They are not Christians!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because when you know you are wrong, you suddenly start nitpicking unimportant points in an effort to deflect from having to admit you were wrong. It's one of your signature moves and it's hilarious. Another deflection tactic of yours is to start demanding "sources" and then complaining that the provided sources are not good enough.

The point was that Paul does refer to seeing Christ and changing from persecuting to joining the disciples after that visit. It is unimportant that he doesn't mention every single detail of that encounter and you know it.

I am not wrong. I simply commented on the narrative we find in Acts chapter 9 and compared it with what Paul states in Galatians chapter one. Yet again you offer speculative remarks to explain away [some might call it "handwaving"] when you are confronted with textual silences or anomalies/contradictions.

You, rogue06 and others do love to try and "fill in the gaps" with your textually unsupported "explanations".

[Sparko]

I am not wrong. I simply commented on the narrative we find in Acts chapter 9 and compared it with what Paul states in Galatians chapter one. Yet again you offer speculative remarks to explain away [some might call it "handwaving"] when you are confronted with textual silences or anomalies/contradictions.

You, rogue06 and others do love to try and "fill in the gaps" with your textually unsupported "explanations".

And if Paul did recount every detail as in Acts, you would be complaining that proves it can't be true and it was copied.

[rogue06]

Really? Which serious scholars dispute the authorship of Corinthians or Romans?

Is that what you got out of what I wrote?

You accidentally took your meds twice this morning, didn't you?

And where is the evidence to support your contention that "Scholarship" :

has started to swing the other way so that today it would be accurately to say it is evenly divided

Or shall I dismiss this as yet another of your sweeping and unsupported generalisations?

The hypocrite says what?

Where is the evidence to support your contention that :

it is generally held that several of the epistles found in the NT and which pious tradition attribute to Paul are what are known as deutero-Pauline

If what I wrote was a sweeping and unsupported generalisation it was because it was responding to your sweeping and unsupported generalisation

[rogue06]

So why in I Corinthians does Paul not mention his own apparent experience?

How do you know? You and others are very eager to offer your glib explanations concerning apparent situations for which there is no textual evidence.

Yet Paul was hardly backward in coming forward when it concerned "puffing" himself up.

Once again you dishonestly exclude where these are directly addressed in order to be a duplicitous troll pretending that they weren't addressed.

[rogue06]

Of course someone who ever actually bothered to read the text she has spent decades criticizing, instead of relying solely on often out-of-context snippets mentioned by scoffers, would already know that.

A reminder of something.

[tabibito]

What evidence are you citing?

The letters themselves. Chapter 1 verse 1 in both cases.
Romans was penned by Tertius, not by Paul.

[eider]

You mean aside from the cities, including one of the Decapolis, where Greek was common, being on the shores of the Sea of Galilee?

Duh...... Tiberias was as strange to the peasants of Galilee as any palace. Its high class visitors wouldn't have given a thought for the locals, let alone a word.

Can you name the ten cities? I doubt it.

[eider]

Do I believe that a three day old corpse got up and walked around and that this three day old corpse was both corporeal but also incorporeal? No.

Our earliest source [Paul] tells us that he [Jesus] appeared [ὤφθη]. What Paul intended by that remains unknown. However, he makes no no mention of tombs, soldiers guarding it, young men/angels, women going to the tomb, or earthquakes.

Well said.
The Gospel of Mark never supported any part of the resurrection, that needed a bit of addition later on.
I just think that Paul, maybe contracted to confront and fleece Jews who had failed to visit and pay the Temple (many having been followers of Jesus), had a blinding idea on his way North....good enough for him to bust his contract and go off in another direction completely. Apart from that last meal and those last hours he didn't need anything else from Jesus.....

[eider]

It is generally considered that John was written around 70CE, with the final edited form being produced by 100CE.

So my 100-110 was about right.

With the pool of Bethesda described as having five porticoes being written of as still standing in John 5:2, if report is true that the Romans destroyed the structure in 70CE,

Sources please.

evidence that at least a proto gospel of John was written before 70CE would be firm enough. There is nothing in John to indicate that Jerusalem had been sacked, not even a hint of Roman military action against the city is mentioned.

The author/s of John were at either Patmos or Ephesus. Nothing in the story of Jesus would need to refer to anything that happened 40 years after his time, or 70 years afterwards for that matter.

I reckon that the author/s of G-John built their document from a bundle of reports, oral tradition and fables....... their account differs so much from G-Mark.

[eider]

Which brings us back to... even when the gospels agree on a point, ..................................

So even you accept that the gospels contradict each...... that's something.

[tabibito]

Duh...... Tiberias was as strange to the peasants of Galilee as any palace. Its high class visitors wouldn't have given a thought for the locals, let alone a word.

Can you name the ten cities? I doubt it.

It was the name for a region, and more than ten cities were in the count.

[tabibito]

Why do you always consider any serious attention to, or criticism of, texts or indeed anything else to be "nitpicking"? Paul does not mention any lights or voices.

Because giving serious attention to texts is nothing like what you do. Paul "doesn't mention" which is to say that Paul doesn't make his writing conform to the exacting standards that you require. There is no reason that he should have.

[tabibito]

Well said.
The Gospel of Mark never supported any part of the resurrection, that needed a bit of addition later on.
I just think that Paul, maybe contracted to confront and fleece Jews who had failed to visit and pay the Temple (many having been followers of Jesus), had a blinding idea on his way North....good enough for him to bust his contract and go off in another direction completely. Apart from that last meal and those last hours he didn't need anything else from Jesus.....

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

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And if Paul did recount every detail as in Acts, you would be complaining that proves it can't be true and it was copied.

That is the sort of petulant remark an eleven year old in the playground might make when he can think of nothing else.

[tabibito]

That is the sort of petulant remark an eleven year old in the playground might make when he can think of nothing else.

Petulant or not, your history shows that his charge is valid.