GakuseiDon

My argument is that this is the implication. Paul says that Christ is "now" risen from the dead. Paul seems to have placed Jesus' death in the past, so that "now" suggests a recent past. He has become the firstfruits:

1 Cor 15:20 But NOW is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The firstfruits of the harvest precede the main harvest itself by only a short time. The main harvest is the general resurrection of the dead. Paul seems to believe that this is only a short time away. In fact, Paul believes that some of his generation will see this happen:

1 Cr 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

That would be Joshua son of Nun, seed of David?

ApostateAbe

That argument strikes me as sound, not conclusive, but it seems to tilt the scale of probability toward Paul believing that Jesus was recent. Strong's and NAS concordances claim that the word used, νυνί, is an emphatic version of the word, νῦν. So, νῦν = now, and νυνί = NOW! Here are all the uses of that word in that New Testament:

http://concordance.biblos.com/nuni.htm

popgoestheweasel

Why doesn't Acts know the letters of Paul?

ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum. What causes you to suspect that Acts (or the author of Acts) does not know the letters of Paul?

popgoestheweasel

I read it somewhere. There are no citations from the Pauline letters and no mention of how the gospels were written. Strange for a book about the founding of the Church not mention this stuff.

Toto

"Now" refers to the resurrection; dead people who died at the time of Moses would be resurrected, but their death was not recent.

Joshua, son of Nun, Moses' lieutenant, of mythic history.

[I believe "seed of David" to be an interpolation.]

Toto

Acts does not refer to Paul writing letters or mention any letters. But the author of Acts appears to have read the letters and arranged his story to be compatible with some of the persons mentioned in the letters and other details in the letters. There is an old thread on this topic in the archives.

Acts and the letters of Paul are incompatible on several levels - theologically and in Acts' portrayal of harmony in the early church.

GakuseiDon

Fair enough.

aa5874

Actually Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings ARE compatible in positively IDENTIFYING the character called Paul or Saul/Paul.

The tradition of the Church is that Saul/Paul in Acts was the author of ALL the Pauline writings.

1. A Pauline writer claimed he PERSONALLY was in a basket and let down by a wall in Damascus. See 2 Cor.11.33

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul was in a basket and let down by a wall in Damascus. See Acts 9.25.

2. A Pauline writer claimed that HE PERSECUTED the Church and the FAITH he NOW preached. See Galatians 1.13 and 1.23.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul PERSECUTED Jesus believers. See Acts 8.3

3. A Pauline writer claimed he met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem. See Galatians 1.19.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul met the apostles in Jerusalem. See Acts 9.27.

4. A Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas. See Galatians 2.1

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem. See Acts 12.25

5. Pauline writers claimed they visited churches and preached ALL over the Roman Empire. See ALL the Epistles.

The author of Acts claimed B]Saul/Paul [/B]traveled with him, visited churches and preached ALL over the Roman Empire. See Acts ch16- ch28.

6. Pauline writers claimed they wrote letters. See ALL the letters.

The author of Acts claimed the apostles and elders did write letters. See Acts 15.23.

7.[ A PAULINE writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews. See Philippians 3.5

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul was a JEW. See Acts 21.39.

Saul/Paul was the Pauline writer based on the TRADITION of the Church.

There is NO other TRADITION.

Saul/PAUL in Acts has been POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED using the available evidence supplied in the NT Canon by the very Pauline writers.

And to show that Saul/PAUL was the same Pauline writer:

1. A Pauline writer claimed he was given the gospel of uncircumcision. See Galatians 2.7

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul preached to the uncircumcised. See Acts 13.47.

Now, it is the PAULINE writers who read gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writers was aware of the Gospel called LUKE. See Church History 3.4.8

maryhelena

I looked up this earlier threat re Acts and Paul - thanks Toto for the links.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....00#post6061900

Not to derail this thread - but I found a fascinating point in Richard I. Pervo' book on Acts - a point that could well go a long way to opening up a way forward in understanding Paul.

The Mystery of Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk)


(my bolding - and a great pity not more of this book available for a look-see on amazon....))

Taking Steve Mason' position - that Paul' message was apocalyptic - then, if Acts has been written later than Paul's epistles - its purpose is, as Pervo indicates, to give Paul's mission to the Gentiles a legitimacy, an acceptance. In other words, once the need for Paul' apocalyptic role is over (post 70 ce) then Paul's earlier message become toned down and Paul now needs some acceptance for his new role to the Gentiles. Acts is sidelining Paul's earlier role - an apocalyptic role (to the Jews) - and re-inventing, re-imaging, Paul to fit the new post 70 ce situation - a situation were both Jew and Gentile can now embrace Paul's announcement, his good news, in less apocalyptic, less exclusive language. Everyone now, post 70 ce is in the same boat.

(my bolding)

Pre-Paul - according to Acts, it is Peter who represents the Gentile mission - the Gentile early origins, roots of what was to become, with the 'merger' with Paul post 70 ce, into early christianity. Paul's Gentile involvement would proceed once his apocalyptic, ''The Announcement", had served its purpose - a purpose more fitting to a Jewish context than that of a Gentile context.

So, perhaps Paul is silent on much more than details re a historical Jesus figure - he is also silent on his own earlier non-Gentile role....