Adam

I suppose Paul was assuming that what he preached was the same as what was preached to the original Christians that he was persecuting.

Duvduv, by pushing Saul's persecution as far as you do, you provide an escape for apologists that explains why Jesus and his early movement was so little recorded in history. By your scenario, even if there were early gospels (as I say there were by my seven written eyewitnesses about Jesus) they would remain unknown outside the underground community.

Or you could be pushing it so far to argue that Paul makes no sense and must be mythical, but you undermine this by making the biblical account explain the (lack of) historical support.

Duvduv

I don't think so, Adam, because the epistles and Acts themselves do not provide information for the followers and believers that would explain the contradictions regardless of the belief in an underground community (spread out throughout the world as claimed in Romans).

Duvduv

Charting the biography of "Paul," Galatians leaves out the entire fourteen years after his revelation that Paul was not in contact with any other major apostles who were "in Christ" before him or among all the churches that were flourishing everywhere, and amazingly, no one knew about this great preacher whose gospel was extraordinary and the true one.

All we see is some unclear filler from Acts about how Peter went off to Tarsus to get Paul over to Antioch. Nothing about Paul's great achievements, successes, preaching in all those 14 years. Nothing. Galatians has him on a quick visit to Jerusalem for fifteen days. As if it's of any importance whether it was fifteen days or five days or thirty days when a period of FOURTEEN YEARS goes by in silence. Then in chapter two we read "THEN AFTER fourteen years" he went back to Jerusalem again. It sounds as if the author here had absolutely nothing of any importance for this great apostle to say about anything he did on behalf of his Christ for FOURTEEN years. And one would think that Acts would try to do a better job, but for some reason that author also was unable to provide any meaningful stories about anything involving the great work of this special, extraordinary apostle who WAS CHOSEN IN HIS MOTHER'S WOMB.

Let's not forget about those three mysterious unspecified years in Arabia doing what exactly? After all, it was more important than even Jerusalem or Judea with all their flourishing churches. At least Acts says that he was busy in Damascus baffling the Jews about Jesus the messiah (one of the few places where Paul associates Jesus with that term ). If this man was so good at baffling his opponents, surely we would hear about his exploits during his time in Arabia and his fourteen hidden years.

Indeed, if it weren't for Acts virtually nothing would be known about all the alleged stories of travels and accomplishments of "Paul" even in the period thereafter. I notice that chronologies place the writing of the epistles during the travels of Paul in Acts without even bothering to point out that nowhere in Acts (as AA has reiterated repeatedly) does the author indicate that Paul was writing any of these or any other letters.

I must say again, that much of these texts seem to have been produced in a RUSH as if to meet a very tight publishing deadline.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles does NOT seem to have been produced in a rush especially in relation to the ACTS of Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul is mentioned in 20 Chapters of Acts and is mentioned about 150 times.

Saul/PAUL is in fact the ONLY character that an author of the Canon claimed to have KNOWN PERSONALLY and Traveled with him.

Incredibly, the Acts of Saul/Paul was supposed to be personally CORROBORATED by the author of Acts.

No author of the Canon claimed to personally corroborate the Acts of JESUS or traveled with him.

Duvduv

Although the author of Galatians didn't know what "Paul" was doing in those seventeen years, the author of Acts put him in Antioch for "a long time" and in Iconium for "a long time" among other places in chapter 14, and this is deemed to be the period between his revelation, visit to Jerusalem and his return with Barnabas. It's interesting that if the author of Galatians thought it important enough he would have put together something important about the preaching of Paul during all those years as did the author of Acts.

Perhaps he was only concerned about getting the chronology right to fit the story of Paul between the crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple with a few barebone stories about him. Interestingly this created no problems for "Irenaeus" who sought to have Jesus live a longer time and therefore compress everything involving Paul in Acts and Galatians (including the 14 years) into a brief period since otherwise Irenaeus unlike the other authors wouldn't have known when the Temple was destroyed a mere century before his alleged writings.

aa5874

Again, you are using your imagination instead of actually READING Acts of the Apostles.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Saul/Paul wrote any letters.

The author of Acts is the ONLY Apologetic source that mentioned Saul/Paul 150 times and claimed he TRAVELED with him around the Roman Empire and did NOT document a single Pauline letter.

The author of Acts is the ONLY writer who supposedly KNEW Saul BEFORE he was called PAUL. See Acts 7

The author of Acts supposedly KNEW SAUL when he was a "POST-MAN" for the Jerusalem Church and did NOT know Saul was a LETTER writer. See Acts 15

Ignatius mentioned Paul ONE time and claimed Paul wrote Epistles.

The abundance of Evidence shows that Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote about. I don't see any difficulty. Why don't you address the substance of what I was commenting on?

aa5874

I am dealing with the thread--"the relationship between Acts and the Pauline Epistles".

These are the facts.

1. The author of Acts is the ONLY writer in the Canon to claim Saul was KNOWN as Paul.

2. The author of Acts is the ONLY writer in the Canon to claim Saul DELIVERED letters for the Jerusalem Church .

3. The author of Acts is the ONLY writer in the Canon to give the Contents of a Letter written by the Jerusalem Church that was DELIVERED by Paul and his group.

4. The author of Acts is the ONLY author in the Canon who PERSONALLY claimed to have Traveled, Preached and Prayed with Paul in Cities in the Roman Empire.

5. The author of Acts mentioned Saul/Paul 150 times, and more than any other character inlcluding Jesus Christ and Peter combined.

6. Only the author of Acts of ALL Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Churches.

7. The Pauline writer did NOT state that he wrote letters Before c 70 CE.

8. No Pauline letters have been found and dated by Paleography to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

9. Letters to place Paul in the 1st century have deduced to be forgeries.

10. Apologetic sources up to the mid 2nd century did NOT ackowledge Paul and his letters.

The abundance of evidence suggest Acts of the Apostles was most likely written BEFORE the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

Even those who argue for some epistles to be "authentic," i.e. written by Paul, we see that there is no way of even determining when they were written by "Paul" since even Acts doesn't allude to them.

Traditional dating of the epistles by a historical Paul would put 1 Thessalonians around 52 CE, with a six year gap until Romans around 58CE, 1 & 2 Corinthians around 57CE, Galatians around 57, with a four year gap of no epistles to the flourishing churches taught by this Paul until Philippians in 62, and Philemon around 63 CE.

This scenario would all make no sense in this context of the stories and travels in Acts which don't even mention these important letters, and could not even be determined from the epistles alone.

And if there were such gaps one would imagine there were additional letters floating around that were either known or discovered in later periods such as the letter of Pliny to Hadrian, etc. But for some reason there was never any doubt that the set of epistles ascribed to "Paul" was all there was back in the first century even given the fact of the gaps.

aa5874

There is also another important clue that Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was fundamentally preaching to the JEWS in the Synagogues outside of Judea. Saul/Paul in Acts Preached to the CIRCUMCISED in Damascus, Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium [parts of Galatia], Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus .

In Damascus.

Acts 9:20 KJVIn Galatia.
Acts 13:14 KJV Acts 14:1 KJV
In Thessalonica, Paul ARGUED with Jews in the Synagogues for THREE Sabbath days.

Acts 17 KJV 1. In Corinth, Saul/Paul was in the Synagogues of the Jews EVERY SABBATH.

Acts 18 In Acts, when Saul/Paul was in Ephesus he was PREACHING in the Synagogues of the Jews.

Acts 18:19 KJV In Acts of the Apostles, the author show that Paul was really PREACHING fundamentally to JEWS in the Synagogues OUTSIDE of Judea and was operating UNDER the authority of the Decrees from the JERUSALEM Church.

Acts 16:4 KJV The author of Acts knew NOTHING AT ALL of Pauline letters when he composed Acts of the Apostles and KNEW NOTHING at all of the Pauline Gospel of Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the so-called Pauline letters to the Uncircumcised.