jesus founded nothing.

[fallingblood]

Wow!! imagine that, most scholars claim he was a roman!



Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was also a Roman citizen—a fact that afforded him a privileged legal status with respect to laws, property, and governance

Do you have any evidence that he was a Roman citizen? So far, your arguments have been debunked. You didn't even quote a scholar on this. You quoted Wikipedia. If you actually read what scholars are saying now, it is that Paul most likely wasn't a Roman. That is based on Paul never saying it, and him not being treated as a Roman.

Also, your source didn't quote any scholars. It quoted a different encyclopedia, and Acts. You said that Acts wasn't reliable anyway.

 

[outhouse]

You said that Acts wasn't reliable anyway.

Dont paint words, I never stated


you know as well as I do acts has credibility issues

 

[outhouse]

Do you have any evidence that he was a Roman citizen? So far, your arguments have been debunked. You didn't even quote a scholar on this. You quoted Wikipedia. If you actually read what scholars are saying now, it is that Paul most likely wasn't a Roman. That is based on Paul never saying it, and him not being treated as a Roman.

Also, your source didn't quote any scholars. It quoted a different encyclopedia, and Acts. You said that Acts wasn't reliable anyway.

your personal opinion is not refuting wiki, even a little

 

[fallingblood]

Dont paint words, I never stated


you know as well as I do acts has credibility issues

You stated:

LOL acts has always been so reliable

So yes, you implied that Acts is not reliable.

 

[outhouse]

You stated:

So yes, you implied that Acts is not reliable.

acts does have reliability issues

 

[fallingblood]

your personal opinion is not refuting wiki, even a little

Wiki is not a scholar. It didn't quote scholars, nor even made an argument for it. It stated an opinion, and backed it up with the Bible. When did you start taking the Bible as historical fact?

I made an argument why Paul was not a Roman. He never mentions it. He isn't treated like a Roman. Romans were not beaten or tortured, yet Paul did undergo such. When it would have been of use to Paul, he never mentioned that he was a Roman. That is why scholars are now rejecting the idea that Paul was a Roman.

All you have to do is look at some of the modern scholarship on the subject. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this, and he usually stands in the mainstream of things.

 

[fallingblood]

acts does have reliability issues

But when it supports you, such as in saying Paul is a Roman (which is what your Wiki article used to back up it's claim), it is reliable? Like I said earlier, that is hypocritical. And yes, you are using Acts (by using your Wiki source) to argue that Paul was a Roman.

 

[outhouse]

Wiki is not a scholar. It didn't quote scholars, nor even made an argument for it. It stated an opinion, and backed it up with the Bible. When did you start taking the Bible as historical fact?

I made an argument why Paul was not a Roman. He never mentions it. He isn't treated like a Roman. Romans were not beaten or tortured, yet Paul did undergo such. When it would have been of use to Paul, he never mentioned that he was a Roman. That is why scholars are now rejecting the idea that Paul was a Roman.

All you have to do is look at some of the modern scholarship on the subject. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this, and he usually stands in the mainstream of things.

well then proffessor, wiki is free to edit if you have the sacks


Oh and that little important thing called knowledge, knowledge that is backed up by those with the all important knowledge on the subject.


If your right you should be able to go right in there and fix that nasty ole encyclopedia

 

[fallingblood]

well then proffessor, wiki is free to edit if you have the sacks


Oh and that little important thing called knowledge, knowledge that is backed up by those with the all important knowledge on the subject.


If your right you should be able to go right in there and fix that nasty ole encyclopedia

Why should I waste my time when someone else, who doesn't have the appropriate knowledge, can go back and change it? If you can't debate me, that's fine. But don't make excuses.

Also, one doesn't need knowledge to change Wiki. All one needs is the time, and a computer.

 

[Shermana]

Paul wasnt an enemy and all our sources state that it was the Jerusalem church who allowed Gentiles to enter the movement without becoming Jews.

As I've said, there are many scholar who agree that this concept was interpolated later, and that Acts 15 clashes with Gal 2.

 

[Orias]

whats wrong with this picture

Jesus wasn't the messiah?

 

[outhouse]

Jesus wasn't the messiah?

Nope

to jews he was a failed messiah


while alive I dont think he was ever refferenced that way

 

[Orias]

Nope

to jews he was a failed messiah


while alive I dont think he was ever refferenced that way

Alright, well if he was a failed messiah then he wasn't ever really a messiah

Well maybe he could be part messiah.

 

[outhouse]

Why should I waste my time when someone else, who doesn't have the appropriate knowledge, can go back and change it? If you can't debate me, that's fine. But don't make excuses.

Also, one doesn't need knowledge to change Wiki. All one needs is the time, and a computer.

Im sorry that I stand behind what is known and accepted, based on more then just acts.

My view is the accepted view, and your statement is not only unfounded, it has no backing with credibility.

AND you have NOT refuted it with anything other then opinion

 

[idav]

Alright, well if he was a failed messiah then he wasn't ever really a messiah

Well maybe he could be part messiah.

He hasn't failed, he is coming back of course, he said so.

 

[outhouse]

Alright, well if he was a failed messiah then he wasn't ever really a messiah

Well maybe he could be part messiah.

mythical/biblical jesus legend grew after his death, not during his lifetime


The roman version we are left with certainly paints him in as a messiah and a deity.

But we all know historical jesus, is not biblical jesus

 

[fallingblood]

Im sorry that I stand behind what is known and accepted, based on more then just acts.

My view is the accepted view, and your statement is not only unfounded, it has no backing with credibility.

AND you have NOT refuted it with anything other then opinion

Then back up your position. You have only quoted Wiki which relies on Acts. Essentially, your argument rests on Acts then.

You have yet refuted my "opinion." Simply calling it an opinion and then using a logical fallacy, does not refute what I said. More so, like I said, many scholars are leaning towards Paul not being a Roman. Bart Ehrman is a good example of this.

 

[Orias]

mythical/biblical jesus legend grew after his death, not during his lifetime


The roman version we are left with certainly paints him in as a messiah and a deity.

But we all know historical jesus, is not biblical jesus

The Romans left us with their outdatedness.

Hence their non-existence.

All roads lead to Rome, but they don't anymore

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Didache was used by the early Jesus movement to train gentiles into the way of life. it was used for perhaps some three hundred years. It makes no mention of Paul at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Its hard to follow the 'arguments' with outhouse on my ignore list - and I've certainly seen nothing that would warrant changinging that decision, but the thread does bring to mind a question I've had. Would someone familiar with the Greek offer their thoughts on Acts 21:40? More specifically, is it reasonable that the verse would apparently refer to Hebrew rather than Aramaic? Thanks.