He unironically considers himself a "follower of Christ" despite never having read the Q-Source

the letters from the high priest would have confirmed saul's identity

it's not like they had driver's licenses back then

Mark's gospel is his remembrances of Peter's words and teachings. It's Peter's gospel as told by John Mark. Written to the Romans to show Jesus as the suffering servant.

Matthew's gospel was written to the Hebrews in Hebrew to show the Hebrews that Hebrew Jesus is the Hebrew messiah, and King of the Hebrews.

You're not ignorant; you're in open rebellion against God, as is your spiritual father the devil.

Where is this predicted, and no, I would not be horribly surprised by a prediction of an invasion of Jerusalem because it happens rather often on a historical scale.

Bart Ehrman is very much in the academic mainstream.

>Temple authority.

Stays in the Temple.

>The High Priest was given authority over all Jews from the emperor,

[citation seriously needed], especially since he wasn't even given authority over Jewish dissidents in Jerusalem, which is why Jesus needed to be turned over to Pilate in the first place, remember?

>the letters from the high priest would have confirmed saul's identity

Saul's identity isn't the point. Saul's acknowledgement of a Sadducee's authority is the point, as well as the High Priest himself not having the authority to supposedly empower Saul to go dick around in Damascus is.

You're not surprised a man who maybe knew the world had a few million people on it knew the exact number of men China could field, when that number is 100 times the population of the known world.

And then tells of their location and their military colors.

Revelation 9:16 Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.

Revelation 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone.

Temple authority rules the entire Jewish world.

As I said, you're not ignorant, you are in open rebellion against God.

There are consequences for that.

it was one powerful jew giving letters of introduction for another powerful jew OF COURSE his identity was important. youre acting like its ridiculous to believe that jews would temporarily set aside their differences to work together against christians

now THATS what i call mental gymnastics!

How you could read that and assume he was talking about the Chinese army is beyond me. Nor do I think the Chinese have any desire to invade the clusterfuck that is Jerusalem

>Mark's gospel is his remembrances of Peter's words and teachings.

Peter taught how the disciples never quite grasped how Jesus was God, even though supposedly these are the same people who beheld the same Jesus from the Gospel of John running around openly proclaiming his divinity?

>Written to the Romans to show Jesus as the suffering servant.

Which is of course why the earliest manuscripts turn up in Syria and Egypt, and are all in Greek, not Latin. And it's not like the Romans would care about the suffering servant analogy.

>Matthew's gospel was written to the Hebrews in Hebrew

[citation seriously needed once again]. Given that all extant manuscripts of Matthew are in Koine Greek, and it shows distinctly Koine style grammar and literary conventions, you'd have to put on an awfully good showing to claim that it was in Hebrew originally.

> to show the Hebrews that Hebrew Jesus is the Hebrew messiah, and King of the Hebrews.

Which it spectacularly fails at, given its insistence that Jesus was God, an incompatible idea to the Hebrews that Jesus was the messiah, as well as both simultaneously making up messianic prophecy out of the whole cloth, while ignoring actually extant messianic prophecy.

That simply is not how Jewish life under the Roman empire worked.

provide citations for your claim or GTFO

Look up the Chinese military colors.

Fiery red.
Hyacinth blue.
Sulfur yellow.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

None of the apostles grasped how Jesus is God prior to the resurrection.

Do you think you would have?

Because you can't grasp it AFTER the resurrection.

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

They're easily and readily available in many works for free on line with a simple google search.

>Temple authority rules the entire Jewish world.

[citation needed]. Those guys who wrote the Mishnah saying that an illiterate High Priest was lower than a learned bastard surely had such high regard for temple authority.

>it was one powerful jew giving letters of introduction for another powerful jew OF COURSE his identity was important.

You are still missing the point.

> youre acting like its ridiculous to believe that jews would temporarily set aside their differences to work together against christians

Actually, I am. I'm also acting like it's ridiculous that for someone who thumps his chest about how he was a devout Pharisee would openly admit to committing what would be heretical actions from a Pharisee point of view. I'm also doubting that the High Priest actually had any authority whatsoever to empower anyone to persecute Christians in Damascus.

>now THATS what i call mental gymnastics!

Pot, meet kettle.

But they dont feild a large calvary force, notice it said calvary which is only part of the army.

Furthermore horses do not do the things he described.

John would have known about metal and projectiles, he would have no need to refer to things like tanks and planes as horses

then post them

At this point, I can't even tell what point you're trying to make, other than that you're anally pained from my refusal to see things your way.

I've looked in things like the Mishnah, the works of Josephus and Philo, and yes, even googled shit. So far, I haven't seen anything that supports your thesis that the High Priest could order persecution.

Again, why couldn't Ciaphas execute Jesus in his own name instead of turning him over to Pilate if the "Temple Authority" gave him plenary legal power over all Jews everywhere?

ok it's clear where you stand so i'll leave it up to the lurkers to decide whether it's ridiculous to believe that jews would work together against christians.

ACTS 9
Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”

As per usual, your opinion is contrary to the Word of God.

And History.

The High Priest exercised his authority under the general Roman policy of toleration toward the Jews. Judaism had been tolerated in Rome by diplomatic treaty with Graeco-Judaean (Hasmonean) rulers during the later days of the Roman Republic (161 B.C.) when Judea sought protection and aid in its struggle against the Seleucid rulers (I Maccabees 8:17-20; and Josephus, Antiquities, 13. 9:2). Rome’s toleration continued in the days of Julius Caesar “because their ancestral laws predated Rome. Jews had legal privileges as a collegia (defined by Roman law as religious & legal entities), giving them the right to assemble, have common meals and property, govern and tax themselves, and enforce their own discipline.” (yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom1.htm) Toleration by Rome toward Jews was reiterated in the Edict of Augustus in 1 B.C., which protected practice of their “own customs in accordance with their ancestral law” in the Temple and the synagogues ( Edict of Augustus, Josephus, Antiquities 16.162–5). In particular, there was a very Jew-tolerant attitude by the Romans in the latter years of Tiberias (the setting of Acts Chapter 9) in reaction to the fall of Sejanus, the Jew-hating Praetorian Prefect: "Therefore, all people in every country, even if they were not naturally well inclined towards the Jewish nation, took great care not to violate or attack any of the Jewish customs of laws" (Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium, xxiv).

If you think John could have described tanks and helicopters and APCs, more power to you.

Go ahead and describe for us here the weapons of an army in 4000 AD.

Maybe learn how to google better?

>Acts is not a reliable source because it contains nonsense
>I will prove that it is accurate by quoting itself.

>The High Priest exercised his authority under the general Roman policy of toleration toward the Jews. Judaism had been tolerated in Rome by diplomatic treaty with Graeco-Judaean (Hasmonean) rulers during the later days of the Roman Republic (161 B.C.) when Judea sought protection and aid in its struggle against the Seleucid rulers (I Maccabees 8:17-20; and Josephus, Antiquities, 13. 9:2). Rome’s toleration continued in the days of Julius Caesar “because their ancestral laws predated Rome. Jews had legal privileges as a collegia (defined by Roman law as religious & legal entities), giving them the right to assemble, have common meals and property, govern and tax themselves, and enforce their own discipline.” (yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom1.htm) Toleration by Rome toward Jews was reiterated in the Edict of Augustus in 1 B.C., which protected practice of their “own customs in accordance with their ancestral law” in the Temple and the synagogues ( Edict of Augustus, Josephus, Antiquities 16.162–5). In particular, there was a very Jew-tolerant attitude by the Romans in the latter years of Tiberias (the setting of Acts Chapter 9) in reaction to the fall of Sejanus, the Jew-hating Praetorian Prefect: "Therefore, all people in every country, even if they were not naturally well inclined towards the Jewish nation, took great care not to violate or attack any of the Jewish customs of laws" (Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium, xxiv).

Where does any of this say that the High Priest had authority to arrest or execute people? This says that the Jews retained their ancestral laws. Under Jewish "ancestral law" the High Priest has no legal powers to detain anyone except insofar as to eject people from the Temple itself if they're causing a disturbrance.

>Don't believe errant nonsense
>Maybe learn how to google better.

Please feel free to point out the "nonsense" in the Book of Acts.

Protip: Things you do not understand are not "nonsense" by definition.

Under Jewish law a man can be killed on the word of two witnesses by stoning to death.

You have like negative information about this subject. Like, less than zero.

In Israel, your mother and father could have led you outside the city, said you were a disobedient child, and the neighborhood would have killed you.

Q source is a meme

A spook, you might say.

>Where does any of this say that the High Priest had authority to arrest or execute people?

>.....and enforce their own discipline.”

>he doesn't even into direct revelation

>Please feel free to point out the "nonsense" in the Book of Acts.

I already have. You've in turn responded with shit that doesn't even address the points, let alone refute it.>Under Jewish law a man can be killed on the word of two witnesses by stoning to death.

Standards of evidence is not equal to who conducts trials. When the man who blasphemed God's name in Leviticus 24, what was Aaron doing?

Yes, WHERE DOES THAT SAY THE HIGH PRIEST DID THAT?

You keep spouting literal irrelevancy. I can't tell if you're a bad troll or if you're simply stupid.

"Christianity" is just an italian meme.

We know that only the Romans had authority to execute people so clearly enforcing their own discipline did not extend to that

I think John was describing a more likely than not drug fueled vision of Calvary men with magical horses. Being that the rest of his book is full of allegories to the now defunct Roman empire I think it is safe to assume he was not talking about modern armies

>a guy predicted horsefuckers would ride out of the steppes and raid the middle east for the umpteenth time in history

Wow

>We know that only the Romans had authority to execute people so clearly enforcing their own discipline did not extend to that

That's actually not true: Josephus mentions in Antiquities that the Sanhedrin was conducting executions up until shortly before the big revolt.

However, the High Priest and the Sanhedrin were completely different bodies, and as our Christfag friend points out, the Romans, at least before the revolt, didn't interfere too much with Judean practice of internal law.

The bit about "only the Romans have the authority to execute people" ironically comes from the New Testament again, in another facet of how they have only the vaguest grasp as to how things operated in circa 30-50 Judea.

>he unironically considers himself a "follower of Christ"

what is Q-source supposed to contain that would btfo christianity?

Q source is supposed to be something that Mark and Matthew drew upon in order to compose their Gospels. (Mark and Matthew here are just "the guys who wrote the gospels of Mark and Matthew, respectively, not St Mark and St Matthew as claimed by the early Church). It might not even be a complete narrative, something akin to a collection of things Jesus said or the like.

It doesn't BTFO Christianity, but it casts further doubt on the claim that the Gospels were written as eyewitness accounts by people who were immediately connected to the events they entail, which is something that pretty much all modern academic scholars believe anyway from other reasons.

no one thinks it would btfo Christianity, unless it contained some unused quotes that go agaist modern theology, but we have no way of knowing if it did.

If it existed it is just a collection of the sayings of Jesus that latter gospel writers used as a source.

>200,000,000 man army
I'm surprised how often some fuckwit says this shit and nobody calls him on it. What the fuck are you talking about here?

Sorry, I lost my keys to the Vatican vaults

Q would have been a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, like the Gospel of Thomas, the whole narrative of the NT was made up much later and Jesus' words used to highlight the narrative. This gives a wildly misleading spin to Jesus' teachings, since they are distorted to fit the narrative of the NT, itself an allegory of the fall of Jerusalem ~79AD.

>Chinese military colors
???
As long as China and Taiwan unite and ditch the white your statement seems erronous.

>implying any living person has read Q

I think that's OP's point.

You cited nothing of Acts that is "nonsense".

The priests run the Hebrew courts. Paid for by the tithes of the other 11 tribes.

You really know nothing of this.

You don't know anything of value, so no. "We" do not know anything together.

And what you think about John doesn't change anything.

Cited above. Mao bragged about it.

Seriously, does anyone google answers to their own questions here?

>You cited nothing of Acts that is "nonsense".

I have.

>The priests run the Hebrew courts. Paid for by the tithes of the other 11 tribes.

Nope, which is why you will find no such citations to such in either the Tanach nor the Talmud, and instead judicial power being found in ad-hoc tribunals, or later in a body known as the Sanhedrin.

> Paid for by the tithes of the other 11 tribes.

There were 12 non Levite tribes, actually, Reuben, Simon, Judah, Zevulun, Issachar, Dan, Asher, Naftali, Gad, Benjamin, and the two that Joseph split into, Ephraim and Menashe. And you'll find that the tithing was to support the Temple, not the court functions.

>You really know nothing of this.

Pot, meet kettle.

Nope.

Q is a hypothetical thought exercise to explain the consistencies between different witness accounts.

Even though one of those witnesses clearly and plainly states that he is not a witness, but is putting all of the witness testimony in good order, i.e. chronological. (Luke)

Wrong images. The colors of the Chinese flag for its military are red, blue, and yellow.

Again, super easy google search.

It's like you satanists aren't even trying.

And who were the members of the Sanhedrin?

The farmers? Why no, it was the pharisees and the Sadducees.

The priests.

There is never a mention in the bible of the thirteen tribes of Israel.

If you include Joseph, you cannot include the two half tribes.

What you know about this is negative knowledge; you know less than one with zero knowledge.

>And who were the members of the Sanhedrin?

Lots of people. By the 1st century, primarily Pharisees, who were generally opposed to the mostly Sadducee priests.

>The farmers? Why no, it was the pharisees and the Sadducees.

Your statement doesn't even make sense. They were political/religious affiliations, not professions. And while you might have (usually Sadducee) Kohanim serving on the Sanhedrin, that role is distinct from their office as priests.

>Priests, and other priests. Rabbis who believed in the afterlife, and rabbis who did not. Oh, yeah, and the Levites. Priests.

Priests.

>The priests who run the government are not the priests.

kek

You're a fool dude. An educated fool.

>There is never a mention in the bible of the thirteen tribes of Israel.

No, it is always the "Twelve Tribes". Nevertheless, sometimes the 12 are listed to exclude Levi, and other times the 12 are listed merging Ephraim and Menashe. Thus, using a little thing called "addition" We can conclude there are in fact 13 tribes.

>If you include Joseph, you cannot include the two half tribes.

You mean Levi, idiot. If you count Levi as a 'tribe', you need to merge the two Joseph ones to get up to 12. If you aren't counting Levi, you split them.

They should just bundle the Quran with the Torah and Gospel and have that be the new Bible, then one book really would cover most of the world's understanding of history.

You know damn well that in Judaism, "Priests" or כוהנים in Hebrew, are a hereditary caste of temple caretakers, and completely non-analogous to the function served by Rabbis or a priest in the Christian sense.

Let me color this with a parable for your simple brain.

You have a man, sitting in his home, after working a long, long day as a software engineer. He hears a banging on his door. He looks out the window, sees a masked man trying to break in. He hurries to his bedroom, where he keeps a shotgun. When the robber breaks the door down, he blows him away with the gun.

Clearly, we do not learn from this "Software engineers have the license to kill people with shotguns". Rather, it is the other status he has at the moment, one of someone defending his home against intrusion, that gives him the right to invoke self-defense, even lethal self-defense.

There were Priests in the "government", or at least the judiciary. That does not mean they ran it, nor does it mean that it was because they were Priests that they did so.

then post the correct flag and give a source. I googled it just now and I'm seeing the same flag he posted on wikipedia

>I worship a dead jew
he virtue signaled

Lurking so far, just wanna commend your thorough responses, figured Acts was a bit weird but you gave me shit to look into.

Pretty sure you'll get "why don't you love Jesus? :(" or "ohoho with you'r'e worldly knowledge you are obviously to blind to see the Truth :^))))" nonsense, I say this as a Christian - however much meaning that has - good work friend.