User talk:Rbreen
Hi Rbreen, how are you doing? I thought it might be more helpful for us to talk about some different issues to work it out. I hope we can reason through some of these things.
At the beginning, calling this a major issue seems opinionated. For me, it is not a major issue because I fully believe Acts is true and have no doubt it is 100% historically true. So let us change it to an issue for some. Fair?
In terms of Luke, who would argue that he is a follower of Jesus? That's pretty safe. He was with Paul at times, but Paul was not his Master. He was a follower of Jesus, primarily. Paul was just a fellow servant.
Let's not put majority viewpoint, because how can we really verify that? Unless it can be proven, how about just "a viewpoint."
To conclude that Paul's letters differ from Acts seems to say they oppose one another, which they do not. If someone claims that, they are in the far minority compared to those who believe the Scriptures are all true and the Word of God. Please allow, "Some believe." That's even generous, since it's not saying they are a tiny minority. Everyone that I know believes they don't oppose each other.
When talking about "problems" it seems to imply the problems are with the Bible, when I believe they are with Josephus. How about we use neutral wording to simply say there is a disagreement between the two sources. Also, we cannot say as fact that Theudas came after Gamaliel was speaking, for it is not proven. Gamaliel could be speaking of someone else, or the sources of Theudas could be wrong in their dates.
Next, please allow according to one source about the Roman empire province. This claim can not be stated as fact. Maybe officially they didn't use the name, but among the common people, they usually keep using known names, even if they are officially changed.
If this is an article accusing Acts of errors, they there should also be an allowance for possible resolutions of the seeming problems. Please allow the solutions to be posed and the reader can decide if they make sense or not. It is reasonable that the Egyptian went both to the Mount of Olives and the desert. Who would think a band of rebellious men would stay stationary or only go to the Mount of Olives? That is an easy one to resolve.
With Galatians 2, there is nothing close to a problem in my opinion. If men are not understanding the connections and timeline, that is not the fault of Acts. Please let it stand.
I don't think Paul's trial is incoherently presented. If someone does, that is subjective, not objective.
I would appreciate it if we could work this out. Editing back and forth, getting unhappy, won't help much. What do you say? God bless you.
-WalkerThrough
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Star of Bethlehem". Thank you. --Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)