Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Really? On what evidence?
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.
So the author of Acts got his facts mixed up?
They do when two accounts of the supposed same event are odds with one another.
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.
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.
A man who was "devout" "according to the law" would have no interest in baptism as a means to achieve "sins washed 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.
There are distinct anomalies.
We are not told in those chapters of Acts when they arrived.
Not in Damascus according to chapter 22.
As noted once again you cannot conceive of any issues with your narratives as they have come down to you.
Comment