Does Acts Portray Paul the Way Paul Portrays Paul?

[@chokin78]

These two just make the best hostess - ínterviewee couple ever. Megan is so spot on with questions and followups and Bart so engaging and articulate and scholarly at the same time, that the amount of food for thought the audience receives is astounding, and possibly more than we can chew in one sitting. Thank you both and your teams behind the scenes!

[@brianennion4832]

I'd love to have a beer with Bart.

[@dallasgraham2813]

I'm sure they discuss her questions beforehand

[@chokin78]

@@dallasgraham2813 regardless... The timing is so good

[@chokin78]

@dallasgraham2813 indeed!

[@liteenergy4843]

They seem to make kind of an odd couple, but that's what adds to the podcast. Their differences in style and sense of humor really does enhance the whole thing.

[@davecarew1116]

Always LOVE this podcast! THANK YOU so much!

[@milowadlin]

When I was about 5 or 6 I went to a Bible School Day Camp during the summer. There was a rather severe woman there who wanted to make sure all the kids knew that Jesus died for our sins. I understood that even at that age I had sinned, according to my parents, but it seemed rather extreme to me that Jesus, such an important guy, had died for my sins. What a guilt trip that was! I resented it, and thought "Who asked him to die for my sins? I didn't. Now I have to be Mr. Perfect so as to properly bear the burden of Jesus dying for me." I think that is a terrible message.

[@moafro6524]

Human sacrifice was not a tradition within the Abrahamic faiths but was present in Roman and Greek customs. Christianity didn’t overcome the Roman and Greek world; instead, the later adopted Christianity. I wonder how such ideas might have found their way into later beliefs, I just wonder.

[@chilekwabwalya5259]

​@@moafro6524doesn't the Abraham/Isaac story allude to human sacrifice?

[@sebolddaniel]

You need to get into the Dionysian omophagia of the Greek New Testament: "This is my body. This is my blood," then head for Eleusis outside Athens.

[@mattr.1887]

Funny thing, the story seems to point AWAY from human sacrifice, not towards it.

[@moafro6524]

@ I’m telling you, there is no way to escape the incongruencies. Once you start pulling on one thread, it’s over. If what you are saying is correct, that means God died, and He clearly says in Timothy and other places that He is immortal.

[@lanlacey1813]

Thanks for the SHOW!

[@montagdp]

To steelman the apologetic argument on one of Bart's points, I think the wording in Acts 9 is vague enough that we don't know how much time passes between Paul's conversion and his first trip to Jerusalem. Verse 23 says "After some time had passed..." and then he goes to Jerusalem in verse 26. The two events are pretty close together in the text, but not necessarily in time.

[@danielmalinen6337]

Apparently something very controversial and embarrassing for Paul happened in Arabia that caused King Aretas to become angry with Paul and the writer of Acts to ignore the whole incident.

[@martifingers]

As usual an enlightening and engaging discussion. During it I had a quite basic question that I don't recall ever being addressed. It is this: was conversion of the sort described by Paul uniquely a Christian experience ? In other words did this sort of carthartic experience happen to anyone converting to any other faith of the time? An associated question is what was the "typical" subjective experience of Christian conversion in the early church? Is there any evidence on this?

[@timcarbone007]

Love these talks

[@majafleur9646]

The ad interruptions every other minute is so disruptive.

[@Justine-ut8ho]

Invest in KZbin Red if you watch a lot of KZbin. Go through your Google account or your phone provider for the best price. I pay $13 a month and find it to be worth every penny.

[@KarmasAB123]

Especially with them being like three minutes EACH

[@Gzluweez]

Pay for youtube and it goes away.

[@KarmasAB123]

@@Gzluweez Nah

[@diannerenn4726]

I also advise doctoral candidates, and you made me laugh out loud.

[@TobiasdeGoede]

why

[@RaulSoto21]

Episode 105 seems to be missing from the podcast playlist, it jumps from 104 to 106 (this one).

[@MH55YT]

Always good. Thank you.

[@SleepyPotterFan]

Understanding Acts can’t be historically accurate/an eyewitness testament, then Paul’s entire authority and power in the Church and overall institution of Christianity especially the theology rests on his claims that Jesus made him an apostle. We also know Paul had a major disagreement with the actual apostles and the only evidence we have of them capitulating TO Paul’s position is Paul himself as the ad’s class discusses. I’m not claiming a malicious Paul snatched up Christianity and twiddled his moustache while changing it, but it’s really starting to seem Paulianity is a real thing.

[@MarcelvanBulck]

This has more or less been my impression of Paul since seminary (although I’ve never thought about it quite so cartoonishly!) 😂

[@parkburrets4054]

I would like to attend a Sunday school where Bart simply goes through the Bible and explains what it says.

[@b.g.5869]

@@parkburrets4054 Ehrman or Simpson?

[@davidkeller6156]

Love those earrings on Megan.

[@soyevquirsefron990]

Since Christians put so much emphasis on first-person witnesses being the best evidence (which they’re not) and the gospels are written in 3rd person but they’re actually first person testimony (which they’re not) , it’s interesting that Paul’s actual first person writings are different than the 3rd person descriptions of him (occasionally 2nd person). If we needed any more reason to doubt the gospels, this disparity with Paul gives us yet another reason.

[@jamesshepherd6491]

Thank you for this great video. I spent years examining the many Biblical discrepancies and have come across many of the problems before that are discussed in this video. Essentially what it does is puts the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy to bed. Thanks again.

[@ricklehman8097]

Another brilliant episode

[@longcastle4863]

Another good one. Thanks! 👍

[@David-j8v5p]

Acts 1:20 verse puts apostle Peter saying and misquoting what king David took and wrote about himself on what his enemies took and said about him

[@stuckinlodi100]

True Megan is often striking but Bart can be easily referred to as foxy as a scholastic entity. In fact his written works may exceed those of St Augustine; at least the more plausible stuff. Many "Christians" have the Pauline curse of slipping into the "Sauline" persona which they may despise on occasion.

[@randysatterfield7966]

Yeah, Bart is GQ smooth! 😂

[@stuckinlodi100]

Arguably Bart's essence is beyond the GQ albeit itself a worthy element in any religious analysis despite your evident vaudevillean intent.

[@davidwimp701]

I think Acts is probably like Mel Gibson historical fiction.

[@tookie36]

I go with South Park’s Russell Crowe Fighting Around the World.

[@SirLangsalot]

It does remind me of the scene in passion of the Christ where "they've killed God".

[@Aye-Aye136]

Not only Acts but also the Gospel of John are pious fictions.

[@Ammeeeeeeer]

I missed the part in Acts where Paul had an affair with the Emperor's wife and got her knocked up, and Paul dies while screaming FREEEEEDOOOOOM! 😇

[@keith6706]

​@@AmmeeeeeeerThat was redacted, along with the part where Paul spent a period of time driving a chariot around the desert while wearing leather, being a sort of warrior while on the road.

[@rifelaw]

If Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which seems likely, while the Epistles were written before, that alone could explain why the importance of Jewish law is downplayed in the former.

[@rifelaw]

@@mythoughtsonfaith1031 I fairly explicitly referred to the dates of writing, not the dates of the occurrences.

[@rifelaw]

@@mythoughtsonfaith1031 Every physical text we have is from well after the fact. The issue is when they were originally written. The originals of the epistles were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The original of Acts was written after.

[@rifelaw]

@@mythoughtsonfaith1031 I can just about guess the Zondervan articles you're relying on. We're simply going to have to disagree on this.

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Thank God for sending us Paul, to tell us all the things Jesus forgot about...

[@longcastle4863]

😏

[@moafro6524]

It should be termed “Poulanity.” When it comes to salvation, Christians align with Paul’s teachings than with those of Jesus. 3 years of preaching Jesus didn’t once preach a doctrine of “believe in my death, and you will be saved”; he taught, like the prophets before him, to believe in him as a prophet and to follow the law. Paul, however, preached a different message: believe that Jesus died for your sins and abandon adherence to the law. No witness to his Vision of Jesus and the accounts contradict, just like his teachings contradict Jesus's. Call it by the name of its founder, Paulanity.

[@tl7988]

Wouldn’t it make sense to describe Jesus’ teachings beyond emphasis of the ‘law’? My limited understanding is that his message of being kind to those around you, particularly the poor helped usher in a mew perspective on morality that was well outside of Jewish law.

[@moafro6524]

@ Jesus, while keeping the external aspects of the law, also internalized it. So it’s not just about not committing adultery anymore; it’s about not even thinking about it. Paul, however, says to forget the law-it was nailed to the cross and died. Ironically, Paul himself followed the law, as did Jesus. If Jesus came today, he would share a plate of food with me, but not with the vast majority of Christians today, he would NOT recognize them as following his teachings. That’s what happens when you follow a man who clearly stated he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel-not to you. We can choose to follow whoever we want or follow the appropriate prophet sent to us.

[@1ApeinSpace]

@@moafro6524 It was beautiful. I saw him, our lord and savior Jesus Christ. His hair was flowing like a river and his eyes were like the sun. He had wings with gems inlaid upon them, and a flaming cloak. At length he spoke to me, and whispered "Ape, I don't think that was a micro dose".

[@moafro6524]

@@1ApeinSpace If the concept of God presented by religions didn’t make sense to me-a God who rests, needing a rainbow to remember, who experiences human limitations like needing to use the bathroom, and who never directly claims to be God but is somehow believed to conceal his divinity, a divine being who could be killed by his own creation despite fervently praying to God (or perhaps to himself) to let the suffering pass, I would find myself deeply disillusioned with religion. A God that promises to hears his messiah from the throne and to save him by his right hand, yet doesnt come through in the NT, I would be scratching my head. That said, I wouldn’t consider substance abuse for escape. The truth is, neither you nor I created this world; the one who did is God-not someone who curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, a perfectly fine fruit bearing tree, can you believe that.

[@1ApeinSpace]

@@moafro6524 Yea, I've often wondered if god knows everything, do you think he knows what it feels like to lick whipped cream off women's breast? Cause it is a great feeling.

[@michaeldebellis4202]

I haven’t read the Bible in a long time but watching these has made me want to go re-read the New Testament. Is there a specific translation people would recommend for fidelity to the original? I have a King James Version around but while it’s a beautiful translation I have a feeling it takes some liberties and may be a bit harder to understand than a modern translation. Any suggestions?

[@prescottbates3166]

NRSVUE, new revised standard version updated edition is one that many critical bible scholars recommend.

[@LukeNAndo]

The NRSVUE is generally the most scholarly translation as far as I know! I’ve seen it recommends by a few different folks who know what they are talking about. The KJV is indeed beautiful but maybe not the best if you want to get the most likely intended sense of the text!

[@michaeldebellis4202]

@@LukeNAndothanks to both of you, I’ll get NRSVUE.

[@LukeNAndo]

@@michaeldebellis4202 enjoy your study!

[@SojourningOnline]

@@michaeldebellis4202 Definitely the right choice! If you want an excellent study bible used by students, professors and clergy as well as the general public, then have a look at "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version". I assume that the latest edition uses the NRSV Updated Edition. I wouldn't worry about the difference though.

[@tookie36]

Can you make a video on the connections between Marks Gospel and Paul? To me they are so similar it makes me believe the author was Mark the traveling companion of Paul

[@geoffboland8813]

John the Baptizer was also preaching not ritual purity but repentance from sin

[@toml992]

Interesting that Luke's depiction of Paul agrees more with Jesus' message of repentance than the actual Paul did.

[@eliminator7ful]

The title of this video is a great question.

[@WasOne2]

Why would Paul have had to have written hundreds and hundreds of letters? Assertion without evidence.

[@montagdp]

Yeah, I never quite got that one either, especially since most of his epistles are actually pretty large works. I guess Philemon is one that you could imagine him having written in an hour or so and "dropped in the mail," but the others are much longer and not the kind of thing you'd expect anyone to write hundreds of.

[@wpankey57]

I can't believe I've never heard this idea that Luke didn't have a doctrine of atonement.

[@dallasgraham2813]

Check it out

[@dallasgraham2813]

The only allusion in LUKE'S Gospel is "this is my body, this is my blood" which I assume was a meme passed down to Luke

[@jimmcculloch5825]

As always, great content. Have you two met in person yet?

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

10:15: paul was accused of breaking the law cause he say telling gentiles can also get salvation without circumcision.

[@miketaylor9517]

Apologies if this has been answered before - but some of Paul’s writings seem stoic in nature. Are there any known linkages between Paul (and the other related authors) and stoicism?

[@JohnVandivier]

Differences in the discussion on salvation aren’t contradictions. Atonement or repentance? Why not both?

[@UnknownPascal-sc2nk]

We have a few of the letters from Paul. Are there extant letters FROM the churches TO Paul? Paul refers to communications and issues that he addresses. Where are the documents and why aren't they in the Scriptures?

[@longcastle4863]

Excellent question. I google it and it appears we have no letters from different churches to Paul, although scholars agree such letters were written. Trouble is they were probably not copied and passed around like some of the letters written by Paul were. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if we could find a hoard of them..

[@captaincatchy]

LOL at the student papers remark!

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Bart says that people incorrectly understand Paul to be anti-law. Is this accurate?

[@marksolum1794]

If you combine Eisenman and Papias then Paul is the man of the lie who talks too much.

[@liteenergy4843]

The Jewish and non-Jewish Christians could have decided that they would keep kosher when they did eat together. Would that have solved this "big" problem they seemed to be having?

[@rocketpod1]

Sorry buddy cheese goes on the burger

[@dbog5214]

Seems there habe been an ACTIVE attempt to remove the church from judaism.

[@liteenergy4843]

@@rocketpod1 Isn't this optional and a matter of choice though?

[@Yakkityyak248]

Why? Surely it would be just as fair if the jews dined non-kosher

[@liteenergy4843]

@@rocketpod1 What about bacon cheeseburgers!! Without them, I'll just die! I still think it should be a choice though. I guess we could call it, 'The Late Great Bacon Cheeseburger Debate' 🙂

[@chriswilcocks8485]

Excellent as always. It seems obvious the questions have been worked out before. It would be good to see bart "cross examined" by say an evangelical scholar But still very good.!!!

[@SojourningOnline]

Depends what you mean by scholars. There are many videos of Bart debating evangelicals from Theological Schools/Colleges etc on KZbin for example. Bart's certainly not shy when it comes to debating them. As regards evangelical professors who lecture at universities for example, they will be teaching very much the same thing as Bart. That's because they view everything purely from an historical perspective and not a religious one.

[@TheParadoxDestroyer]

There are many examples on KZbin featuring Bart in debate with apologists. However, they are often not secular scholars but rather ingrained in their interpretations based upon presumptions that support a theological worldview. Ie, not objective thinkers.

[@aosidh]

Awesome conversation! PS The sound on the P+P advert sounds better this week 🫡

[@robertrogers3429]

Luke’s gospel is noted for its historical accuracy in the details of the politics of ancient judea. It’s interesting that the same author gets so many things wrong about Paul’s life and message at least if we compare acts to Paul’s letters

[@danielmalinen6337]

Without watching the video, the answer to the question in the title is no. There is some degree of authenticity in Paul's letters, even though we don't see the whole picture, only a small glimpse. Instead, the writer of Acts idolizes Paul and sees him as a heroic figure, which is why the author smooths and polishes Paul's image to make it better. This is a style characteristic of the author, which is also evident in how he describes Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when comparing the description to the Gospel of Mark, which the author used as a source.

[@kamiii6700]

Hey Bart, please do an episode discussing the New Animal rights Film Christspiracy, it's about 2 guys going traveling to multiple countries interviewing different spiritual leaders and looking at translations to talk about many religions including Christianity and how Jesus would kill an animal and the significance of animal consumption and religion

[@JimmyJohn-r1y]

Somehow, I imtuitively knew as a kid that there was nothing really scary about Christianity's Heaven and Hell , Angels and Demons, because it was just people telling me that I'm supposed to be scared, in a 3rd hand sort of way. They had no direct knowledge of all the stuff they were telling me.

[@lindotimo]

Some verses in the Acts have interested me. One is the doctrine of 'apokatastasis', how everything is reconciled. - Even the Devil is pardoned.

[@sebolddaniel]

Oh, wow! A new word to learn. Is that word in Acts? I am all for it, even forgiving Jesus for being such a jerk to Peter, calling him Satan, and those folk in John asking honest questions.

[@luizr.5599]

Hey cool topic, wonderful presentation. I love Megan.

[@jasonjenkins7295]

Another great episode. Keep it coming.

[@glencmac]

Thank you!!!! I understand the New Testament better than I did before. It's fan fiction. Luke-Acts, and the other 6 letters of Paul, Revelation. Fan-Fiction. It would be like me writing a work based on Harry Potter, Ron, Herminie, and Dumbledor going to the Asian Magic Academy and defeating Xi Jin Ping. Then, 200 years from now, the cult that thinks Harry Potter is the new messiah includes my work without knowing it was written by an old fat white guy in his underwear.

[@Jayzbird16]

I really had to do a double take on Dr. Ehrman's conclusion about whether Paul is lying about going up to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles or not, and whether or not Luke, writing decades later got the story wrong. The reason why is because whether this happened or not is directly tied to whether a person believes that Paul had the *opportunity* to have gotten his information about Jesus' life and the gospel message from the disciples/apostles, or whether he *must have* gotten it from a resurrected celestial Jesus. In any case, I know that Dr. Ehrman is not some evangelical apologist and it is not his personal or professional opinion that Paul could have consulted with a celestial Jesus three or four years after the crucifixion. Paul feels the need to be so emphatic that he did not go to Jerusalem directly after his conversion to consult with the disciples/apostles because he needs to bolster his claim he did *not* get his information about Jesus from other people, and furthermore, that he's an apostle with the *same standing* as the disciples/apostles in Jerusalem who got their information about Jesus personally because he *also* got his information from Jesus personally, even though Jesus was already long dead. That's the point. However, Paul knew darned well where his information about Jesus came from, and he knew it certainly wasn't from a resurrected celestial Jesus, so he's definitely lying about that. Paul had a vested interest in *denying* he consulted with the apostles, regardless of whether he did or not, because to admit that would be *bolstering* the argument of Paul's naysayers who were already claiming he wasn't a *real* apostle because he just got his information about Jesus second-hand from the apostles, the same as every other layperson. It's also possible that Paul got all his information about Jesus from Annanias in Damascus. Regardless, his naysayers have to be correct that Paul did not really get his gospel message directly from Jesus. But it's because Paul has a vested interest in telling his story one way rather than another that his denials about his *opportunity* for him to have gotten his information from someone other than a celestial Jesus aren't especially persuasive. On the other hand, it seems Luke likely didn't have Paul's letters asserting he did *not* go to Jerusalem to get his gospel message. It seems to me that Luke, writing at a later time, isn't so concerned about people speculating on the source of Paul's gospel or whether Paul was a real apostle or not. If Luke had been concerned about that, he might have felt the same pressure to tamp down such theories by making his account read one way rather than another. The most probable scenario given this is Luke had one or more sources, and those source(s) said Paul went to Damascus and then directly to Jerusalem where he met with the apostles and Luke didn't know that Paul wouldn't have wanted him to repeat that, so he left it in, even though Paul is Luke's hero. In Luke's time, the denial of Paul's Jerusalem trip was no longer a threat to Paul's status as a bona fide apostle. However, Luke's source(s) could have been wrong. Maybe Luke's source on this was written by one of Paul's naysayers and he had a vested interest in placing Paul in Jerusalem with the apostles immediately after his conversion? But this is just speculation. The fact that Paul had a vested interest in the claim that he couldn't have gotten his information about Jesus during an early meeting with the disciples/apostles in Jerusalem, weighed against an absence of information about biasing in Luke's source leads me, on balance, to conclude it's slightly more likely Paul changed his story. I'm curious what other information I'm not considering that tips the balance of Dr. Ehrman's scale in the other direction? If he thinks Paul is likely right and Luke is likely wrong about finding out the gospel from the apostles in Jerusalem, then where does he think Paul did go for his source on Jesus?

[@allenperrott6649]

This is a critical topic to anyone of faith in the One who revealed himself in the Old Testament an minisry of Jesus of Nazareth. The author of the Luke/Acs narrative would have us believe that the gospel of Christ presented by James, Peter, John and the rest of their community in Jerusalem was the first gospel preached by Jesus to the Jews and that Paul came later with his gospel "designed specifically for the gentiles...they did not have to keep the Law of Moses to be faithful Christians, while the Jewish Christians were obligated to observe all its laws and customs. The much later witness of Acts taken by most as the authentic historical narrative causes great confusion for it directly contradicts the witness Paul provides on a number of important issues... a witness that is the only known first person witness commonly recognized by scholars in the whole New Testament. Paul, his gospel and the rest of his witness have been vilified in any number of ways as a consequence. I think there is an observation that not only sorts out who is telling the truth but provides the motivation for manipulating the historical narrative. Consider that when Jesus preached his gospel of the Sacred Way, (Isaiah 35:8), that the Jewish reaction was that of lethal persecution that claimed the lives of Jesus and Stephen, causing Peter and others to flee Jerusalem in fear of their lives from the likes of zealous Jews like Paul himself before his conversion experience. Once Paul was converted and began to preach the gospel he claims to have recieved by direct revelation from the risen Jesus, he too, began to experience lethal persecution at the hands of the Jews and would have been killed by them a number of timesonly surviving by the grace of God. How in God's name was the original gospel of the Way, that, without fail, invoked such a violent reaction from the Jews, changed by James and the rest of the Jerusalem community so that it allowed them to peacefully co-exist with the Jews and even participate in the Temple worship practices reserved for Jews only? Clearly, the gospel claiming Jesus to be the Messiah that initially allowed is adherents to fully participate in Jewish life, was , just as Paul claimed, no real gospel at al but a perversion of the original gospel of the Way that he recieved from Jesus. Indeed, it was a perversion for it presented a different teaching, a different Jesus and involved a different spirit, (2 Corinthians 7:4). Some think that ancient authors are unsophisticated... check out how the author o Acts manipulates the nature of Paul's gospel from Jesus's gospel of the Sacred Way that completely rejected and opposed the Jewish Law of Moses and the Temple practices, making it out to be the very gospel of Christ that set Jesus up as the Jewish Messiah now favorable to the same. Beginning with the witness of the Asiatic Jews as to the thrust of Paul's preaching concerning the Jews, Law and the Temple , And look at what is successively cobbled together together byf the three accounts of Paul's conversion, and the occasions where Paul is found explaining his gospel, or receiving instructions and content for his "new ministry and his new gospel to the gentiles". Hidden in the fog of deception is the fact that the authentic ministry of Jesus was to the people of Galilee who were members of the TenTribes not deported and Assyrian gentiles all of whom practi ed a form of First Temple Yahwism and were forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus who ruled between 135 and 105 BCE. There were also other gentiles, including the Roman overlords comprising the people of Galilee and it was to this particular composite that Jesus was sent to preach his good news of the Sacred or Holy Way, the highway for his faithful to travel promised by Yahweh through the words of Isaiah. The anonymous author of Luke/Acts intentionally manipulates the historical narrative to subvert the authentic gospel and ministries of both Jesus and Paul in order to present and substatiate the false gospel of Christ later created by James, Peter who apostacised, John and the rest of the brothers of Jesus, the rest of the so called apostles and the rest of the Christian community in Jerusalem. It is one of the greatest deceptions ever foisted on mankind. And now, thanks to the efforts of historical critical biblical scholarship, it is in the process of being laid bare. With this insight, the whole New Testament beyond the authentic letters of Paul, is naught but an extremely effective literary creation by anonymous authors who purposefully and carefully wrote to introduce and substatiate the false gospel of Christ, while intentionally subverting the authentic gospel of the Sacred Way and rebranding those who ministered it. The enormity of their deceptions is beyond incredible...and that is precisely why it has succeeded for so long.

[@mikeharrison1868]

Thanks for this ;0)

[@9501599]

Paul was told to go to "the street called Straight," during his vision.

[@EdwardM-t8p]

Straight Street. They didn't know sexual orientation let alone modern slang for heterosexual and homosexual, so I can't even contrast the street name with "Gay Street" for a joke! ☹️

[@9501599]

@EdwardM-t8p hi there, I never cotton on to the sexual aspect of this street's name. I'm sure there isn't a sequel connotation to it.

[@mattr.1887]

So Peter was the traditional conservative, while Paul was the woke liberal 🤣

[@user-sp1bi5nc2e]

How much of the bibble is fiction? Is all of it a fiction based possibly on mostly fictional characters?

[@b.g.5869]

You are so edgy.

[@raycaster4398]

Most. Yes. Old or ancient outdated pre-science man-contrived proprietary foundational tribalist tomes such as the Jewish Bible, the New Testament, the Quran and the Book of Mormon, are each a desperate attempt by men to fashion a moral fabric, enable trust to trade, publish a political manifesto, rally to war, or make claim to real estate.

[@user-sp1bi5nc2e]

​@@b.g.5869you are so itchy

[@b.g.5869]

@@user-sp1bi5nc2e Your reply is incoherent.

[@dbarker7794]

Too brief but great discussion. Thank you. And thanks for the Anchor dictionary recommendation.

[@belaytube9668]

One of Israeli bible scholars thinks that Paul is not jewish because he insists on talking about his jewishness and sometimes he refers the jewish as 'they' instead of saying 'we'..

[@issamedin306]

Interesting observation.

[@greglogan7706]

@belay While I am no great friend of Paul's albeit not without some respect I don't think that item alone has much Merit to it for some fairly obvious reasons including the disjunction between the Messianic Jews and the Pharisee Jews

[@WaitingforGodel]

Main argument - The author of Acts did not know Paul because its accounts contradict Paul's letters Sub-argument - The author of Acts contradicts himself because it's normal for people to do so Bart being meta

[@ChrisMngcoyi]

Good

[@John.Flower.Productions]

Acts seems to have been composed by someone who was at least aware of some of Paul's epistles; either he did not have access to them or he just chose to disregard the actual content found within them. Compare the following ↓statement↓ to the narrative written in Acts 18: _"I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other."_ ~ Paul (I Corinthians 1)

[@JosephNobles]

If the very late dating of Luke/Acts holds up, maybe the author considered the letters of Paul to be more the IP of Marcion, and wanted an account that could supplant the stories of conflict in the early churches. (That's one of my favorite passages in the letters of Paul, by the way. Paul forgets important information that is corrected in mid-composition. You find out later that Stephanas is there as part of the group that came from Corinth to get Paul's input on the issues! Awkward!)

[@UltimateMujes]

使徒行传19章讲的是在以弗所，哥林多前书1章讲的是哥林多。也许保罗所指的“我没有为你们任何人施洗”是哥林多中的人。

[@John.Flower.Productions]

@@UltimateMujes That should have read Acts 18, without the addition of _-19._ I originally typed _Acts 18:1-19_ instead of _Acts 18:1-17_ and ended up botching the correction.

[@UltimateMujes]

@@John.Flower.Productions Your viewpoint is that there is a contradiction between Acts 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:14-16?

[@UltimateMujes]

@@John.Flower.Productions Could it be that in 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to those who were baptized by his own hands. And does the book of Acts refer to those who were baptized by Paul's co-workers? For example, Acts 18:5 states that Silas and Timothy had already arrived in Corinth, indicating that there could be people other than Paul who were baptized.

[@delaliy545]

The Lord is giving Bartholomew ample time to change his ways.....

[@Bronco541]

"Paul was a jewish when with Jews and a Gentile when with Gentiles." Mmm.. I used to live my life kinda like that, then i realized it was LYING.

[@scottharrison812]

🔥always wondered what Paul did when he had a Jew and a Gentile in the same room together…

[@tkgsingsct]

... was there just a lot of hysterical blindness in the first century??

[@mattr.1887]

This is the real question. Maybe the desert heat was driving people manic.

[@rpoorbaugh]

19:46

[@sebolddaniel]

I prefer Acts' fictional Paul. He is a real man, shipwrecked on Malta with a poisonous viper stuck in his arm, and hanging out in the bath houses of Ephesus befriending the pretty Roman soldier boys in their pleated micro skirt uniforms. My kind of Paul. Paul, the sailor, the man, the soldier boy. Of course, I need to reread Acts, but in my own way. Hey, Paul is a Roman citizen you know, suddenly in Acts. You need to see that secret that Paul is hiding in his heart. Paul would never lie to you.

[@williambeckett6336]

For my money "Paul" is from the first third of the 2nd century and a product of Marcion and his Marciotines. The first "Paulinists" in history we know of and I suspect the first ever. There's way too much connective tissue between Paul and the Marcionites (including very gnostic-flavored, celestial jesus theology) to dismiss out of hand. "Acts" was written to paper over the strife and factional infighting of various christian cults. And to co-opt and sterilize "Paul" for the emerging proto-orthodoxy. Because they did hijack Paul.

[@NickG-x6t]

Crank.

[@hotsonfornowhere76]

Like her glasses

[@rpoorbaugh]

26:23

[@219belizeman]

Paul a hero? Perhaps more anti-hero. In Galatians Paul claims to be an apostle sent by God but in Acts, those ranks are narrowed to those who walked with Jesus and witnessed his resurrection. In Galatians he's sent by God, in Acts he's sent by Antiochian church and under Barnabas. Etc., etc. Seems like Luke is a corrective to letters in circulation.

[@onejohn2.26.]

The book of Acts was submitted to the Roman Court as an affidavit in defense of Paul who was on trial at that time and so anything and ask that is Pro Paul is slanted and is done to get Paul off the hook

[@Dizzinator2114]

Ok, now let me bring this up. When you read Galatians and maybe 1st and 2nd Corinthians there’s an air of questioning Paul’s apostleship and this notion that he is asserting himself as being worthy or higher ranked than others are saying. I’m of the belief that what we see in acts is likely a reflection of what Paul was addressing in his letters . Which is right or wrong or partially truths idk, but it seems to me that there was a very real pushback against him.

[@tophers3756]

​@@onejohn2.26.Sources?

[@douglasodonnell6800]

Didn’t they all desert Jesus when he died? Not all believed he had risen.

[@Dizzinator2114]

@@douglasodonnell6800 according to the stories yes, but he also told them to stand down because they were present when he was arrested.

[@David-j8v5p]

King David's Psalms are not prophecies as everyone today think they are they are just songs that is all

[@ClementColucci]

What is the introductory music?

[@Allothersweretakenn]

It’s not needed thank you

[@davidsinclair7439]

Maybe this with the vocals removed: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmjEmYuPrL6Ana8

[@ElkoJohn]

Three highlights from Bart's scholarly NINT Seminar on Paul (well worth the fee) Jewish henotheism: Yahweh as the supreme god, above the other existing deities. JESUS: Salvation of Repentance for Jews. PAUL: Salvation of The Cross for Gentiles.

[@ArtemTytarenko]

The description of Paul in the book of Acts is as far from the truth as the description of Jesus in the Gospels.

[@korunum2101]

The Gospel in the Roman Canon means "Good News" of the birth of the New Emperor and sole owner of the Empire even Jesus as the Jewish Messiah(KING). This is the kind of proclamation made throughout the Roman Empire when a New Caeasar(Emperor) was born. This is how Paul sets the context in all his epistles. Paul was given the Roman Empire as a gift from God, of course by grace. Let's not forget he was a Roman citizen; his letters to his heirs were a nod to the Roman Law and Legal system since the state was still in business and taking up arms to overthrow the government was unrealistic on one hand. On another hand the Roman Magistrates would never want to enforce Moses' penal law consisting of death by stoning. In the case of a clash of two legal systems, the Roman Law was the law of the land. "Government was ordained on earth by God to punish crimes and keep order," he later wrote to the Romans. So Paul had no other choice but to defer to the abstract, such as grace and faith, in order to evade scrutiny from Caesar... Alas, he was still beheaded for subversion of the Roman Power. But he didn't work in vain as Caesar Augustus lost his status which the Roman Senate conferred to him as "son of God," and Sole ruler of mankind, the Imperial Cult dwindled and Jesus enthroned as the Messiah(HaMashiach)Christ, the Sole Ruler of Mankind, and the only Son of God over the Roman Dominions. Thus, the Jewish HaMashiach(Christ) conquered the Roman Conquerors! By reverting to Moses Law as Islam did, Islam not only rejects Paul's love story with the Cross which appears to be the symbol of Roman Penal Law, but the extra-territoriality of Roman legislations. The point being Jesus is Muhammad as Muhammad throughout the 114 Surahs is used as a substitute for Messiah or Christos in Greek If you would; Jesus being said to be the Messiah, then Jesus is Muhammad. Which takes us back to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Messiah(Al-Massih) is described as a Prophet in the likeness of Moses, as Peter, Stephen, Paul, Luke, etc, put it. Does anyone see EQUILLIBRIUM here? Paganism and Idolatry first bit the dust in Rome before abdicating in Mecca!

[@David-j8v5p]

King David didn't know about any of that. King David wasn't a prophet and there's proof of that too

[@davethebrahman9870]

All ancient authors put words in the mouths of their characters. None of the speeches in Acts are reliable records.

[@David-j8v5p]

King David: i didn't speak about judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus Christ that is a LIE.....

[@aresaurelian]

And he sang ""And I said, ooh, I'm blinded by the lights", and it was at the end of the week. The seventh day.

[@geico1975]

Love the newer camera angle, just saying.... HA! I could be off a little and it could just be a lower sitting chair:)

[@simonbattle0001]

In my opinion, if the universe has any pity on this planet and after the cataclysmic event that's sure to come wipes 99.9% of us off the planet and if the human species is forced for generation to pulls it's self out of those few enclaves on horseback, should ever come across any so called holy books and they are used in a fire to keep these few warm and they are never read? Then maybe the human species has a chance at peace as they build a world of limitless possibility.

[@sebolddaniel]

Some seeds fall on good ground. Some on bad. It is all pre determined. Jesus is from the decadent oligarchic family of David. Too many contradictions for me to deal with in Christianity. The oligarchs shall inherit the Earth--if there is any Earth left to inherit

[@susanmcdonald9088]

Thank you so much for sharing & educating! It seems to me the tumultuous first century & the backward, resentful middle east, is the tumultuous backdrop as 2 cultures collided! It would be odder if there were no discrepancies, seems to me. The whole era warped and swayed like a plasma discharge! But as these western & eastern powers collided, I think Paul saw the sophistication of the previous era of Athenian democracy & Athenian theatre, 500 years prior (The book of Esther, after all, by the time it's written down, seems to me the jewish answer to the play & heroine, ANTIGONE.) And in the BACCHAE, the god of revelry, wine, & theatre, DIONYSUS, is imprisoned but an earthquake releases him, just like Paul. The greek word "hypocrite" is actually a political term that came out of ancient greek dramatic theatre, invented as a way to debate the now famous & wealthy "actors" coming out of theatre, becoming some king's mouthpiece in the Assembly, to garner votes from unwary citizens. Their debates effected voting. And an opponent would call the dramatic actor, "Hypocrite!", for betraying the city, working for a king, not the city . . . using his acting skills in political speeches, to sway voters.... But theatrical performances & competitions were part of a yearly festival, where citizens gathered together, as a community, and were made to think! Actually, if Western Civilization can be described as "a family whose Father is Greek, whose mother is Hebrew, and they packed up the family & moved to Rome", is true, then I suspect the early christians were right smack-dab in the middle of this huge cultural CLASH, with Greco-Roman societies, more sophisticated. Of course there'd be discrepancies galore; I'm surprised the whole enterprise didn't go down the tubes altogether, given poor communications, wars, poverty, and disease, yikes! But something in the story gave ordinary people, hope. It's perspective we need now! And context. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHLOfYeNhrqVfZosi=yQNtMF4GRyK6qikr Part 1, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (part 2 & the decline of democracy, discusses origins of the word, "hypocrite") It's also said, when the roman empire conquered GREECE, ..."the conquered conquered the conquerer"....

[@apollo8352]

Hi, Acts Is supposedly written by Luke and if you compare Acts 9:7 to Acts 22:9 not only do you realise Paul's testimony is unreliable and should not be trusted. But opens the lid on a sub plot I believe Paul was part of... I have spent a long time getting my head around the guy Paul/Saul... And we all know he was a Jew working for the Romans. With maybe a falling out with the Jews over their position on homosexuality which the Romans had no trouble with. I suspect Paul as he invented his christianity for the Romans to control was worried where it might lead, and his suspicions were well founded. Once the Romans saw how the single god belief made a better scam for controlling people, Paul would have known if he got to powerful his life would be in danger, so as to insure against christianity being misused by the Romans I believe Paul deliberately left things like Acts 9:7 & Acts 22:9 in scriptures to bring it down. Things like Galatians 1:11-16 is so counter productive to Paul's fabricated new faith it in my mind makes it very clear there was no divine inspiration or eye witness accounts of anything... It would have been so much better for faith if Paul had not written it... so his motive in my opinion was to give a programming back door so as to end it.

[@alexchavez4951]

I think Paul is just a big liar! And acts is trying to show how it would have really happened since the author didn’t believe Paul claims of conversion! I think anybody did.

[@longcastle4863]

I disagree. I think Paul was sincere. But sincerely wrong. I think he would be appalled, though, if he were to come back and see what the church he is largely responsible for creating has become-especially, in our current times, in America.

[@EdwardM-t8p]

Knowing what I learned about Paul, his letters, Acts, the Gospels, the letters by others, and Revelation, I have come to the conclusion that the NT is dodgy and Paul at least canonical Paul is a LIAR. Yet Christianity is founded on the teachings of Paul and the legends/myths of the gospels and Acts. 🤷 Go figure!

[@JesusisaMuslim]

Paul was 100% a false apostle. All of Asia Minor rejected Paul. They complained to James about Paul that he was trying to make them end the Laws. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James questions Paul in Acts 21:21 about this complaint which the people of Asia Minor made. James made Paul do a nazarite vow in Acts 21:26, which included shaving his head and animal sacrifice. So they were still sacrificing animals long after Jesus. The people of Asia Minor came back to Jerusalem and seen Paul. They dragged him out of the temple and beat him up and nearly killed him in Acts 21:27-32 for preaching against the Law of Moses. The Roman guards came and took Paul away and jailed him. Paul then writes to Timothy and says all of those in Asia Minor had rejected him in 2 Timothy 2:15. After Paul dies, Jesus is speaking to the people of Asia Minor. The very people who rejected Paul. Jesus is praising them for rejecting false apostles in Revelation 1:20 and Revelation 2:1-2. The argument which no Christian can answer to is, why was Jesus praising the enemies of Paul who nearly killed him? If Paul was a true apostle, then Jesus would have rebuked them. But he was praising the very people who rejected Paul, proving Paul could never have been a true apostle. Jesus never mentioned Paul even once to them. Even Barnabas completely fell out with Paul. The church is hiding this as they know most Christians don't read Bible and are just blindfollowers.

[@onejohn2.26.]

You are exactly correct on all your points in Dr erdman's meanwhile was incorrect when he said that the vision Peter received was that the food laws no longer exist that is absolutely bogus

[@Dizzinator2114]

I tend to agree with you, but if I’m addressing this from the perspective of what’s being mentioned in the Bible then I would question who authored acts and why? Why did this author paint Paul out to be different than what Paul presented of himself? Which is telling the complete truth? Or are both religious propaganda? I believe today that whomever wrote acts had to been aware of certain Paul writings for him to be depicted that way.

[@onejohn2.26.]

@@Dizzinator2114 The book of Acts was written by Luke as an affidavit or like a Friend of the Court type document to try to get Paul out of prison as he was on trial at that time Call Steven in his own writings that he was a liar and a thief and a hypocrite and a murderer and yet this is the man 99.9% of Christians follow instead of following the teachings of Christ which are not the same whatsoever at all

[@GwynWilliams-rg8vb]

Out of interest, which new testament books do you think are authoritative?

[@JesusisaMuslim]

@GwynWilliams-rg8vb To be honest, I don't think the authors of all gospels were truthful. For example, in Acts 21, when James questioned Paul about preaching against the Law of Moses in Asia Minor, the author never wrote down Paul’s response. I can never trust Paul or any of the gospel writers.

[@David-j8v5p]

Acts has many...... contradictions.....Acts 1:16 verse (if you read it) about king David speaking about judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus Christ and Acts 2:31 verse about the messiah's ("Jesus Christ's resurrection.....") it's all a lie

[@billyhw5492]

Who wrote this? "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation ..."

[@djfortunomusic]

Bart is such a fanatic! How can anyone not see this?

[@soulseeker1483]

I have a BA in Bible and an MDiv, graduated in 1988. Bart teaches nothing I did not engage then. Bart shares what most NT scholars have know for a long time. If one is used a Sunday School perspective from a literalist inerrancy theology this is probably shocking

[@NickG-x6t]

Yes, fanatically attached to critical rationality and truth.

[@joshuas9236]

I was on Reddit over the weekend, and I saw a comment saying Bart isn’t a respected biblical scholar. I was a little surprised by that, and didn’t get an answer when I asked why they said that? What is controversial about Bart?

[@cullenjohnson0]

He doesn’t agree with people who say that everything in the Bible is exactly what actually happened and that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions.

[@cullenjohnson0]

He also disagrees with those who say that Jesus never existed as an actual living person.

[@joshuas9236]

@@cullenjohnson0 I must’ve been reading the comment of a person who takes their religious views very seriously.

[@cullenjohnson0]

@@joshuas9236 It's certainly possible, though I try not to attribute motives to people I don't know.

[@joshuas9236]

@@cullenjohnson0 That’s fair enough, but if the only reason Bart is controversial is because his scholarly view doesn’t align with someone’s doctrine. Then I can’t see what other reason someone would have for saying Bart isn’t a respected biblical scholar. If Bart has some opinions about the Bible that don’t align with other scholars and historians of Christianity, I’d be interested in hearing the counter argument. I’m not a smart guy, or a Christian, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m just a curious person with a newly discovered interest in religions, philosophy, and history.

[@davidspencer7585]

I can't do all the money grabbing on your shows anymore.

[@tejasgreen1717]

Acts is the most ridiculous nonsense ever written

[@DneilB007]

No; you’ve obviously never tried to read Adan Brown.

[@onejohn2.26.]

Paul is the false Apostle spoken of in Revelation 2:22 in any contradictions in his writings are because Paul is was liar and he stated he was a liar Peter's vision of different animals on a sheet was absolutely not to allow gentiles to keep the kosher law in the states that Within the verbiage of that chapter The book of Acts was written as a brief illegal brief to try to get Paul off the hook because he was being tried and the book of Acts was addressed to the Roman authorities

[@toonmoene8757]

Contradictions: It might have been that Luke, like Paul, *dictated* his work - and never re-read them ...

[@onejohn2.26.]

The contradictions exist because Paul was a liar and he admitted he was a liar in his own writings

[@Eldavide888]

Something was wrong with Paul's head, maybe he was bipolar? I

[@billyhw5492]

Literally every argument Bart makes is an argument from silence.

[@tl7988]

In my opinion, highlighting core differences/omissions in texts claiming to have a narrative or knowledge of the same event isn’t an argument from silence. In my experience, he does a skillful job at highlighting why he or other scholars think something, and how omissions between accounts can be useful information.

[@kyleauthman]

Paul the Worst Liar

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝑳𝑺𝑩 𝒃𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏