.'
Paul was a citizen because it served an important role in the story. So he was a fictive citizen, not a real one - at least if you want to use Acts (and he nowhere says it in his own writing, hmmm).

If you noticed I asked why he was a citizen hence a question. Rather than providing the view you did above you went off on a tangent of emoticons and useless diversions which said nothing.

Parts of the Bible are fiction for the sake of telling a story. However where does one draw the line between fiction and non-fiction, history and myth? One could argue since all sources of Jesus are not of his own writing many of Jesus' actions are fictional for the sake of a story. A story which becomes more myth than history the further this line of thought is taken. Do you draw an arbitrary line in the sand when the story confirms your faith like so many? The external references to Jesus state he was a person and was killed, that is it. Do you take this view only and suspend opinion regarding everything else the Bible says about him? Obviously not. However it does show you make exceptions for the sake of faith rather than continuing this line of thought and dismiss everything but a guy named Jesus lived and was executed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the trial must have been in Acts to which citizenship was needed for?

Im not sure Paul would have needed to mention it, but he was a motor mouth lol loves to talk.


What is funny is a place less credibility with Paul being a Jew then a citizen.

To me he fits squarely into context of a life long Proselyte, which is some circles would be considered a Jew, yet not in other places.

being a Jew during this period os a pretty complex definition

Almost, at least in my view. Citizenship was the mechanism that the author used to get Paul to Rome: the appeal.

 

[outhouse]

However where does one draw the line between fiction and non-fiction, history and myth?

.

Social and cultural anthropology, to place them in context.

Writing styles such as Aristotle's teachings in rhetorical prose and Greek novels.

Archeology which dictates anthropology.

Mythology to know about preexisting beliefs and patterns.


And the ability to be honest about the grey areas where educated guesses are as good as it gets.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is funny is a place less credibility with Paul being a Jew then a citizen.

To me he fits squarely into context of a life long Proselyte, which is some circles would be considered a Jew, yet not in other places.

I'm not sure about this idea. There's not a hint anywhere that Paul is not a Jew, and a lot of things wouldn't make sense if he weren't.

- He says in more than one genuine epistle that he's a Jew
- He displays a Jewish education
- Certain events described in the letters - identifying with the Jews and not Gentiles

Of course all of this could be written by a proselyte, but only if we dismiss Paul's word about who he was.

And we must consider that Paul's epistles indicate that he had disagreements with a variety of people/groups and none of these groups argued that Paul was not a Jew. They challenged his apostleship, his teachings concerning grace, his practices related to diet and circumcision, theology of baptism, theology of work, and so on. These groups attacked various points of his character and practice: he never met Jesus, he was not a good speaker, he didn't have a letter of introduction from other churches, they derided him for being poor, and more. But none of them challenged his claim to be Jewish.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I think so too. But using a single verse from Acts is not proof that he was. In fact, most of the evidence indicates that he was not a Roman citizen - his beatings, which he could have avoided by simply stating that he was a citizen; his occupation as a tentmaker is lower class (not upper!); and he never mentions it. The evidence, while not decisive, leans heavily toward the negative. In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all were it not mentioned in an early Christian novel.

******
And our dear friend contributed nothing to the discussion, except to point out the abundantly obvious, and demonstrating an inability to determine when someone is not disagreeing with him. Warmest congrats.

And similar to the ability that our dear friend has shown in using ancient evidence - with what little knowledge he does have - is able to make judgments on competency based on a lack of debate with the most elementary points of the topic.

Citizenship does not mean he was rich and I never implied this. I hope you realize that there were tens of thousands of poor Romans with Rome itself. I clearly stated citizenship granted certain rights not wealth. This is your issue you are projecting on to me and frankly using it to create a strawman. Also you clearly never read the verse I posted as it was about him being a Jew not a Roman citizen. My sources on Roman citizenship which in respond to Outhouse comment in which I used "only" as the parameter in which one gains citizenship. Again you create another strawman which you can knockdown not something I said.

Again I was answering a question. If the answer was abundantly obvious there would of never been a question for me to answer in the first place.

My judgement of your competency is based on your inability to follow the line of thought, what I posted, your strawman arguments and the childish games you played.