(October 31, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually it is, because the book is left open ended with Paul looking forward to his last missionary journey the on where he was imprisioned and later executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...e_Apostles

A key contested issue is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[/url] Acts differed with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_Judaism]Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.

Book chapter and verse please.

where does acts describe paul differently than how he describes himself?

Or is this empty conjecture? Meaning show me the descrepency rather than point to an unnamed 'expert.'

More like choose your own mental retardation.

Quote:This is a study in Romans which is not apart of the 4 books of the gospel account...

Same shit - same smell, drippy.

(October 31, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: More like choose your own mental retardation.

I wouldn't say their retarded just very misguided and delusional

(October 31, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Irrational Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...e_Apostles

A key contested issue is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[/url] Acts differed with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_Judaism]Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.

Book chapter and verse please.

where does acts describe paul differently than how he describes himself?

Or is this empty conjecture? Meaning show me the descrepency rather than point to an unnamed 'expert.'

It's not just one verse or chapter. And it isn't just one unnamed expert. This is the expert consensus.

Bart Ehrman is one example, obviously. And if you don't believe me, check what he has to say about this. Here's just one link:

http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts/

Here's another link by a professor emeritus of religious studies that affirms that the majority of "modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date" (i.e., near the end of the first century). You can read about some differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Epistles there.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

And, for some more material to read on, here's a book by Richard I. Pervo (New Testament scholar) arguing for the view that Acts was written in the second century.

Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists

(November 1, 2015 at 1:02 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote: Book chapter and verse please.

where does acts describe paul differently than how he describes himself?

Or is this empty conjecture? Meaning show me the descrepency rather than point to an unnamed 'expert.'

It's not just one verse or chapter. And it isn't just one unnamed expert. This is the expert consensus.

Bart Ehrman is one example, obviously. And if you don't believe me, check what he has to say about this. Here's just one link:

http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts/

Here's another link by a professor emeritus of religious studies that affirms that the majority of "modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date" (i.e., near the end of the first century). You can read about some differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Epistles there.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

And, for some more material to read on, here's a book  by Richard I. Pervo (New Testament scholar) arguing for the view that Acts was written in the second century.

Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists

The first link only mentions acts 17 and in 17 your commentator even states that "before God over looked ignorance of Him." Meaning those out side of Israel in OT times. I'm not quite sure which passage in Romans your guy is refering to because the rest of his message is a plug to join his website. Eitherway Paul is consistant because if one simply kept reading act 17 just One verse past where your guy wants you to stop reading. Paul talks about what God expects now. Which is a call to repentance, a call that I can only assume that is repeated in whatever part of romans he was blanketly refering to.. Because a call to repentance would be the oppsite of"over looking ignorance." and that is what your guys is trying to do. show a inconsistancy.

This arguement fails because is creates and only addresses the strawman the author constructs from his cherry picking in the book of acts and a blanket reference that I guess is supposed to sum up the whole book of Romans without actually quoting anything.

That is why I specifically asked for book chapter and verse. Because people who want to pull the wool over your eyes will reference something they know you have no instrest in making them an expert on the topic. The problem with that is if you do not hold people accountable to what they claim by double checking their work, you allow them to Think for you. After look at your actions here. you are parroting back this man's works and if you haven't already you will sign up to his website (what he really wants from you) in order to try and proove me wrong RATHER than look up the quotations he made and verify them yourself... oh but wait a tick, we can't do that because he did not leave any verifiable information beyond his Acts 17 citation. Now think about this for a minute. People like that try and lead with the BEST evidence. Now if his BEST was literally one verse away from.

The second guy is even worse. I counted 1/2 a dozen logical fallacies in his arguement including an appeal to probablity, circular reasoning, false dilimma, appeal to his authority and so on: he speaks to the lack of mentioning of the letters Paul sends in Acts as 'proof' that the book of acts was written AFTER Paul wrote them... Ok so Paul writes a letter that establishes a church in a region that one NEver before existed, yet the fact that this letter is not mentioned is magically 'proof' that the acts was written before the letters were compiled and circulated.

Then his closer was the fact that because the book of acts does not mention the destruction of the temple but because Luke mentions it in the prophesy Jesus made in his gospel, is proof for the 80 or 90 AD authorship...

This is beyond laughable. That would be like writting about a mans life pre 9-11-01 without mentioning it was pre 9-11. The destruction of the temple in 70AD was like 9-11 and pearl harbor combined IF the bad guys took out the nations leadership as well. Could you imagine how if that 4th plane found its intended target at the white house but also took out EVERY member of the federal goverment? could you write a period piece and leave out that pivotal moment in time? Your 'expert' says Luke did, even though he documented trials, who showed up, ship wrecks, and visits to people homes. I guess luke was a small detail guy, not one to keep his eye on the big events that shook the world he was living in.

Your 3rd 'scholar' is also laughable for the reasons already mentioned.

I applaud your effort in bring and citing reference material, however I urge you to look past commentary, or at least when dealing with commentary look at what is being said and try and verify a couple of things before you post it. Don't just post it because it is telling you what you want to hear.

When I started all of this I had absolutly no dog in this race. I did not belong to any denomination of single school of thought. I simply followed the truth where ever it lead me. on some topics like this one I follow the church, and others I disagree with the church. On any topic if I have solid proof i will change what I believe. however their isn't enough 'proof' to support a change here.

Your 'scholars' speak from an agenda to push back the authorship of Acts that verify and authenticate Paul's works as an apostle. if one can do that one can disregaurd All of Paul's teachings which destroys the bible and the church. Again, if their were evidence I would seriously look at it, and even change what I believe. however as I have pointed out your 'experts' are the same kind of 'experts' oil compaines hire to tell people natural gas fracking is perfectly safe for communities and the enviroment, and the natural gas boiling out of their water supply is perfectly safe to drink. Or the 'Experts'/doctors that Tobacco companies used in the 1950 that said smoking was good for you and they recommended at least 2 packs aday.

"Expert" =/= Truth

"Expert" often = what you want to hear/What someone wants you to believe. Do Your Own Thinking! Look Stuff Up your Self!

Knows more about Biblical scholarship than Ehrman? Wow, what an amazing Christian you are, Drich!

When you have to refer to an agenda to defend against criticism, you've lost. Especially if the only people you don't think have an agenda are the ones who agree with you.

Yeah, I'm not really needed here so I'm just watching, eating crisps and relaxing with a cup of coffee.
I never realized how awesome Tyrells was by the way. Its like a party in my mouth and noones invited because they're mine.
Would you like one? You can't have one. Did you not read what I typed? They're mine... get your own fucking crisps. -.-

Drippy can't be confused by facts.  Idiots rarely are.