What happens next?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you only accept what someone in history said if it was written by the person himself? That must really limit your knowledge base.

The textual fact remains. I really do not understand why it bothers you so much.

Luke was a known traveling partner with Paul and recorded his words and actions.

That is a later Christian tradition not a historical fact.

Regardless, you don't accept anything in the bible as history even when Paul is the author.

I accept that someone called Paul wrote seven epistles that are found in the New Testament.

However, as I noted to you in another thread, there is very little history in the Bible.

So nobody really cares about what you think about it.

Then why you do keep posting replies concerning my comments and my views ?

[Sparko]

The textual fact remains. I really do not understand why it bothers you so much.

That is a later Christian tradition not a historical fact.

I accept that someone called Paul wrote seven epistles that are found in the New Testament.

However, as I noted to you in another thread, there is very little history in the Bible.

Then why you do keep posting replies concerning my comments and my views ?

Even you realize that your claim is nonsensical, right?

"textual fact"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Even you realize that your claim is nonsensical, right?

"textual fact"

The textual fact is that nowhere does Paul use that particular word in reference to himself.

And why does it bother you so much?

[Sparko]

The textual fact is that nowhere does Paul use that particular word in reference to himself.

And why does it bother you so much?

So what? Do you think that just because he never wrote the exact words "I am a Jew" in his epistles that means he wasn't a Jew? Or that Luke lied when he quoted Paul?

This is just another troll game with you. It's stupid.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So what? Do you think that just because he never wrote the exact words "I am a Jew" in his epistles that means he wasn't a Jew?

I have no idea. I simply noted that nowhere does Paul use that term to describe himself.

Or that Luke lied when he quoted Paul?

Why do you assume the author must have been lying?

It is a very childish reaction.

The fact is that the author of Acts is not writing a verbatim account. He is writing a narrative from a much later period.

And again, why does it all bother you so much?

[Sparko]

I have no idea. I simply noted that nowhere does Paul use that term to describe himself.


Why do you assume the author must have been lying?

It is a very childish reaction.

The fact is that the author of Acts is not writing a verbatim account. He is writing a narrative from a much later period.

And again, why does it all bother you so much?

It doesn't bother me, you do. I just wish you would stop with the silly troll games. Try being a productive member of Theologyweb instead of a pain in the rear all the time.

[tabibito]

Even you realize that your claim is nonsensical, right?

"textual fact"

It is a textual fact that Paul did not identify himself as a Jew - a particularly ambiguous reference which would have been all but useless. Identifying as a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham, and a Benjamite is far more specific. By contrast, "Jew" might have identified him alternatively as a Judahite (which he wasn't; Jesus had been), or a member of the temple sect (which he had been, but no longer was), or a native of Judaea (which he wasn't), or a Hebrew (in which case, "Hebrew" would have been a more appropriate identification), or a worshipper of YHVH (which he was).

Of course, in the current terminology, he was a Jew - but the current definition was not in vogue during the first and second centuries.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It doesn't bother me, you do.

Yet you keep posting about it.


Why are you so bothered about the fact that Paul never uses that term for himself?

[tabibito]

Yet you keep posting about it.


Why are you so bothered about the fact that Paul never uses that term for himself?

You seem to have considered the fact significant. I'm not sure what it was intended to signify though.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You could start by checking Wiki:

Ah your reference work of choice. Do you not have access to a single book on any of these topics?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You seem to have considered the fact significant. I'm not sure what it was intended to signify though.

I made the comment in passing some years ago and since then various individuals have returned to it rather as the dog does to its vomit

[tabibito]

I made the comment in passing some years ago and since then various individuals have returned to it rather as the dog does to its vomit

Interesting. You certainly attempted to cast doubt on the idea that Paul was a Jew, and on the possibility that he had been a Pharisee - positing that he might have been Herodian through a convoluted chain of reasoning centred on his claim to be "of the tribe of Benjamin" to boot.

... nowhere in the Greek does Paul ever use the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. In fact I Corinthians 9.20 appears to be an acknowledgement that he is not a Jew.

However, Paul's claim to be of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is likewise interesting. Benjamin sometimes functioning as a variation of the "Belial/Balaam" terminology. Bela in OT genealogies [reliable or not] is not only an Edomite King but the "son of Be'or" the same parentage ascribed to Balaam. It is therefore not inconceivable that Saul/Paul was a Herodian.

[eider]

Lemme guess --- you found JimL's stash.

You're clearly a bit niggled with JimL, hence the constant trolling?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting. You certainly attempted to cast doubt on the idea that Paul was a Jew, and on the possibility that he had been a Pharisee - positing that he might have been Herodian through a convoluted chain of reasoning centred on his claim to be "of the tribe of Benjamin" to boot.

... nowhere in the Greek does Paul ever use the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. In fact I Corinthians 9.20 appears to be an acknowledgement that he is not a Jew.

However, Paul's claim to be of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is likewise interesting. Benjamin sometimes functioning as a variation of the "Belial/Balaam" terminology. Bela in OT genealogies [reliable or not] is not only an Edomite King but the "son of Be'or" the same parentage ascribed to Balaam. It is therefore not inconceivable that Saul/Paul was a Herodian.

The above remarks are dependent upon how one views Paul. I do not see the man in the way that I suspect you and other Christians who post here do.

[tabibito]

The above remarks are dependent upon how one views Paul. I do not see the man in the way that I suspect you and other Christians who post here do.

It's a safe bet that almost no-one views Paul in the way that you would have it that they believe.