[quote=""ruby sparks""]Your slight problem is that Paul is not attributed with writing these instances[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I just pointed that out.
nor is the word 'Chrestian' put in his mouth in them.
Again, how would anyone know about the exchange between Agrippa and Paul if it did not come from Paul? Festus? Bernice? And again that would have been in a letter, not, "Hey, Paul, tell me about the time you met Agrippa and I'll transpose your conversation for you..."
Though somehow, you have, on at least two previous occasions recently, referred to them as Paul's Letters.
Yes as that's most likely where it would have come from. Remember my hypothesis that Paul is acting to infiltrate and take over the movement? You know how he wrote a lot of letters that--regardless of my theory--demonstrate precisely that attempt?
See if you can follow this. I know it will be difficult. I made the
assumption that Paul--being someone who writes a lot of letters--might have actually, you know, written
more than just the few we have today. I know, silly me. And that in those other letters the origin of the Agrippa meeting might have taken place, because, you know, it's so detailed and has both sides of the conversation that no one but he would have any reason to record?
When did you work out that that was in fact incorrect?
What was incorrect?
'Paul's letters'. Good one.
Your theory is so lame that you didn't even realise that they weren't written by Paul. Lol.
Read the previous posts. How else would the story of the interaction between Agrippa and Paul have been recorded unless it came from Paul? Assuming--as I repeatedly pointed out--it happened
at all then it had to have been related by Paul to
someone. Considering that Paul had a hard on for letters, then it is likely that would have meant via a letter Paul wrote, unless you think Paul dictated to some scribe what he and Agrippa said to each other?
Likewise, 1 Peter. Silvanus was Paul's choice to serve under him after Paul had served under Barnabas. If my hypothesis is correct, it's therefore likely that Paul would have chosen Silvanus for a reason; either because he was in league with Paul, or, at the very least, someone Paul could count on to keep Paul informed of anything Silvanus did or said that related to the movement or its adherents. Paul had several such loyalists after all who were fanatical in their devotion to him. It's therefore not at all surprising that Silvanus--assuming he did write 1 Peter or helped to write it--did not at least inform Paul about it or, more likely seek out Paul's assistance on the letter; not even in any nefarious sense, just because Paul would have insisted that his former servant do so as a matter of course. This too would likely have come in the form of letters between the two with Paul acting as editor and giving a final approval of the letter Silvanus would have then delivered.
So, yes, Paul's letters. Not his canonized
Epistles; the basis for the story about Paul in Acts and the background for 1 Peter (both of which deal with the same actual disciple, btw; Peter). Sorry if I assumed you were intelligent enough to comprehend that I was referring to source material and that subsequent authors would be faithful to that. I will not make such a mistake in overestimating your intelligence going forward.
I'm the one that clarified what YOU clearly didn't understand thirteen fucking posts ago! You obviously did not know the controversy about 1 Peter or that it can be tied to Paul, nor do you understand the basic fact that we couldn't possibly have the exchange between Agrippa and Paul unless it came from Paul (assuming it was at all authentic) a fact I repeatedly pointed out to you to which you had no response except for this childish bullshit.
[/quote]