Ben C Smith

Paul is in contention with an anonymous group of Judaizers in Acts 15, a group which James and Peter side against. If James and Peter originally sided with that group of Judaizers before siding with Paul, Acts 15 does not tell us.

Agreed. In fact, I was the one who made the point that Paul acts as an agent of Antioch, not as an agent of Jerusalem, in Acts.

I think we understand each other on this, but I also think you need to be aware that, if you read Acts in light of Galatians or Galatians in light of Acts, you will be called on it on this forum. I myself am in favor of finding every point of agreement and disagreement between the two, because they are clearly speaking of the same or of overlapping events, but to say or imply that Paul conflicts with James or Peter in Acts is misleading; it is better to say that he conflicts with Peter and with men from James (whatever that means) in Galatians, and that fact may elucidate the narrative in Acts 15, where no such conflict is actually expressed.

Ben.

aa5874

This is what I read in Chrysostom's Homilies on Acts of the Apostles
Chrysostom's remarks seem to give credence to the notion that Justin Martyr may not have known of Acts of the Apostles, since he never mentioned it in his extant writings.

Your link did not deal with the major contradiction of Chrysostom that there were not many aware that Acts of the Apostles even existed and who wrote it.
This admission puts the history of Paul and the Churches into question.

How is it that the so-called history of "Paul, one the most phenomenal and charismatic missionary after Jesus, is not known to exist upto the 4th century? And Chrysostom's observation becomes even more pertinent when it is claimed that Chrysostom wrote Homilies after Eusebius, Tertullian and Irenaeus.

aa5874

You blantantly remove words from my post. Please stop it, now.

Ben C Smith

Whether few or many or anybody at all at the time of Chrysostom knew the Acts of the Apostles has nothing to do with whether Clement and Origen knew the Acts of the Apostles. Nothing.

You asked a question. I answered it. The answer, to review, is no, it is not possible that only Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius had ever seen the Acts of the Apostles before Chrysostom.

Ben.

spamandham

So let me get this straight. We only know about Paul because he's a fictional character from Acts, invented to enhance the Jesus fraud. But, Acts was a secret book known only to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius!? I'm curious how a secret book would have aided these men in perpetrating their Jesus fraud.

schilling.klaus

no, there are many other stories involving same Paul, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

Well, it matters to me. If it can be ascertained or deduced that only a handful of people knew about Acts, and no "Paul" wrote any letters to any Churches or did any missionary work in the 1st century, then Acts of the Apostles would be total fiction.

And so far, you have not been able to give the name of any non-apologetic writer or historian who was a contemporary of Paul and who wrote about Paul and his missionary work.

The picture I am getting of Acts of the Apostles is similar to the Synoptics, where the unknown authors appear to use one source but give the impression that they had independent witnesses to their stories about Jesus, when in fact, they have no witnesses.

If some "Paul" wrote epistles to the Churches, around the middle of the 1st century, and Acts is accepted as fiction, why didn't these so-called Churches reject Acts? May be the Churches never saw the epistles in the 1st century, or perhaps the converts did not even know Acts existed at all in the 1st century.

Only one single unknown writer claimed to know Paul and travelled with him, but this unknown author wrote long after Paul was dead, and as I now expect, this same unknown writer never wrote a single word about "Paul's death.

DevilsAdvocate

I took the text and pulled the part that demonstrated my point. I ignored everything else so I could take a position that was otherwise unfounded. I thought you would understand that.

Gamera

Needless to say, I disagree with that. The historicity of Paul is certainly supported by the epistles, Marcion and later texts.

Yes, which is my point. We know he is historical, yet this huge body of legends sprung up around the man (how he apotheosized when he was defenestrated, how had had angelic visions, etc.). All legedary, but mixed in with an indesputably historical person.

Thus, the fact that the same happened to Paul doesn't disconfirm his historicity. It seems to be a process whereby the narrative of famous important historical people accrete legenday material.

In antiquity, this is damn good. You'll be hard pressed to find better biographical pettigrees in antiquity.


Then you call most of what we deem history from antiquity to the invention of the camera, fiction.

That's my point. In your zeal to efface Paul and Jesus, you have effaced most of ancient historical personages like Socrates, Pericles, and Alexander.

It's OK with me if that's your standard. Just no double standards please.

DevilsAdvocate

The original comment was in the context of literary comparison of two hypothetical characters which were held to be distinct. Paul of Acts and Paul of the epistles. It was put forward that the Paul of Acts was a "loyal foot soldier" of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem. I am looking at the text to see how this is justified by what we have.

I try to kid nobody. I simply read Acts for myself trying to dismiss previous conceptions. Here, I think, is the relevant text...

"4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "

There is no statement of support either way in the text as far as I can find. The "pillars'" position seems to have been taken only after "much discussion."

Where do you see this in the text?

I do not read what position the "pillars" take before or during "much discussion."

The Pharasaic group is not identified as Apostles or elders...only other believers.

OK. Please point out where this is stated in the text. I can't find it.

I included nothing from Galations and no prior judgement. I look as Paul in Acts to see if he is a "loyal footsoldier."

I don't see where the "pillars" are oblilvious. There is no indication in the text of the issue in the Jerusalem meetings until it is raised by Pharasaic party members regarding the presentation of missionary activities of Paul and Barnabas.

The spy activity is neither confirmed nor denied by the text in Acts. It just isn't there.

The final resolution included some very basic jewish observances and referenced teachings of Moses, specifically strangled meat and blood. It does not seem to completely side with the Antioch delegation. James states it...

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."