NT Times

rewriter · Aug 21, 2026

GWH said:
Yes, all facts are matters of opinion, and an inerrant Scripture is subject to fallible interpretation,
so truthseekers want to utilize a valid hermeneutic, including harmonizing as much as possible.

P.S. Trump plays chess while everyone else is playing checkers. Thank God Trump was wise enough to stop Iran before it developed the capability of exploding nuclear weapons in the USA/great Satan!

But it was also Trump who "knew" he could make a better deal than the one that had Russia, China, the USA and a couple of other European nations all working together to ensure that Iran did not develop one, and agreement that Iran had accepted.

Likewise, the best intelligence had Iran years away from developing a nuclear weapon, so where was the immediate danger?

Now can we return to discussing the Bible and leave current politics to a more appropriate forumj?

GWH · Aug 21, 2026

rewriter said:
But it was also Trump who "knew" he could make a better deal than the one that had Russia, China, the USA and a couple of other European nations all working together to ensure that Iran did not develop one, and agreement that Iran had accepted.

Likewise, the best intelligence had Iran years away from developing a nuclear weapon, so where was the immediate danger?

Now can we return to discussing the Bible and leave current politics to a more appropriate forumj?

An agreement that allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons in a few years.
Wise people prevent danger before it becomes immediate, which means too late.
Did you learn nothing from appeasing Hitler?

We can discuss the Bible if you are through dissing Trump,
probably the best US president ever, despite being opposed by the Marxist Dems and RINOs.

rewriter · Aug 22, 2026

GWH said:
An agreement that allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons in a few years.
Wise people prevent danger before it becomes immediate, which means too late.
Did you learn nothing from appeasing Hitler?

We can discuss the Bible if you are through dissing Trump,
probably the best US president ever, despite being opposed by the Marxist Dems and RINOs.

While you perceive me "dissing Trump", I responded to your question with easily knowable FACTS, not my personal opinion. You then proceeded to complain and apparently choose to ignore inconvenient facts. But this is not the forum for current political debates, so again, this time without current political comments, are you willing to return to discussing scripture or will you continue on a political rant?

GWH · Aug 22, 2026

rewriter said:
While you perceive me "dissing Trump", I responded to your question with easily knowable FACTS, not my personal opinion. You then proceeded to complain and apparently choose to ignore inconvenient facts. But this is not the forum for current political debates, so again, this time without current political comments, are you willing to return to discussing scripture or will you continue on a political rant?

Well, we disagree about who is ignoring facts, and the fact is that YOU are engaging in political debate for the second time after I indicated willingness to move on, so I am losing interest, but go ahead if you want.

GWH · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
Now in hopes of returning to politics in the NT era, I asked you if you could identify two quarrelling kingdoms who fought each other in 15 BCE, 1 CE and the mid-30's CE. You have not answered yet, so I will. Properly there were four political entities involved, but two were just a part of a division of one of the kingdoms, and the two original kingdoms cooperated in a joint mission with Rome in 25 BCE. They provided both troops and guides for a Roman expedition that took 6 months to reach its desired destination, losing its naval support and a fair portion of its supplies, where it suffered a defeat. The return journey, using the same guides, took less than 6 weeks.

But in 15 BCE, the kingdom under a man called Herod attacked the kingdom under a man called Obodas III, after Obodas failed to control brigands. Augustus found Obodas at fault. Then in 1 CE, after the death of Herod, Aretas IV, the son of Obodas, joined Rome in defeating a rebellion in Judah, which was under the rule of Archelaus one of Herod's sons. Then in the mid-30's, Aretas fought with Antipas, another of Herod's sons. Josephus claims Aretas started the problem, other sources blame Antipas. Given that Aretas was never punished and Antipas appears to have been arrested then pardoned in 37 before another arrest in 39 after many pardons were revoked, it appears most likely that Antipas was the aggressor This would have been about the time that Paul had trouble in Damascus, which was under the nominal control of Nabataea, the kingdom ruled by Aretas. But I am sure that his ethnarch, being fully aware of the political situation, would have cooperated with the Jews if they were unhappy with Paul (pure sarcasm). Especially since Paul was a Jew and Roman citizen by birth, something highly unusual except for direct descendants of Herod. But such would contradict the "proper" account given in Acts, were the Jews were to blame and no mention of a conflict with Nabataea occurs.

I think this was your last substantive post, to which I have nothing to say other than to ask you to clarify any significant point you intend to make. Otherwise, please continue sharing your material.

CS1 · Aug 29, 2026

timf said:
1st century CE people

If you do not trust in Christ, it is understandable that you would advocate a reinterpretation of the bible according to interpretive tools that allow you to manipulate whatever doubts you want to introduce or changes you want to make.

However, if you do not like the calendar that was created around Christ, come up with your own calendar. To change AD to CE is insulting.

YES!!! amen

rewriter · Aug 29, 2026

GWH said:
I think this was your last substantive post, to which I have nothing to say other than to ask you to clarify any significant point you intend to make. Otherwise, please continue sharing your material.

My basic point is that, just as in today's world. politics heavily influenced theology in the 1st century. Christians were not eager to be crucified, burned alive as human torches or face wild animals in the arena any more than Christians today would be. Thus, they couched their message in largely politically safe phraseology.

Subsequent events led to further confirmation that great care was needed in the political realm. It is widely recognized among scholars of all stripes, including conservative evangelicals, that by the first third of the 2nd century, Christians were actively concealing something, and this active concealment seems to have lasted well past most, if not all. of the ecumenical councils, although exactly what was being concealed in not clearly identified in generally available scholarship. Some hints exist, but they are not sufficient to fully explain things.

But this means that one needs to actively study the 1st century political scene, relate it to what the NT tells us and dig for what might have been concealed, then work to tie everything together. Following tradition, without serious digging into what is not taught in seminaries, which push tradition, will not uncover what was concealed. Rather it will merely continue an active and deliberate distortion of the message of the early church.

And I might note, you did very poorly on knowledge of 1st century politics. Examination of ignored 1st century politics, specifically Nero and Corbulo (who is he without looking it up?) and Paul's letters, especially the hard to consistently explain parts (well some think it refers to this, others say that), as well as specific details early in Acts (actually throughout Acts if one knows the 1st century culture, numerous coincidences (?) are recorded). is quite capable of implying that Acts was written as pure cover story for Paul in hopes that the current Roman government was unaware of the actual history (they might have missed some specific details, but they did know the general outlines of the first 35-40 years of the church and did not approve). There were multiple changes in Roman government between 68-9, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian, but plausibly either Galba or Otho had direct knowledge of Paul and Vitellius would have had indirect, through his father, if not direct knowledge. Vespasian would have had direct knowledge of many of the activities of the early church in the Galilean-Judean region.

The writings of Josephus as well as the records preserved in the Mishnah, circa 200, Tosefta, circa 200-300, Midrashim, 2nd -4th centuries, and the two Talmuds, circa 400-640, are all additional sources of insight as are Herodian numismatics. And then there are various early Christian myths and apocryphal works, including some that try to explain why there was a body in Jesus's tomb, and Moses of Chorene's "A History of Armenia", which reads very well if one excludes the "Legend of Thaddeus" which clearly does not fit with the time frame in which is it placed.

But again, one will not get this knowledge from most seminaries, most seminaries have "Statements of Faith", which all professors must adhere to, and these statements toe traditional lines and ignore the issues by staying safe in terms of 1st through 6th century politics at the very least (plausibly politically safe into the 14th century and beyond).

GWH · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
My basic point is that, just as in today's world. politics heavily influenced theology in the 1st century. Christians were not eager to be crucified, burned alive as human torches or face wild animals in the arena any more than Christians today would be. Thus, they couched their message in largely politically safe phraseology.

Subsequent events led to further confirmation that great care was needed in the political realm. It is widely recognized among scholars of all stripes, including conservative evangelicals, that by the first third of the 2nd century, Christians were actively concealing something, and this active concealment seems to have lasted well past most, if not all. of the ecumenical councils, although exactly what was being concealed in not clearly identified in generally available scholarship. Some hints exist, but they are not sufficient to fully explain things.

But this means that one needs to actively study the 1st century political scene, relate it to what the NT tells us and dig for what might have been concealed, then work to tie everything together. Following tradition, without serious digging into what is not taught in seminaries, which push tradition, will not uncover what was concealed. Rather it will merely continue an active and deliberate distortion of the message of the early church.

And I might note, you did very poorly on knowledge of 1st century politics. Examination of ignored 1st century politics, specifically Nero and Corbulo (who is he without looking it up?) and Paul's letters, especially the hard to consistently explain parts (well some think it refers to this, others say that), as well as specific details early in Acts (actually throughout Acts if one knows the 1st century culture, numerous coincidences (?) are recorded). is quite capable of implying that Acts was written as pure cover story for Paul in hopes that the current Roman government was unaware of the actual history (they might have missed some specific details, but they did know the general outlines of the first 35-40 years of the church and did not approve). There were multiple changes in Roman government between 68-9, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian, but plausibly either Galba or Otho had direct knowledge of Paul and Vitellius would have had indirect, through his father, if not direct knowledge. Vespasian would have had direct knowledge of many of the activities of the early church in the Galilean-Judean region.

The writings of Josephus as well as the records preserved in the Mishnah, circa 200, Tosefta, circa 200-300, Midrashim, 2nd -4th centuries, and the two Talmuds, circa 400-640, are all additional sources of insight as are Herodian numismatics. And then there are various early Christian myths and apocryphal works, including some that try to explain why there was a body in Jesus's tomb, and Moses of Chorene's "A History of Armenia", which reads very well if one excludes the "Legend of Thaddeus" which clearly does not fit with the time frame in which is it placed.

But again, one will not get this knowledge from most seminaries, most seminaries have "Statements of Faith", which all professors must adhere to, and these statements toe traditional lines and ignore the issues by staying safe in terms of 1st through 6th century politics at the very least (plausibly politically safe into the 14th century and beyond).

Well, rew, your basic point seems rather reasonable, although it ignores the martyrs, so it is not true in every case.

Now can you clearly state what your next point is? It seems to be something about Acts being false because of some coincidences.

Then there is something about Christ's bodily resurrection being a myth because of some apocryphal works.

Are we supposed to be convinced that atheism is correct because of what you said?

OMC · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
My basic point is that, just as in today's world. politics heavily influenced theology in the 1st century. Christians were not eager to be crucified, burned alive as human torches or face wild animals in the arena any more than Christians today would be. Thus, they couched their message in largely politically safe phraseology.

Subsequent events led to further confirmation that great care was needed in the political realm. It is widely recognized among scholars of all stripes, including conservative evangelicals, that by the first third of the 2nd century, Christians were actively concealing something, and this active concealment seems to have lasted well past most, if not all. of the ecumenical councils, although exactly what was being concealed in not clearly identified in generally available scholarship. Some hints exist, but they are not sufficient to fully explain things.

But this means that one needs to actively study the 1st century political scene, relate it to what the NT tells us and dig for what might have been concealed, then work to tie everything together. Following tradition, without serious digging into what is not taught in seminaries, which push tradition, will not uncover what was concealed. Rather it will merely continue an active and deliberate distortion of the message of the early church.

And I might note, you did very poorly on knowledge of 1st century politics. Examination of ignored 1st century politics, specifically Nero and Corbulo (who is he without looking it up?) and Paul's letters, especially the hard to consistently explain parts (well some think it refers to this, others say that), as well as specific details early in Acts (actually throughout Acts if one knows the 1st century culture, numerous coincidences (?) are recorded). is quite capable of implying that Acts was written as pure cover story for Paul in hopes that the current Roman government was unaware of the actual history (they might have missed some specific details, but they did know the general outlines of the first 35-40 years of the church and did not approve). There were multiple changes in Roman government between 68-9, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian, but plausibly either Galba or Otho had direct knowledge of Paul and Vitellius would have had indirect, through his father, if not direct knowledge. Vespasian would have had direct knowledge of many of the activities of the early church in the Galilean-Judean region.

The writings of Josephus as well as the records preserved in the Mishnah, circa 200, Tosefta, circa 200-300, Midrashim, 2nd -4th centuries, and the two Talmuds, circa 400-640, are all additional sources of insight as are Herodian numismatics. And then there are various early Christian myths and apocryphal works, including some that try to explain why there was a body in Jesus's tomb, and Moses of Chorene's "A History of Armenia", which reads very well if one excludes the "Legend of Thaddeus" which clearly does not fit with the time frame in which is it placed.

But again, one will not get this knowledge from most seminaries, most seminaries have "Statements of Faith", which all professors must adhere to, and these statements toe traditional lines and ignore the issues by staying safe in terms of 1st through 6th century politics at the very least (plausibly politically safe into the 14th century and beyond).

I take your concern seriously, because you’re right that politics and power dynamics shaped the early church’s environment—but I correct your conclusion, because Scripture and the actual historical record will not bear the weight you’re putting on “concealment.”
I acknowledge that first‑century Christians lived under real threat—Nero, imperial suspicion, Jewish hostility,
social marginalization, and that this pressure affected how they spoke, where they met, and how openly they challenged Rome; but I confess that the New Testament itself is anything but “politically safe phraseology”: it openly calls Jesus Lord (a direct challenge to Caesar), proclaims a crucified Jew as King, announces judgment on rulers, and records apostles willingly suffering execution rather than softening their message. I reject the idea that Acts is a “pure cover story” crafted to fool Roman officials; its theology, geography, legal details, and Jewish/Roman procedures align too closely with what we know from Josephus, inscriptions, and Roman practice to be dismissed as literary camouflage. I agree that seminaries often ignore or downplay first‑century politics and that “Statements of Faith” can create blind spots, but I stand by this: the core apostolic message is not a politically engineered distortion—it is a public, dangerous, and costly proclamation of a crucified and risen Messiah, preserved in texts that invite scrutiny rather than concealment.

CS1 · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
My basic point is that, just as in today's world. politics heavily influenced theology in the 1st century. Christians were not eager to be crucified, burned alive as human torches or face wild animals in the arena any more than Christians today would be. Thus, they couched their message in largely politically safe phraseology.

Subsequent events led to further confirmation that great care was needed in the political realm. It is widely recognized among scholars of all stripes, including conservative evangelicals, that by the first third of the 2nd century, Christians were actively concealing something, and this active concealment seems to have lasted well past most, if not all. of the ecumenical councils, although exactly what was being concealed in not clearly identified in generally available scholarship. Some hints exist, but they are not sufficient to fully explain things.

But this means that one needs to actively study the 1st century political scene, relate it to what the NT tells us and dig for what might have been concealed, then work to tie everything together. Following tradition, without serious digging into what is not taught in seminaries, which push tradition, will not uncover what was concealed. Rather it will merely continue an active and deliberate distortion of the message of the early church.

And I might note, you did very poorly on knowledge of 1st century politics. Examination of ignored 1st century politics, specifically Nero and Corbulo (who is he without looking it up?) and Paul's letters, especially the hard to consistently explain parts (well some think it refers to this, others say that), as well as specific details early in Acts (actually throughout Acts if one knows the 1st century culture, numerous coincidences (?) are recorded). is quite capable of implying that Acts was written as pure cover story for Paul in hopes that the current Roman government was unaware of the actual history (they might have missed some specific details, but they did know the general outlines of the first 35-40 years of the church and did not approve). There were multiple changes in Roman government between 68-9, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian, but plausibly either Galba or Otho had direct knowledge of Paul and Vitellius would have had indirect, through his father, if not direct knowledge. Vespasian would have had direct knowledge of many of the activities of the early church in the Galilean-Judean region.

The writings of Josephus as well as the records preserved in the Mishnah, circa 200, Tosefta, circa 200-300, Midrashim, 2nd -4th centuries, and the two Talmuds, circa 400-640, are all additional sources of insight as are Herodian numismatics. And then there are various early Christian myths and apocryphal works, including some that try to explain why there was a body in Jesus's tomb, and Moses of Chorene's "A History of Armenia", which reads very well if one excludes the "Legend of Thaddeus" which clearly does not fit with the time frame in which is it placed.

But again, one will not get this knowledge from most seminaries, most seminaries have "Statements of Faith", which all professors must adhere to, and these statements toe traditional lines and ignore the issues by staying safe in terms of 1st through 6th century politics at the very least (plausibly politically safe into the 14th century and beyond).

This sounds like some type of RCC Garbage. First off the writing of Paul were called scripture by Peter himself 2Pet 3:16.

You are using big words to discredit the Biblical letter of Paul by using Talmud which is Jewish civil and ceremonial law.
You completely disconnect Christ from the equation of Biblical text. Why? Is the writing of Josephus authoritative or the the Babylonian Talmud? No. Paul's writing is because it was inspired by God. Oops. This conspiracy theory that most of it comes from the Gnostics and RCC Morons. Just saying. Who attack the gospel writers and try to look at the Biblical Text in a humanistic manner, to read into the Word of God that is not there. BUT very well be be in the RCC as Corrupt as they are.

rewriter · Aug 29, 2026

GWH said:
Well, rew, your basic point seems rather reasonable, although it ignores the martyrs, so it is not true in every case.

Now can you clearly state what your next point is? It seems to be something about Acts being false because of some coincidences.

Then there is something about Christ's bodily resurrection being a myth because of some apocryphal works.

Are we supposed to be convinced that atheism is correct because of what you said?

I have never denied the resurrection nor supported atheism. That is your assumption, not fact. Instead, I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true.

And what does the correctness of Acts geography, personages and titles prove? If one looks at "Ivanhoe", the geography, titles and many names can also be verified as real. Does that mean that Ivanhoe is historically accurate? What about some of the stories about HItler escaping to Argentina, they often include very confirmable details about people, their military rank, places and even ships.

As for the Martyrs proving anything, that is as broad as it is long. What was the crime they were being punished for and why did they choose to accept the punishment. I recognize that martyr stories like to claim that they went happily to their fates, but did they really or did they choose what they perceived as the lesser of two evils?

Read Acts 2, is it just coincidence that outside of Rome, which tended to stay neutral in the disputes about who should be emperor, that the only locations mentioned were all early supporters of Vespasian and never supporters of Galba, Otho or Vitellius? What about Peter healing a paralyzed man who had a name that seems virtually unknown of literature in the 1st century and introducing him to Christ and the correct god, when in literature Aeneas brought the Trojan gods to Rome. I wonder who else is credited in Acts with bringing the word of God to Rome (admittedly there were Christians in Rome prior to Paul's arrival, but the region that became Rome would also have known of the Trojan gods, just likely not in great detail). Acts claims that Jews tried to capture Paul in Damascus, Paul claims it was Arabs. Now given that the timing appears to have closely coincided with conflict between Antipas, a Jew, and Aretas, the king recognized in Galatians, cooperation between the Jews and Arabs would seem highly unlikely, so who is telling the truth, Paul or Luke. And also, before you claim two such incidents, Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time.

But let us look at another point also, the early church supposedly lived the utopian ideal for a time. Were the early Christians that much better at living their faith then at any other time? Paul notes discord in the churches, indicating that during his ministry such powerful faith did not exist, yet the utopian ideal was something that the Romans praised. So again, is this a coincidence?

And yet a third coincidence, Paul and Barnabas are recognized as Jupiter and Mercury, deities, in human form, in Lycaonia, a region that just happens to have had a myth about such an event occurring, with the exact same deities involved.

And there are multiple other such "coincidences" occurring in Acts. Cases were reportedly events reported in popular culture of the time, either as actual events or as parts of plays and/or legends. Are we to blindly accept that all these "coincidences" occurred, even when Roman soldiers would have been present and thus had to choose to not act, a major violation on their parts? If you so assert, where is the mighty God who does not change, taking such public actions in today's world?

Now if it is cover story, then all the coincidences vanish into good story telling. but if actual history, please explain them, and that does not mean asserting that they must be true.

GWH · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
I have never denied the resurrection nor supported atheism. That is your assumption, not fact. Instead, I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true.

And what does the correctness of Acts geography, personages and titles prove? If one looks at "Ivanhoe", the geography, titles and many names can also be verified as real. Does that mean that Ivanhoe is historically accurate? What about some of the stories about HItler escaping to Argentina, they often include very confirmable details about people, their military rank, places and even ships.

As for the Martyrs proving anything, that is as broad as it is long. What was the crime they were being punished for and why did they choose to accept the punishment. I recognize that martyr stories like to claim that they went happily to their fates, but did they really or did they choose what they perceived as the lesser of two evils?

Read Acts 2, is it just coincidence that outside of Rome, which tended to stay neutral in the disputes about who should be emperor, that the only locations mentioned were all early supporters of Vespasian and never supporters of Galba, Otho or Vitellius? What about Peter healing a paralyzed man who had a name that seems virtually unknown of literature in the 1st century and introducing him to Christ and the correct god, when in literature Aeneas brought the Trojan gods to Rome. I wonder who else is credited in Acts with bringing the word of God to Rome (admittedly there were Christians in Rome prior to Paul's arrival, but the region that became Rome would also have known of the Trojan gods, just likely not in great detail). Acts claims that Jews tried to capture Paul in Damascus, Paul claims it was Arabs. Now given that the timing appears to have closely coincided with conflict between Antipas, a Jew, and Aretas, the king recognized in Galatians, cooperation between the Jews and Arabs would seem highly unlikely, so who is telling the truth, Paul or Luke. And also, before you claim two such incidents, Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time.

But let us look at another point also, the early church supposedly lived the utopian ideal for a time. Were the early Christians that much better at living their faith then at any other time? Paul notes discord in the churches, indicating that during his ministry such powerful faith did not exist, yet the utopian ideal was something that the Romans praised. So again, is this a coincidence?

And yet a third coincidence, Paul and Barnabas are recognized as Jupiter and Mercury, deities, in human form, in Lycaonia, a region that just happens to have had a myth about such an event occurring, with the exact same deities involved.

And there are multiple other such "coincidences" occurring in Acts. Cases were reportedly events reported in popular culture of the time, either as actual events or as parts of plays and/or legends. Are we to blindly accept that all these "coincidences" occurred, even when Roman soldiers would have been present and thus had to choose to not act, a major violation on their parts? If you so assert, where is the mighty God who does not change, taking such public actions in today's world?

Now if it is cover story, then all the coincidences vanish into good story telling. but if actual history, please explain them, and that does not mean asserting that they must be true.

I will enumerate my responses to each point as I understand them.

1. I have never denied the resurrection nor supported atheism. That is your assumption, not fact. Instead, I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true.
GWH - Good, so do I.

2. And what does the correctness of Acts geography, personages and titles prove? If one looks at "Ivanhoe", the geography, titles and many names can also be verified as real. Does that mean that Ivanhoe is historically accurate? What about some of the stories about HItler escaping to Argentina, they often include very confirmable details about people, their military rank, places and even ships.
GWH - Instead of asking questions, I prefer that you assert your point.

3. As for the Martyrs proving anything, that is as broad as it is long. What was the crime they were being punished for and why did they choose to accept the punishment. I recognize that martyr stories like to claim that they went happily to their fates, but did they really or did they choose what they perceived as the lesser of two evils?
GWH - same as #2.

4. Read Acts 2, is it just coincidence that outside of Rome, which tended to stay neutral in the disputes about who should be emperor, that the only locations mentioned were all early supporters of Vespasian and never supporters of Galba, Otho or Vitellius? What about Peter healing a paralyzed man who had a name that seems virtually unknown of literature in the 1st century and introducing him to Christ and the correct god, when in literature Aeneas brought the Trojan gods to Rome.
GWH - ditto.

5. I wonder who else is credited in Acts with bringing the word of God to Rome (admittedly there were Christians in Rome prior to Paul's arrival, but the region that became Rome would also have known of the Trojan gods, just likely not in great detail). Acts claims that Jews tried to capture Paul in Damascus, Paul claims it was Arabs. Now given that the timing appears to have closely coincided with conflict between Antipas, a Jew, and Aretas, the king recognized in Galatians, cooperation between the Jews and Arabs would seem highly unlikely, so who is telling the truth, Paul or Luke. And also, before you claim two such incidents, Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time.
GWH - ditto.

6. But let us look at another point also, the early church supposedly lived the utopian ideal for a time. Were the early Christians that much better at living their faith then at any other time? Paul notes discord in the churches, indicating that during his ministry such powerful faith did not exist, yet the utopian ideal was something that the Romans praised. So again, is this a coincidence?
GWH - ditto.

7. And yet a third coincidence, Paul and Barnabas are recognized as Jupiter and Mercury, deities, in human form, in Lycaonia, a region that just happens to have had a myth about such an event occurring, with the exact same deities involved. And there are multiple other such "coincidences" occurring in Acts. Cases were reportedly events reported in popular culture of the time, either as actual events or as parts of plays and/or legends. Are we to blindly accept that all these "coincidences" occurred, even when Roman soldiers would have been present and thus had to choose to not act, a major violation on their parts? If you so assert, where is the mighty God who does not change, taking such public actions in today's world?
GWH - ditto.

8. Now if it is cover story, then all the coincidences vanish into good story telling. but if actual history, please explain them, and that does not mean asserting that they must be true.
GWH - In responding to your post, I realized that you ask many questions and say very little.

Please repost with statements of your beliefs/points.
Thanks.

rewriter · Aug 29, 2026

GWH said:
I will enumerate my responses to each point as I understand them.

1. I have never denied the resurrection nor supported atheism. That is your assumption, not fact. Instead, I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true.
GWH - Good, so do I.

2. And what does the correctness of Acts geography, personages and titles prove? If one looks at "Ivanhoe", the geography, titles and many names can also be verified as real. Does that mean that Ivanhoe is historically accurate? What about some of the stories about HItler escaping to Argentina, they often include very confirmable details about people, their military rank, places and even ships.
GWH - Instead of asking questions, I prefer that you assert your point.

3. As for the Martyrs proving anything, that is as broad as it is long. What was the crime they were being punished for and why did they choose to accept the punishment. I recognize that martyr stories like to claim that they went happily to their fates, but did they really or did they choose what they perceived as the lesser of two evils?
GWH - same as #2.

4. Read Acts 2, is it just coincidence that outside of Rome, which tended to stay neutral in the disputes about who should be emperor, that the only locations mentioned were all early supporters of Vespasian and never supporters of Galba, Otho or Vitellius? What about Peter healing a paralyzed man who had a name that seems virtually unknown of literature in the 1st century and introducing him to Christ and the correct god, when in literature Aeneas brought the Trojan gods to Rome.
GWH - ditto.

5. I wonder who else is credited in Acts with bringing the word of God to Rome (admittedly there were Christians in Rome prior to Paul's arrival, but the region that became Rome would also have known of the Trojan gods, just likely not in great detail). Acts claims that Jews tried to capture Paul in Damascus, Paul claims it was Arabs. Now given that the timing appears to have closely coincided with conflict between Antipas, a Jew, and Aretas, the king recognized in Galatians, cooperation between the Jews and Arabs would seem highly unlikely, so who is telling the truth, Paul or Luke. And also, before you claim two such incidents, Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time.
GWH - ditto.

6. But let us look at another point also, the early church supposedly lived the utopian ideal for a time. Were the early Christians that much better at living their faith then at any other time? Paul notes discord in the churches, indicating that during his ministry such powerful faith did not exist, yet the utopian ideal was something that the Romans praised. So again, is this a coincidence?
GWH - ditto.

7. And yet a third coincidence, Paul and Barnabas are recognized as Jupiter and Mercury, deities, in human form, in Lycaonia, a region that just happens to have had a myth about such an event occurring, with the exact same deities involved. And there are multiple other such "coincidences" occurring in Acts. Cases were reportedly events reported in popular culture of the time, either as actual events or as parts of plays and/or legends. Are we to blindly accept that all these "coincidences" occurred, even when Roman soldiers would have been present and thus had to choose to not act, a major violation on their parts? If you so assert, where is the mighty God who does not change, taking such public actions in today's world?
GWH - ditto.

8. Now if it is cover story, then all the coincidences vanish into good story telling. but if actual history, please explain them, and that does not mean asserting that they must be true.
GWH - In responding to your post, I realized that you ask many questions and say very little.

Please repost with statements of your beliefs/points.
Thanks.

You ask for my statement, so I will reiterate it, although I believe I have stated it multiple times. Acts was written as a cover story for Paul. It is NOT actual history, it is rather a manufactured, idealized history.

In my home state, there is often a political ad against one candidate spelling out what they did and how it affected the speaker's family. The candidate did take the actions charged, but the affected family members lived in a different state and were affected by decisions made in that state by different politicians, and the policies in my home state were not as are presented in the ad. Further, the speaker is a high-ranking member of the opposing political party, a fact that is not disclosed in the ad. I am aware of these points only because journalists investigated this specific ad, prior to this revelation I was very concerned about the candidate's actions in this matter.

Now I ask you, have you investigated the accounts in Acts sufficiently to be certain that they occurred as recorded, or do you simply accept that since they were accepted as scripture several years after the fact, and possibly in connection with the "Doctrine of the Secret" , which appears to have been widely accepted by the church leadership both before and well after that time, that it must be true? Note, it Acts is a cover story for Paul then the issue of women's hair in Corinth and 2 Timothy 3:16, as well as other passages across Paul, Johannine literature, Matthew and Luke-Acts, can all be easily explained by a common thread, which can also explain much about Mark that puzzles scholars.

That my beliefs contradict accepted tradition is the point, not a side issue. That multiple scholars find that my approach resolves multiple known issues in the NT than no traditional approach can consistently address, will be made much clearer when my almost finished work is published. My publisher is eagerly awaiting my final document, already knowing far more about it than can be expressed in this forum.

Now are you willing to address my questions about how you address the issues I point out, or are you again going to retreat to protests on any side issue you can think of.

GWH · Aug 29, 2026

rewriter said:
You ask for my statement, so I will reiterate it, although I believe I have stated it multiple times. Acts was written as a cover story for Paul. It is NOT actual history, it is rather a manufactured, idealized history.

In my home state, there is often a political ad against one candidate spelling out what they did and how it affected the speaker's family. The candidate did take the actions charged, but the affected family members lived in a different state and were affected by decisions made in that state by different politicians, and the policies in my home state were not as are presented in the ad. Further, the speaker is a high-ranking member of the opposing political party, a fact that is not disclosed in the ad. I am aware of these points only because journalists investigated this specific ad, prior to this revelation I was very concerned about the candidate's actions in this matter.

Now I ask you, have you investigated the accounts in Acts sufficiently to be certain that they occurred as recorded, or do you simply accept that since they were accepted as scripture several years after the fact, and possibly in connection with the "Doctrine of the Secret" , which appears to have been widely accepted by the church leadership both before and well after that time, that it must be true? Note, it Acts is a cover story for Paul then the issue of women's hair in Corinth and 2 Timothy 3:16, as well as other passages across Paul, Johannine literature, Matthew and Luke-Acts, can all be easily explained by a common thread, which can also explain much about Mark that puzzles scholars.

That my beliefs contradict accepted tradition is the point, not a side issue. That multiple scholars find that my approach resolves multiple known issues in the NT than no traditional approach can consistently address, will be made much clearer when my almost finished work is published. My publisher is eagerly awaiting my final document, already knowing far more about it than can be expressed in this forum.

Now are you willing to address my questions about how you address the issues I point out, or are you again going to retreat to protests on any side issue you can think of.

Not one statement; all of your points, although one at a time (seven so far).
You might begin by stating exactly what assertions in Acts you deem to be false/manufactured/idealized. The paragraph about the political ad did not suffice. Nor did your question and vague allusion to hair in the third paragraph. Ditto re your allusion to beliefs in the fourth paragraph. Stop alluding or asking questions and start averring/anticipating them. So far the only statement I have seen was "I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true."

Inquiring minds want to know!

Dino246 · Aug 29, 2026

I won't attempt to explain the views of first-century Jews or Romans, but I can offer this:

Scripture is clear in the presentation of one supreme God, sovereign over all creation.

It is also clear in the presentation of many of "false gods" - gods of other nations, which the Israelites were told to avoid and reject.

It is somewhat less clear in presenting the idea that these lesser beings actually exist, but are created beings who rebelled against God. They are not inherently "god" but are spirit beings given some measure of authority on the earth.

How much of this was known and understood by the average Jew is not clear. It is clear that Romans accepted many of these false gods.

Given this, the correct understanding of Scripture would still be monotheism, not henotheism. Jews generally viewed Scripture as God's word but the understanding of it was filtered through rabbis, rather like today in that many Christians and probably nearly all Catholics are aware of Scripture, and may read it for themselves, but they lean on their leaders' explanations.

rewriter · Aug 29, 2026

GWH said:
Not one statement; all of your points, although one at a time (seven so far).
You might begin by stating exactly what assertions in Acts you deem to be false/manufactured/idealized. The paragraph about the political ad did not suffice. Nor did your question and vague allusion to hair in the third paragraph. Ditto re your allusion to beliefs in the fourth paragraph. Stop alluding or asking questions and start averring/anticipating them. So far the only statement I have seen was "I have agreed with Paul that the resurrection must be true."

Inquiring minds want to know!

So you do not know you r NT, so sorry, I thought you knew about what was written there and would not need it spoon fed to you.

Points, the account of the first Pentecost in Acts 2, FICTION, Paul's Damascus Road conversion, FICTION, Peter's healing of Aeneas FICTION, Barnabas and Paul being identified as Zeus and Mercury. FICTION, the Utopian early church, FICTION. How is that for starters?

Whether or not women's hair should be uncovered was an issue addressed in Corinthians, and Paul seems to fumble as to how to explain why it should be covered. Tradition has no consistent reason for the issue, but if it is the same one requiring an invented word in 2 Timothy 3:!6 then it can fit with why John sound so different.

You want full explanations, you can POLITELY ask in a private message and I will consider your request, but it would take far too many posts in the open forum to respond.

GWH · Aug 30, 2026

rewriter said:
So you do not know you r NT, so sorry, I thought you knew about what was written there and would not need it spoon fed to you.

Points, the account of the first Pentecost in Acts 2, FICTION, Paul's Damascus Road conversion, FICTION, Peter's healing of Aeneas FICTION, Barnabas and Paul being identified as Zeus and Mercury. FICTION, the Utopian early church, FICTION. How is that for starters?

Whether or not women's hair should be uncovered was an issue addressed in Corinthians, and Paul seems to fumble as to how to explain why it should be covered. Tradition has no consistent reason for the issue, but if it is the same one requiring an invented word in 2 Timothy 3:!6 then it can fit with why John sound so different.

You want full explanations, you can POLITELY ask in a private message and I will consider your request, but it would take far too many posts in the open forum to respond.

That is terrible for starters; merely saying something is fiction does not make it untrue. Nor does the rest of your post qualify as evidence. Hopefully, we will live a few more years, so one post containing one full explanation of one point at a time in this open forum for us all to discuss will be fine. That is my polite preference.

rewriter · Aug 30, 2026

GWH said:
That is terrible for starters; merely saying something is fiction does not make it untrue. Nor does the rest of your post qualify as evidence. Hopefully, we will live a few more years, so one post containing one full explanation of one point at a time in this open forum for us all to discuss will be fine. That is my polite preference.

I have been attempting to get you to realize just how little relevant information you possess. You are ignorant regarding the 1st century, both politically and culturally, thus ignorant about the conditions under which the NT was written. And I repeat IGNORANT. Unless or until you learn a lot more, rather than running back to tradition, lifting her shirt and seeking something to suck until your fear of the different vanishes, there is no basis for conversation.

You acknowledge ignorance on some points of history, you admit that politics can affect theology, you display ignorance of 1st century culture and literature but insist that you can understand the NT despite all these failings. You do know that Paul made some comments that could be understood as treasonous, but that is all. But if you knew more, you just might realize that the Apostle Paul all but screams that he was arrested in eastern Anatolia on a charge of treason and never made it back to Jerusalem. You might also realize that Mark likely originally portrayed Jesus as a greater than Alexander, even as He followed a different path to His apotheosis. John likewise intentionally linked Jesus to the divine, but not as a full equal, rather allowing the Father to remain the only deity truly worthy of all praise, while recognizing that Jesus was honored by the Father, whether there was an apotheosis involved is questionable, but less likely than in Mark. Matthew trusted his readers to recognize Jesus as one of the two Messiahs and that the recent death of the other fit with the prophesy in Revelation about the two. Luke, in writing Luke-Acts trusted his readers to know what had happened to Jerusalem, and actively linked Luke to the Iliad while Acts was actively linked to the Aeneid.

All of my points are suggested in scholarly literature, but I am the first to put them all together in a consistent fashion. That you are ignorant and actively choosing to remain ignorant is not my problem. That I cannot provide you with the depth of knowledge that you require to understand, rather than expecting you to be capable of doing your own research with some guidance, is an indication of your lack of maturity. I cannot raise an individual from a kindergarten level to a graduate school level in posts limited to 1,000 words. I can direct you where to look, but you need to do your own lifting, but that take true maturity, not just claimed.

Now if you want to protest again that I am making unsupported claims, offer some defense for your stances against my challenges rather than attempt to deflect by asking more questions rather than answering mine. And every time you admit ignorance, recognize that there is something, potentially very important, that you are missing and thus your theology is inadequate by reason of omission/truncation.

rewriter · Aug 30, 2026

rewriter said:
I have been attempting to get you to realize just how little relevant information you possess. You are ignorant regarding the 1st century, both politically and culturally, thus ignorant about the conditions under which the NT was written. And I repeat IGNORANT. Unless or until you learn a lot more, rather than running back to tradition, lifting her shirt and seeking something to suck until your fear of the different vanishes, there is no basis for conversation.

You acknowledge ignorance on some points of history, you admit that politics can affect theology, you display ignorance of 1st century culture and literature but insist that you can understand the NT despite all these failings. You do know that Paul made some comments that could be understood as treasonous, but that is all. But if you knew more, you just might realize that the Apostle Paul all but screams that he was arrested in eastern Anatolia on a charge of treason and never made it back to Jerusalem. You might also realize that Mark likely originally portrayed Jesus as a greater than Alexander, even as He followed a different path to His apotheosis. John likewise intentionally linked Jesus to the divine, but not as a full equal, rather allowing the Father to remain the only deity truly worthy of all praise, while recognizing that Jesus was honored by the Father, whether there was an apotheosis involved is questionable, but less likely than in Mark. Matthew trusted his readers to recognize Jesus as one of the two Messiahs and that the recent death of the other fit with the prophesy in Revelation about the two. Luke, in writing Luke-Acts trusted his readers to know what had happened to Jerusalem, and actively linked Luke to the Iliad while Acts was actively linked to the Aeneid.

All of my points are suggested in scholarly literature, but I am the first to put them all together in a consistent fashion. That you are ignorant and actively choosing to remain ignorant is not my problem. That I cannot provide you with the depth of knowledge that you require to understand, rather than expecting you to be capable of doing your own research with some guidance, is an indication of your lack of maturity. I cannot raise an individual from a kindergarten level to a graduate school level in posts limited to 1,000 words. I can direct you where to look, but you need to do your own lifting, but that take true maturity, not just claimed.

Now if you want to protest again that I am making unsupported claims, offer some defense for your stances against my challenges rather than attempt to deflect by asking more questions rather than answering mine. And every time you admit ignorance, recognize that there is something, potentially very important, that you are missing and thus your theology is inadequate by reason of omission/truncation.

By the way, if you wish to challenge my claim of your ignorance, a simple point. You dismissed supporters of the Heliopolis temple as "heretics". This is all well and good, so long as you are willing to accept that a few NT writers, including Matthew, Mark, Luke John and Paul, all cited your heretics as writing scripture as the translators of Isaiah for the Septuagint supported the second temple.. Now if you have a problem with heretics writing scripture, you have a brand-new problem, and a much bigger one. But of course, if you instead backtrack and remove the charge of the supporters being heretics, you have the problem of solid evidence of henotheism well after your claim that the Jews were monotheistic. Your ignorance created a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem for yourself.

But the only other option is to admit that there is a huge problem in your theology, which is exactly what I am claiming.

awelight · Aug 31, 2026

rewriter said:
The only politics I worry about in my theology is the ignored politics of the 1st and immediately surrounding centuries. As for the term "TACO". it arose from the investment community. And I am surprised that you know so much about the professors I connect with and what fields they are involved in. Some teach at conservative evangelical schools and abide with their institutional statements of faith.

But again, may we abandon current politics? Current political views are OPINIONS based on assumptions, not facts.

After reading your post and some of your responses, what is obvious, is no one should be listening to your ideas. They are nothing more than an intellectual, humanistic exercise. You call this your theology but the reality is, you are attempting to place historical secular evidence up against Holy Scripture, in such a way, as to throw Scripture into question. This you do at your own peril. For it is a dangerous thing to reject the infallible and inspired Word of God.

NT Times

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Groovy

Groovy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Groovy

Senior Member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member