outhouse

why wouldnt there be?, two different people wrote them



from the beginning of pauls movement, writers have been trying to build upon paul, adding to his epistles to tone him down as the movement grew.


not suprising at all for mythology to grow with time.

there wouldnt be.

paul was writing to houses, not churches or communities


laughable from a standpoint of lacking knowledge of exactly how the movement progressed

KISS

Duvduv

Unfortunately your rhetoric is not adding much substantive to the discussion of this issue, including whether and why the epistles and Acts were written by two different people describing the same beliefs, and then accepted by the church regardless of contradictory information they believed to be true.

You have not explained why you think that the stories about Saul and Paul cannot be about two different individuals.

Duvduv

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/07/...rts-galatians/
Vridar refers to assorted sources arguing whether or not the author of Acts knew Galatians. Vridar mentions the book of Joseph Tyson who makes a number of comparisons between Galatians and Acts -- it should be noted that in every case the comparison is between a SINGLE chapter in Acts (chapter 15) and Galatians (mostly chapter 2). This itself should be significant.

Perhaps there is a middle road -- that both the author of Galatians and the author of Acts (and in this case of chapter 15) both drew on third sources that were SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL in terms of the teachings concerning the fellow named Paul / Saul.

Therefore the church decided to preserve two contradictory versions because they couldn't decide which version was more "authentic" than the other. This would also explain why four gospels were preserved with their contradictions -- because the authorities of the regime could not or did not want to rule on the "authenticity" of any version that originated from sources that officialdom considered respectable.

outhouse

Tysons views in this have never held credibility

outhouse

doesnt rhetoric describe this whole thread?

your making unfounded statement's, with evidence that ist even weak, its so fragile you look at it and it crumbles.

sorry bud your alone on this one

Toto

Why not?

aa5874

In Acts 13.9 it is claimed Saul was also called Paul.

So, if we remove the name Paul from Acts and re-insert Saul then we come up with virtually a different character to Paul in the Pauline letters.

1. SAUL did NOT claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus--See the Entire Acts.

2. SAUL was Blinded when he HEARD the voice of the Resurrected and Ascended Jesus--See Acts 9.4-

3. SAUL Consulted with Disciples of Damascus BEFORE he preached about Jesus--See Acts 9.19

4. SAUL met ALL the disciples and was in and out Jerusalem multiple times--Acts 9.27-28

5. Saul was Authorised to Preach by the Jerusalem Church-- Acts 15.22

6. Saul had letters that Documented his Authorisation--Acts 15.23

7. The contents of the Letters of Authorisation were documented-- Acts 15.23-29

8. Saul DELIVERED a Letter of Authorisation to the Church of Antioch-- Acts 15.30

9. SAUL preached to JEWS in the Synagogues "all over" the Roman Empire--See Acts 9-Acts 28

10. SAUL wrote NO LETTERS to Churches--See the Entire Acts.

11. SAUL claimed he was a Roman --See Acts 22.25-27



Once we use ONLY the name SAUL in Acts then Saul appears to be a different person to Paul in the Pauline letters.

In the Pauline letters:

1. The character called Paul claimed he SAW the resurected Jesus--1 Cor.15

2. He did NOT consult with Flesh and blood when he was called to preach about Jesus---Galatians 1

3.He went to Arabia---Galatians 1

4. He did NOT ever meet ALL the Apostles for at least 17 years --Galatians 2.

5. The Pauline writer did NOT claim he was called Saul.

6. The Pauline writer did NOT claim he was a Roman.

7. The Pauline writer did NOT claim he was AUTHORISED to preach by the Jerusalem Church but by the resurrected Jesus.

8. Paul claimed he was Authorised by the resurrected Jesus to preach to the Uncircumcised--Galatians 2

If we use ONLY the name SAUL in Acts then it would appear that SAUL is a different character to Paul in the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

Which might suggest two different "traditions" deemed authentic that were similar but not identical and the importance of one apostle was solved by morphing the experiences and teachings into a single person. But there still might have been more than one "tradition" about Paul, since we find that nowhere in Acts does PAUL engage in communicating with all the communities to who he is the exclusive or primary teacher.
So there we see possibly two SIMILAR but not identical traditions about Paul plus a separate one about a special apostle named Saul unless the original Acts source was originally ONLY about a guy named SAUL, and a one letter change of name made it possible to merge the Paul of the newly created epistles with the Acts Paul.

outhouse

there was more then two

there was pauls version of himself

and everyone leses

paul was not the primary teacher ever

paul traveled and seeded his theology, and wrote a few letters to address what paul had heard was going on from oral tradition.


more then two, many. only two made it through the cut, and or survived.



you still havnt explained

we have multiple cultures
we have multiple languages
so we have multiple names.


plus varied oral tradtition in a mostly illiterate society

outhouse

he places luke and acts after marcion