They are not Christians!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

On my copy the title is nearly worn off the spine. I also have his "Those Incredible Christians" as well as "If This Be Heresy" by James Pike and "Christian Agnostic" by Leslie D. Weatherhead. I picked some of them up when my local library was getting rid of older books. Don't know where I got the rest.

I am not overly interested!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

All very well, but the account doesn't say it happened at noon. Presumably, if an "augural event" had happened (this is the first time I have encountered such a claim for noon) the record would have shown "at noon," not at some time "around noon."

And why that particular part of the day?

My my - suddenly you have discovered the phenomenon known as conjugation - there are not two words used, there are two forms of the same word.

Which is effectively what I wrote.

Ananias said that Paul had seen Christ on the road - the worst that can be said is that Ananias may have been mistaken.

Really? On what evidence?

Are you unfamiliar with the phenomenon of one word having two or more meanings? Surely not.

The Greek verb ἀκούω refers to hearing something either directly or indirectly [by hearsay] or by fully understanding what has been heard. That does not include intuiting by some other means.

The same person wrote both accounts. Either he did not notice the anomalies, or he did not consider that the anomalies made a material difference to the narrative.

So the author of Acts got his facts mixed up?

Details being different doesn't necessarily create a different narrative

They do when two accounts of the supposed same event are odds with one another.

What is that phrase you are so fond of? - something about oversimplifying a complex matter, which in this case you are quite happy to do.

The textual fact remains that in chapter 9 Ananias is a disciple but in chapter 22 he is sent by the Jews and is described as "who was a devout man according to the law", that law being the Mosaic law.

Chapter 22 addresses Paul's own testimony about his own experience. Ananias' experience is not part of Paul's.

Much of the difference simply arises from the differences in perspective. Acts 9 is not a record of a personal account, Acts 22 is.

Once again you offer speculative observations for which you have not an iota of evidence. All we have are the texts as they have come down to us.

Jews who accepted the gospel message were interested in baptism. Those who didn't accept the message weren't.

A man who was "devout" "according to the law" would have no interest in baptism as a means to achieve "sins washed away"

At the time in question, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and definitely considered that baptism washed sins away.

Acts is not being written in the mid first century CE. It is a work written as the two religions start to split and is an attempt to harmonise past differences. I would suggest it is more of a legitimating narrative which makes its case by telling a story. It can be construed as either legitimising Pauline Christianity [perhaps as a response to the rivalry of other interpretations] or as a more general claim of this movement in that it had gained possession of the Israelite heritage - as early second century ECFs such Justin would allege.

Marked" differences are not in the texts, they are products of your imagination. There are some minor differences.

There are distinct anomalies.

Whether the instructions arrived is not recorded. That is not the same as recording their non-arrival.

We are not told in those chapters of Acts when they arrived.

Did you fail to notice that Paul saw Christ in a vision

Not in Damascus according to chapter 22.

As stated before, the experiences are related from different perspectives. Neither report can be said to contradict the other in any significant way. When one report that mentions something that passes unmentioned in another, that is not a contradiction - it is a more detailed report regarding the matter.

As noted once again you cannot conceive of any issues with your narratives as they have come down to you.

[rogue06]

So you think that the gospels agree with each other........ok...that's what you think.


That's not how I review the gospels......... I gave Sparko a short list of how I review the gospels..... let me described this action as 'Trawling for Truth'... that has a nice ring about it that you can quote as often as you like. That's much better than selecting from a salad-bar (MacDonalds for me! )

I think that Jesus survived the cross, ok? So with that in mind let me explain that 'he is risen....' (G-Mark) meant that he was got up and away. No rising from the dead for me to believe in.
But you do! I understand that.

Substitute trolling for trawling. You have no interest in truth which actually involve facts and evidence since you prefer baseless speculation, wild assertions and flights of fancy.

[rogue06]

You must think that Galilean boatmen and publicans had a lot of time off, and plenty of money to spend at all those wonderful venues!
It's back-to-school ...I think. You need to discover what kinds of life the peasant population of Galilean had.
And your trips to Tiberias....... Ha ha!
They worked! And they worked! Long hours, hard (shortened) lives.
Their children didn't have breakfast and go to school you know...... I wonder what you think Galilean peasant children actually did?

Observant Jews observed the festivals regardless of status. Just like they followed the Sabbath.

You keep exposing a nasty elitist and classist attitude, but then again, you are British where such things still thrive.

[rogue06]

As a matter of interest, have you read Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot? It remains an interesting read.

On my copy the title is nearly worn off the spine. I also have his "Those Incredible Christians" as well as "If This Be Heresy" by James Pike and "Christian Agnostic" by Leslie D. Weatherhead. I picked some of them up when my local library was getting rid of older books. Don't know where I got the rest.

[rogue06]

On the whole, it looks as though the only time Paul actually penned his letters might have been when they were personal. It isn't easy to work out whether the claims about an eyesight problem might be accurate. A tent-maker might have trouble without good eyesight (perhaps; the objection has been raised, but I haven't investigated claim and counterclaim.)

It might depend on his role in making the tents. Fine stitching requires decent eyesight but preparing the skins themselves might not.

[tabibito]

The term "noon" is introduced in chapter 22 and noon like midnight may be used in narratives as an augural moment for events to occur.

All very well, but the account doesn't say it happened at noon. Presumably, if an "augural event" had happened (this is the first time I have encountered such a claim for noon) the record would have shown "at noon," not at some time "around noon."

The two words used in 9 and 22 are ἀκούοντες and ἤκουσαν and both are forms of the verb to hear or to listen. So did the men travelling with Saul hear a voice or did they not? The text in chapter 22 is quite clear that they did not. And in neither chapter is there any "appearance" despite Ananias in chapter 9 telling Saul that "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here". Both chapters only mention a light and a voice. Nothing more. Although chapter 22 has some additional narrative embellishments pertaining to that event.

My my - suddenly you have discovered the phenomenon known as conjugation - there are not two words used, there are two forms of the same word. The record of Acts 22 repeats what Ananias said, "βαπτισαι - get yourself baptised," and Acts 9 reports what Paul did, "εβαπτισθη - got baptised." Ananias said that Paul had seen Christ on the road - the worst that can be said is that Ananias may have been mistaken.

That is nothing more than torturing the text.

Are you unfamiliar with the phenomenon of one word having two or more meanings? Surely not.

Again this is mere speculation attempting to explain an anomaly.

The same person wrote both accounts. Either he did not notice the anomalies, or he did not consider that the anomalies made a material difference to the narrative.

I am pointing out that we have two different narratives in chapters 9 and 22

Details being different doesn't necessarily create a different narrative. The different details provided by chapters 9 and 22 are not so great as to create a different story.

Why would a Jew [and reading Acts we know that "the Jews" were regularly portrayed as the enemies of Saul/Paul] be interested in baptism?

What is that phrase you are so fond of? - something about oversimplifying a complex matter, which in this case you are quite happy to do. Jews are not all lumped into the same group, are often portrayed as enemies of Paul, and sometimes portrayed as supportive. That is nowhere more apparent than in Paul and Silas' experience in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-5), and the experience in Thessalonica was different to that in Berea (Acts 17:10-12).

Chapter 22 omits that vital information concerning Ananias' vision and instructions.

Chapter 22 addresses Paul's own testimony about his own experience. Ananias' experience is not part of Paul's.

Hence the two accounts differ.

Much of the difference simply arises from the differences in perspective. Acts 9 is not a record of a personal account, Acts 22 is.

I didn't. I cited the two passages from each chapter. In chapter 9 Saul/Paul "got up and was baptized" and chapter 22 has Ananias stating "And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name" . I asked you why a Jew would be interested in baptism?

Jews who accepted the gospel message were interested in baptism. Those who didn't accept the message weren't.

That is a Christian gloss. Jews do not require ritual lustrations to aid repentance or for the remission of offences. Violating the laws of purity would be a different matter.

At the time in question, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and definitely considered that baptism washed sins away.

So you keep writing in an attempt to explain the marked differences in the two texts. You also fail to acknowledge that the text of Acts has been recovered from a large number of Greek MSS, written at many different periods of Christian history.

"Marked" differences are not in the texts, they are products of your imagination. There are some minor differences.

They never arrived in chapter 9

Whether the instructions arrived is not recorded. That is not the same as recording their non-arrival.

and yet a few verses on we have "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, ²⁰ and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”. Clearly from chapter one of Galatians Paul did not learn that from any human being, so according to Acts, where and when did this momentous event occur?

Did you fail to notice that Paul saw Christ in a vision - I'm sure I made a comment about it (Acts 22:17-18) - oh, you think the author should there and then have detailed everything that transpired instead of just mentioning the parts that the author considered relevant to his narrative at that point.

The accounts given in chapters 9 and 22 are markedly different as are the experiences and behaviours of those mentioned in both narratives.

As stated before, the experiences are related from different perspectives. Neither report can be said to contradict the other in any significant way. When one report that mentions something that passes unmentioned in another, that is not a contradiction - it is a more detailed report regarding the matter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think that Jesus survived the cross, ok? So with that in mind let me explain that 'he is risen....' (G-Mark) meant that he was got up and away. No rising from the dead for me to believe in.
But you do! I understand that.

As a matter of interest, have you read Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot? It remains an interesting read.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your haughty response does nothing to conceal the fact that your claim that there is a discrepancy in the times is unsupported by anything in the text.

The term "noon" is introduced in chapter 22 and noon like midnight may be used in narratives as an augural moment for events to occur.

As was pointed out before, ακουω can take two different meanings.

The two words used in 9 and 22 are ἀκούοντες and ἤκουσαν and both are forms of the verb to hear or to listen. So did the men travelling with Saul hear a voice or did they not? The text in chapter 22 is quite clear that they did not. And in neither chapter is there any "appearance" despite Ananias in chapter 9 telling Saul that "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here". Both chapters only mention a light and a voice. Nothing more. Although chapter 22 has some additional narrative embellishments pertaining to that event.

One person uses it with one meaning, the other uses it with the alternative meaning. Allowing your opinion as valid would result in a contradiction with no real significance.

That is nothing more than torturing the text.

Luke apparently failed to notice that there was a contradiction, assuming that your interpretation is accepted as valid.

Again this is mere speculation attempting to explain an anomaly.

You yourself acknowledge that there are missing elements later in your post.

I am pointing out that we have two different narratives in chapters 9 and 22

He was well spoken of by all the Jews who lived in that place.

Why would a Jew [and reading Acts we know that "the Jews" were regularly portrayed as the enemies of Saul/Paul] be interested in baptism?

Ananias just happened to come to Paul, but he had a message to deliver from God. So a piece of information is missing from the account (the account is not exhaustive)

Chapter 22 omits that vital information concerning Ananias' vision and instructions.

Hence the two accounts differ.

Then why did you claim that he did?

I didn't. I cited the two passages from each chapter. In chapter 9 Saul/Paul "got up and was baptized" and chapter 22 has Ananias stating "And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name" . I asked you why a Jew would be interested in baptism?

It was not a Jewish ritual lustration. It was baptism, just like Ananias said. John the Baptist's baptism was one form of a lustration, a baptism for repentance

That is a Christian gloss. Jews do not require ritual lustrations to aid repentance or for the remission of offences. Violating the laws of purity would be a different matter.

The account is not exhaustive:

So you keep writing in an attempt to explain the marked differences in the two texts. You also fail to acknowledge that the text of Acts has been recovered from a large number of Greek MSS, written at many different periods of Christian history.

it gives no report about the arrival or otherwise of the instructions . So you claim that they never arrived.

They never arrived in chapter 9 and yet a few verses on we have "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, ²⁰ and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”. Clearly from chapter one of Galatians Paul did not learn that from any human being, so according to Acts, where and when did this momentous event occur?

So you acknowledge that neither passage is a full and complete report.

The accounts given in chapters 9 and 22 are markedly different as are the experiences and behaviours of those mentioned in both narratives.

[eider]

Let me disabuse you of the hope that I will give such a garbled rationalisation any credence.

Ohhhh! ....and there was me, hoping.

[eider]

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?

Do you imagine invisible barriers that somehow keep "the peasants of Galilee" from ever entering cities?

Do you realize that they regularly went into them for things like festivals?

Tiberias had been constructed in Jesus' lifetime. Typically this requires a lot of local labor. Your peasants of Galilee. Particularly those with skills in carpentry and masonry. They would be cheek to jowl with the mostly Greek-speaking inhabitants as the later started moving in.

But naturally not a single Galilean laborer would have not picked up even a single word in Greek.


Immediately off hand without looking them up? Lessee. Hippos. Philadelphia, Pella, Damascus, Gadara, Gerasa, Canatha, Dion...

Looks like 8 from memory (although Dion is generally rendered Dium).

What was your point? Both in the Decapolis cities and Tiberias you would have found Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin being regularly spoken.

You must think that Galilean boatmen and publicans had a lot of time off, and plenty of money to spend at all those wonderful venues!
It's back-to-school ...I think. You need to discover what kinds of life the peasant population of Galilean had.
And your trips to Tiberias....... Ha ha!
They worked! And they worked! Long hours, hard (shortened) lives.
Their children didn't have breakfast and go to school you know...... I wonder what you think Galilean peasant children actually did?

[tabibito]

I tried again, but don't hold out too much hope.

Let me disabuse you of the hope that I will give such a garbled rationalisation any credence.

[eider]

Of course I neither said nor even implied that. Allow me to repeat something I said in an earlier post:

So you think that the gospels agree with each other........ok...that's what you think.

For the sake of argument, let's toss out every point where you believe the gospels disagree, and keep all points on which they are in total agreement. Based on what's left, are you willing to accept that Jesus really did rise from the dead, since the gospels are in complete agreement on that point?

That's not how I review the gospels......... I gave Sparko a short list of how I review the gospels..... let me described this action as 'Trawling for Truth'... that has a nice ring about it that you can quote as often as you like. That's much better than selecting from a salad-bar (MacDonalds for me! )

I think that Jesus survived the cross, ok? So with that in mind let me explain that 'he is risen....' (G-Mark) meant that he was got up and away. No rising from the dead for me to believe in.
But you do! I understand that.

[eider]

The shortest of the endings to the gospel finishes at Mark 16:8. Try again.

OK....,.,. let me try again, to show you that no resurrection was mentioned in the short-G-Mark.
G-Mark short does mention 'he is risen......' which fits with what I think actually happened, that he was injured, stabbed in the lower lung to clear blood and fluids (which gushed out) was got up and got away.

I can show you where it is reported that his friends saw him again, up in Galilee for example.


I tried again, but don't hold out too much hope.

[eider]

Shorter Mark does have the alleged resurrection.

The point is that these four gospel texts were written at different periods and for different Christian communities and were never intended to be brought together in one canon. Their sole purpose was to "preach and teach" the beliefs of their respective communities.

My own view on Christianity as it has come down to us, is that it was a new cult being promulgated by Paul that was primarily based on his own mystical/psychological experiences and idiosyncratic ideas about this figure of Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus.

It is assumed that Paul heard of this resurrection from various individuals who had known the flesh and blood Galilean Jew. However, that remains an unverifiable assumption.

It is possible some sort of spiritual resurrection was believed to have occurred, or that the Almighty had miraculously brought this figure back to continue his Jewish Messianic mission but we have no attested historical texts written by any of those early followers confirming either their beliefs or their experiences. We only have Paul [and the later writings]

Given the importance of the resurrection to Paul's soteriology i.e. there could be no salvation without the resurrection, and given that Paul is our earliest textual source to refer to this resurrection, I consider that there remain questions about the origin of that belief and certainly that belief as Paul understood it.

True...... G-Mark short does mention 'he is risen......' which fits with what I think actually happened, that he was injured, stabbed in the lower lung to clear blood and fluids (which gushed out) was got up and got away.