Hi usernamed.
I am so sorry, I see I have completely missed your post #145.
The way I read the closing chapters of Acts is much as you describe. The Jews want to kill Paul, he appeals to local govt. on the grounds of his Roman citizenship. They look into it, and find no case against Paul. As you cited: "King Agrippa after hearing this, remarked: This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (Acts 26;32).
Your interpretation of Acts 28 that I disagree with.
You say: "Acts 28 attempts to mislead saying this was to preach Jesus’ message ... "
Well according to the text, that's what he did. Where's your evidence to say he didn't?
Who suggests there is conspiracy of the 'Jesus Jews'? Where is the evidence of conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians?
The text says Paul preached Christ to the Jews. He always preached to the Jews first. I don't see any reference to an anti-Jerusalem Christian conspiracy?
Well that's a bit of a quantum leap ...
How do they clearly do that when they don't mention Paul or the events in Rome?
Steady. You say 'we know', but that's what scholars say
What is generally agreed is that:
The reference in
Book 18, Chapter 5 of the
Antiquities on the imprisonment and death of
John the Baptist is regarded as authentic. A number of differences between Josephus on the deaths of
James and John the Baptist and the
New Testament accounts lead scholars to agree that the Josephus passages are not Christian interpolations.
The text in
Book 18 saying Jesus was the
Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by
Pilate (
Testimonium Flavianum) is regarded as an interpolation, but the same scholars also agree there was probably an authentic reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to
Christian interpolation.
The second reference to Jesus,
Book 20, Chapter 9: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." is considered more likely to be authentic than the Testimonium.
Saulus, mentioned by Josephus, is not Paul. They're two different people.
'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', as the saying goes.
I think you're wrong here.
Josephus does not mention Paul in any of the writings we have. Indeed, some have argued that Paul didn't exist because Josephus never mentions him!
Hardened Christian skeptics like Robert Price, who questions most of what we know of Jesus, agrees that Paul was a real person who was influential in establishing Christianity, but not mentioned by Josephus. Bart Ehrman, another famous skeptic who opposes the orthodox Christianity histories was on a phone-in with a caller who used Josephus to argue that Paul never existed. Ehrman told him not to make unwise claims that make atheists look bad. But he agreed that Josephus does not mention Paul.
I don't know of any who support this conspiracy you speak of? I've never come across it before.
I have met those who say 'Paul invented Christianity', there's loads on the web, but there's no-one, I think, who's a recognised scholar who make the kind of claims your making?
