aa5874

That thread is filled with multiple erroneous and already debunked claims. All you have done is to make reference to a source that is hardly credible.

Acts of the Apostles makes the Pauline writings to be forgeries or manipulated which is exactly what they have turned out to be.

Scholars have already deduced the Pauline letters have multiple authors and were most likely composed after the Fall of the Temple.

Your source is virtually useless.

These are the facts.

1. The writing of ALL the Pauline letters themselves are without corroboration in Acts.

2. The fundamental chronology of the Pauline travels to and from Jerusalem is not corroborated in Acts.

3. The Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus to the Pauline writer is not corroborated in Acts.

4. The claim by the Pauline writer that the resurrected Jesus was seen by over 500 persons is not corroborated in Acts.

5. The claim by the Pauline writer that he personally saw the resurrected Jesus is not corroborated in Acts---Paul was blinded when he heard a voice.

6. The claim by the Pauline writer that he only met Peter and the Lord's brother is not corroborated in Acts.

7. The claim by the Pauline writer that he did not consult with flesh and blood is not corroborated in Acts.

TedM

aa, this is INSANE of you. The thread shows how Acts corroborates with Pauline Epistles on 54 ITEMS! For you to say that the claims are 'erroneous or debunked' only indicates that you don't know understand the meaning of the word 'corroborate'. I suggest a dictionary. Maybe some sleep would help too.

They are HIGHLY CORROBORATIVE. IT'S FACT. IT ISN'T even a debatable issue. The question becomes WHY are they corroborative? HOW did that happen? Was it by chance? Was it manipulation? Who manipulated? What were the sources? And so on. But, you gotta at least deal with the reality first aa. They are corroborative. Deal with it.

Toto

[splutter] :rolling:


.

Eh? Layman made a convincing case that he was either right or wrong, and decisively showed that something no one had ever argued was off the table? Is that your argument?

"Cleverness and stupidity" describes a lot of people. But more importantly, you don't know what is stupid in the context of the writer's time. Some of your objections seem to assume that the second century writer would have anticipated arguments made in the 21st century.

You will automatically reject any explanation as implausible - because you have started out believing that. Most people don't seem to have trouble imagining how this happened.

Why do you even assume that the author of Luke-Acts intended to produce a rational coherent narrative that would avoid problems obvious to 21st century skeptics? The opening of Acts is inconsistent with the ending of the gospel of Luke, but critics are all convinced that the two books had the same final editor, if not the same author. There are three inconsistent accounts in Acts of Paul's conversion. Could this be a hint that what you are reading does not even pretend to be a neutral history?

:banghead:

I am flabbergasted by this argument - because it is so bizarre.

For Christian evangelists, showing that Acts is history seems to be a key point. They have had to admit that the gospels are legendary, but they need Acts to prove to themselves that Christianity wasn't a relatively recent invention.

For skeptics, it's not such a big deal. Bible skeptics have concentrated on other points, all of which they they think are adequate reasons not to believe in Christianity - things like the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, the unreliability of the gospels.

Besides, skeptics are not going to make a blanket statement that there is no history in Acts - obviously there might be some, as there is in most historical novels. But we have no reason to think that the figure of Saul/Paul is remotely accurate.

There are scholars from various points of view who have concluded that Acts is not historically reliable, but they are not internet polemicists. They write books or scholarly articles that include all of the nuances and detailed arguments that scholars like to make.

If you really want to read something on the internet, try reading posts on Vridar, such as this post

spin

In this case the things necessary to the story of Jesus.

One of the problems dealing with the gospel material is that one cannot talk meaningfully about multiple attestation. The multiple attestation needs to be independent otherwise it is useless, for it easily may be variations on a single account with spurious information caught up in it.

Logical inference is fine and dandy, but for it to be logical, it needs to follow the rules of good methodologies. Assertions, tendentiousness as to what you find to be strong or what is most likely and the limits of your knowledge do not reflect any good methodology I know of.


Take it up with the claimants.

Can you think of any good reasons why Paul would have convivial correspondence with Seneca?

Can you recommend a way to deal with the contents of texts which may be perhaps 100 years apart? Texts tend to reflect the necessities and purposes of their writers. If they are that 100 years apart, you have no way of knowing anything about the relationship between them or how many iterations of transmission the latter text has been through. Thinking of the effects of transmission seen in the process of Chinese whispers, making conclusions about earlier texts from later texts seems relatively hazardous and lacking in meaning. We need controls in any efforts to make sense of our materials. To jump into history needs external (historical) controls. What you are trying to do seems to me to be a complete waste of time.

aa5874

I have read them and they are virtually worthless and already debunked.

Please, your rhetorical questions are not evidence from antiquity.

Deal with the facts.

The Pauline writings are the products of multiple unknown authors of unknown time of authorship which were completely unknown to the author of Acts.

TedM

I don't know what you have in mind here.


I only ask because I haven't heard that side. All I've heard are skeptics saying that Acts couldn't be historical -- whole cloth -- since it conflicts with Paul's writings in some respects. I"m not saying there are bad arguments, I for your theory of 'pick and choose'. I just haven't seen them presented. Are they on the Layman thread?

I don't see a problem other than what a super-skeptic would come up with.

Ditto my comment above. Do you really think the author or redactor of Luke was stupid and didn't know how the accounts differ? Why choose this explanation when there are other ones that work? Might this be another example of selective skepticism?



I don't know what you are saying here. Relatively recent?


Sure we do. Skeptics just don't see it, and IMO often don't try to. And why are you using such extreme phrases as 'remotely accurate'? What basis do you have for using that kind of term? I gave a passage and a number of examples above showing how the Paul of Acts is similar to the Paul of the epistles. Layman did the same. Yet, it seems to go unnoticed, ignored.

Yes, but we have a deluge of amateur internet wanna-be scholar skeptics who love to post anything that hurts Christianity in their view. And we certainly see some things with regard to Acts, but from what I see they are just the simple tired same old 4 or 5 arguments. They dismiss the 'we' sections as fanciful with little argumentative basis for doing so. I was just saying that it seems like SURELY there has to be a better argument against historicity than these few items that are mentioned? Surely there HAS to be something that provides strong weight for the mid-2nd century other than a flimsy appeal to the lack of external sources (why should anyone expect external mention of a history book anyway?)..Surely a good argument for 2nd century needs to address all that detail that is dead on the money for the 1st century environment? Where is it? That's all I was saying...anyway I see you have provided a link. Thank you. I'll take a look.

TedM

Really? So, how did the author of Acts get SO MANY things that corroborated with the epistles? Was he just super duper lucky aa? Why don't just just pick out any 10 in a row of the list I gave you and tell me how it just 'happened' that he matched the epistles. How could he even have known the people Paul hung around if he didn't have epistles? Your last sentence just doesn't jive with the facts.

TedM

If you are implying that the answer is 'because the writer wanted to do that', I give up.


SO the answer is that yes you do ignore it since it can't be proven that it meet your criteria for a 'proper' comparison. Is that right? Have you read the 'we' passages lately? Do you not even have a 'gut' feeling as to whether they were written by the 'we' person? Do you really require controls before you even dare to trust your own gut?

aa5874

The author of Acts consistently contradicted the Pauline letters.

In Galatians 2 the Pauline writer claimed Peter was commissioned to preach the Gospel to circumcision and he was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcision however in Acts it shown that Paul would preach directly to the Jews in the Synagogues and would preach in the Synagogue of the Jews on the Sabbath day for months.

Galatians 2:7 KJV Now examine Acts of the Apostles. The author of Acts show that the Pauline letters were forgeries or manipulated. Saul/Paul was not commissioned in Acts to preach only to the uncircumcision.


1. Acts 13:14 KJV
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down .

2. Acts 13:15 KJV
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying , Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on .


3. Acts 14.1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake , that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed .

4. Acts 17:1 KJV
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews

5. Acts 17:10 KJV
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

6. Acts 17:17 KJV
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons , and in the market daily with them that met with him .

7. Acts 18:4 KJV
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

8. Acts 18:7 KJV
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

9. Acts 18:8 KJV
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed , and were baptized .

10. Acts 18:17 KJV
Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

11. Acts 18:19 KJV
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

12. Acts 18:26 KJV
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard , they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

13. Acts 19:8 KJV
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Toto

If you care about this issue, why not read Pervo?

At the end of the gospel of Luke, Jesus ascends. At the beginning of Acts, he sticks around for another 40 days to instruct his disciples on what they hadn't picked up when he was with them in the flesh.

Does it take a super skeptic to see the problem?

I don't think the author was stupid - I think he was deliberately writing a non-historical theological story, so these details did not have to be run through a fact checker. What other explanation did you have in mind?


Second century.


And I gave a number of significant differences which didn't register with you. Just read Acts, and then read Paul's letters. A distinct personality comes through in the letters that does not match the person in Acts.

:boohoo:

The problem is you have tried to flip the burden of proof. Skeptics do not see any particular reason to think that this tale incorporates a lot of history, or any accurate history regarding the ambiguous Saul/Paul.

But if you want the detailed reasons, you need to read books, or at least book reviews.