But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great
of his vision
This is clearly a fictional elaboration.
This juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.
A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not
Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul
: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40;
1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth…
Again, Pual’s writings were that of previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.
I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the