Duvduv

We still face the mystery of how it came to be that a book was produced out of the blue (probably early in the 4th century) describing two guys who were revered in previous times before anything was written. So the question is what kind of religion existed then in view of this aside from the points I raised in the earlier posting.

Then it is worth noting that the description of the Jesus figure in Acts as simply an abstract messiah (presumably in the rabbinic sense) even explain the meaning of "messiah" as it uses a few quotations from psalms, etc.

The ascension is described in a way that is missing from the gospels and of course from the epistles which is unusual if Acts came first. And of course no mention of a return and the meaning of salvation through faith as found in the epistles. Overall, not the Jesus of the gospels in any meaningful detail, and certainly not the Christ of the epistles. In fact, the usual appelation is simply Jesus, and rarely "Christ." Messiah is found more frequent than Christ.

Mary is introduced as his mother and nothing more about a nativity, his life and teachings, etc. And yet his mother is missing from the so-called Nicene Creed and the epistles.

Although you make a good point of the importance of Paul for theology, we find so much of the theology of the epistles missing in Acts, and other information in Acts missing in the epistles, which seems strange if the epistles came after Acts, UNLESS they were produced by two different groups with similar traditions about this guy "Paul" before anything was ever put to paper, and yet the mystery would be as to WHO "Paul" was that he deserved so much attention in Acts.

aa5874

I don't deal with Speculation just WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity. Forget about Speculation and use the Extant evidence of antiquity and NOT your imagination.

You MUST first understand the EARLIEST Canonised Gospel, the Short-Ending gMark, to understand the NT Canon, including Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings..

gMark is an EXTREMELY significant book because we have the MANIPULATED version of gMark [the FORGERY] which contains 12 Interpolated passages that are DIRECTLY related to the Commission to preach the Gospel to to ALL the WORLD.

The authors of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were AWARE of the supposed Commision found in the INTERPOLATED gMark.

INTERPOLATED gMark 16.15 The Pauline writer was AWARE of the LATER Jesus story about the Commission to preach the Gospel to all the world.

Romans 1.16
Galatians 2 The fact that there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul which attempted to DOCUMENT that he preached the Gospel all over the Roman Empire is a clear indication that Paul was NOT belittled by the Church and that he FULFILLED his OBLIGATION to preach the Gospel throughout the Gentile World.

But, there is a problem.

The Commission of the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel to ALL the World and to every nation is NOT found in the Earliest gMark.

Toto

:banghead:

It wasn't produced out of the blue. It was most probably written in the second century after the collected Pauline epistles and Marcion's gospel were written and in circulation.

Duvduv

<Sigh> That is one approach. I personally do not believe there was any Marcion gospel at all, and do not rely on the claims of the apologists at all.
The entire superstructure of interpretation rests on the conviction that so much was written in the 2nd century. As far as I am concerned this is a house of cards. And as you already know we find so many discrepancies between Acts and the epistles that aside from a commitment to church doctrine it is hardly likely they were written by the same person.
Acts does not hint at the theology of the epistles in any detail, nor does Acts hint that "Paul" wrote any letters to anyone.
Acts tells us about Mary and the Baptist, neither of whom get the slightest mention in any epistles.
The epistles recount nothing of the trip on which "Paul" had his revelation.
As I suggested, the epistles and Acts were produced by different sources who had similar "traditions" about Paul though not the same ones. The author of Acts did not know about the epistles. <End of Sigh>

aa5874

The Pauline writings were probably NOT written before Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writer was ALIVE after gLuke was written based on Apologetic sources.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" and all his extant works did NOT write about Paul at all and claimed that it was 12 illiterate disciples that preach the Gospel to every race of men in the world.

Aristides in "The Apology" also made the same claim.

It is inconceivable that Paul could have DOCUMENTED his Epistles to Churches all over the Roman Empire and was KNOWN to have preached and started Churches in Major cities like Rome and Corinth and yet was NOT acknowledged to have preached to the Gentiles by Justin Martyr and Aristides.

Justin Martyr went as far back as the reign of Claudius and Simon Magus but still did NOT mention Paul.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

Duvduv

PLEASE reread the rest of my posting #7041521.

rlogan

Why not just assume Acts was written before Genesis? That should give you even more to twist in the wind about.

aa5874

Why do you now seem irrational because I do not agree with you? If you believe the Pauline writings are BEFORE Acts then PRESENT your evidence instead of making absurd statements.

It is most remarkable that people here think that people should just accept their FLAWED unsubstantiated assertions.

We have a Canonised book called Acts of the Apostles and it can be EXAMINED.

Your claim that the author of Acts belittled Saul/Paul is horribly erroneous and seems to be the product of "Chinese Whispers".

The author of Acts INTRODUCED Saul/Paul as a PERSECUTOR of Christians, as one who was aware that Christians were being Murdered, [Acts 8 & 9] yet the very same author completely IGNORED the activities of Peter in THIRTEEN chapters of Acts [Acts 15-12 to Acts 28] and TRAVELED and Prayed with Saul/Paul while he went all over the Roman Empire with CHOSEN Men of the Church handpicked by the Apostles and Elders.

The author of Acts in his own book TEAMED up with Saul/Paul one who was engaged in the Murder of Christians like Stephen and went NO where with Peter.

From the very Acts of the Apostles we can see that the author was NOT aware that Epistles under the name of Paul were ALREADY Documented and Canonised.

It is just unlikely that the author of Acts would have known of the Pauline Epistles and should have READ them himself but did NOT write about them.

If it is assumed Acts of the Apostles was written in the 2nd century then this should have meant that the author should have known of the Pauline Epistles which would have given Acts of the Apostles more credibility.

Not one mention of a Pauline Epistle is in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles is BEFORE the Pauline writings.

Toto

Apologists tend to claim that both the epistles and Acts were written in the first century. Radicals claim they were written in the second century.

No one has ever claimed that Acts and the epistles were written by the same person. :huh:
Because Acts was written by an opponent of the followers of Paul.

Your point?

There are many correspondences between Acts and the epistles which indicate that the author of Acts intended to counter Paul. There is no evidence of different traditions about Paul.

Duvduv

Even modern scholars are stuck in accepting the overall structure proposed by the church, including the notion that Acts MUST have been written by the same person as the writer of thr epistles as a given despite obvious and glaring discrepancies. Or alternatively that Acts was written by an opponent, which is not convincing.
Similarly because the church says that the book on heresies by the alleged Irenaeus was written in the second century we must accept it as the gospel truth. And on and on. That's all I am pointing out. Obvious contextual discrepancies are ignored.
And their suppositions themselves are like a religious doctrine.