Duvduv

Toto, the point is that Acts and Epistles do not describe the same person though they are similar. The question is how did this come to be, the logic and the context. Paul can sneer but he sees a vision of the Christ unseen by anyone else. However, he doesn't promote his specific gospel, and yet the Christians accepted both versions: the version of the epistles and the version of Acts, written by someone went to real extremes to produce a different picture, but one that includes dedication to teach about his Christ.

I should add that the picture of the other "apostles" doesn't fit very well with the idea of people who walked and talked with the Savior himself, and what IS similar between the epistles and Acts is that "Paul" does not stand in awe or revere such people, which raises the suggestion that the portrait of such "apostles" does not fit with the stories provided by the gospels of the historical Jesus figure at all, but could very well fit with the idea of a non-historical celestial being who is learned about through scripture and philosophical teachings, and where the apostles are not his "pals" at all.

I simply commented that the idea that Acts couldn't have come before the epistles is a postulation based on the other assumption that the author(s) of the set of epistles had a connection to a Marcionite background as described by the apologists, which does not make sense to me. However, it has to fit together for them.

The bottom line is that the apostles believed that attachment to the sect requiring baptism to acquire the holy spirit (ruah haqodesh) by virtue of faith in the messiah (who will ultimately return) required one to be a circumcised Jew, and "Paul" did not, whether or not the Christ of the sect was a historical person.

An unusual element in Acts is that the apostles did not reject Paul's unique revelation of the Christ and his mission to the gentiles, but were trying to figure out how to make sense of it. However, they were not floored by the revelation either, "Oh, brothers, Paul has had a direct and personal interaction with the Christ, we must be in awe of him!" This did not exist though they did not throw this new convert out on his ear. And if the writer of Acts had wanted to, he could have ignored anything to do with the Paul story but couldn't. Thus perhaps before the writing of the texts there was this difference of opinion about an attachment to this perceived Jewish messiah, who may not have known as a historical person, or who may have been an interpretation of the personage of Yeshu Pandera, but which is NOT The same as the teaching of the epistles.

Toto

Christian believers go to extreme lengths to harmonize their scriptures. We don't have to do that here. We can recognize that the scriptures represent an attempt to bring together different Christian factions.

This is true...

I still don't know why it doesn't make sense to you.

But they all had some revelation from the Christ in the story - they all either knew Jesus, hung out with him after he returned from the dead, or were visited by the holy spirit. Paul's vision was not unique.

Not sure what this means, but yes, there were differences of opinion...

aa5874

Well, we have Acts of the Apostles, and the "mainstream" views is indeed hogwash.

There is ZERO evidence from non-apologetic sources of a Pauline writer in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE. None-Nil-Zero.

The very story in Acts is that Saul/Paul was a PERSECUTOR and in the Pauline writings the author called Paul claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of the Faith and that there were Apostles BEFORE him and that he WENT to Jerusalem to see the Apostles Peter and James as stated in Galatians 1&2.

It is just mind-boggling that so-called "mainstream" would attempt to claim Paul was the first writer in the Canon WITHOUT providing a single piece of credible non-apologetic evidence that Paul did exist BEFORE Justin Martyr, Aristides, Celsus or mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

So why is there so much insistence that Acts was written to bring down a Paul who was relatively meaningless with some letters? And the author of Acts wrote about this Paul much more than the epistles themselves.

rlogan

Wrong. It not only spotlights letters, but they are letters the lowly messenger-boy Paul delivers from Peter to Paul's own congregations in Acts. The letters are overly patronizing, as if they were talking to a bunch of little girls.

There is a pretty stark disengenuosness in you here:

What kind of extreme hypocrisy does it take to say this while at the same time arguing the opposite: that Paul is not diminished in Acts vis-a-vis the epistles?

This is evidence of disordered thinking.

Toto has been asking you repeatedly to explain why it makes no sense to you that the epistles come from the Marcionite branch.

The only explanation for that is having some reason other than the evidence. We see pet theories all the time here that require evading these kinds of questions. What your reason is - who knows.

Duvduv

Why should epistles come from a Marcion branch? Is their something sacred about the claims of ancient apologists? What evidence is there about Marcion's texts? None survived! Mostly likely there were none and this whole tale about Marcion and speculation about his background are what we call bubbe mayses .....old wives tales from the apologists who borrowed from each other and may not have existed in the second century!

You don't have to grasp at straws from Acts. Nothing suggests that that Paul wrote the epistles and his theology isn't in Acts.

And I wasn't arguing Paul was diminished but merely described as the author thought he knew Paul. It's a different author and a different Paul, for goodness sake.

rlogan

Throughout your tenure here the tactic of overwhelming with rhetorical questions is in evidence, just like here. This is not an argument, but merely sneering at anyone who looks into the extant literature for evidence on early Christianity.

But his highness has nothing but the same literature available to him for analysis, so there isn't any point to you being here except for recreational trolling if this is going to be your attitude.


The commandeered versions not only survived, but it is fairly easy to see how they were doctored since we are told where they were corrupted.

FINALLY! An "argument", such as it is. Marcion is an "old wive's tale". Wow.

Your responsibility is to put forward a positive argument about how such an "old wive's tale" would come into existence instead of just "poofing" it up: incorporating motive, means, and opportunity. Talk about arrogance.


So quoting from Acts is "grasping at straws", whereas making assertions without any reference whatsoever to passages in Acts is... what?


So when the epistles themselves say so, that isn't evidence? Pauline theology is definitely subordinated by Acts, but it is impossible to get a coherent line of thinking out of you on this.

Well why not everyone join in on this tactic? There are multiple Jesus' and multiple Peters, etc. - anywhere we run into self-contradiction we just say that's a different Jesus, Paul, Peter, Mary, or whatever.

Duvduv

You don't have to respond to my first question by insulting me. That is called argumentum ad hominem and is out of line in such contexts. I never started up insulting you, and don't believe in acting that way.
So what if there are multiple Jesuses etc.?? Are you invested in the church doctrine or something similar?
And WHO says Marcion's texts were corrupted other than the source being some heresiologist/apologist who you choose to believe as the gospel truth?
The Pauline theology is NOT subordinated in Acts, it DOESN'T EVEN exist as it exists in the epistles simply because it is someone else's "Paul"/Saul and not the guy of the epistles, though there are certain similarities.

And yes, I consider the scenario about Marcion to be an old wive's tale. There is nothing to prove anything about Marcion aside from the claims of the biased church spokesmen, period. Nothing. This is discussed at some length in the book of C.P. Sense that I have mentioned before. If some heresiologist apologist told you that Marcion had a corrupt version of Genesis, would you simply take his word for it? The claim is inherently biased and there is nothing you can do about it coming from the apologists.

The idea that Justin Martyr knew nothing of the epistles and gospels and then 30 years later a guy about whom nothing is known claimed to know everything about them makes no sense. The fact that Justin said nothing about the claims and texts of Marcion when he supposedly lived at the same time as Marcion and was his enemy makes no sense.

la70119

Read the various accounts of Saul/Paul's vision in Acts 9, 22 and 26 carefully. He does say he has a vision each time, but with each subsequent accounting he makes changes as to what the apparition was and hoe he and his companions reacted to it. The second has a subtle change from the first; the third has a blatant change from the second.

The writer of "Acts" is making PAUL out to be a LIAR.

aa5874

Again, your statement cannot be shown to be true. Acts of the Apostles is NOT attributed to Paul so any discrepancies in Acts may be the fault of the AUTHOR, the Source or Paul.

You have ZERO knowledge of how the author of Acts derived the various accounts of the blinding light event.

Now, the blinding light event in Acts is UTTER FICTION so please tell me who LIED? Was it the author, the Source or Saul?

What is known or can be shown is that the author of Acts is claiming to be a WITNESS of Paul and that he did preach ALL over the Roman Empire and in Major Cities.