aa5874

First of all, Acts of the Apostles is NOT history or at least NOT credible.

The stories in Acts are Myth Fables.

1. Acts 1-- The Ascension of Jesus is total fiction.

2. Acts 2--The Day of Pentecost when the disciples were Filled with the Power of a Ghost is fiction.

3. Acts 3--The miracles of Peter are fiction.

4. Acts 5--The story of the death of Ananias and Sapphira is fiction.

5. Acts 5--The opening of the prison doors by angels is total fiction.

6. Acts 9-- The conversion by Paul when he was blinded by a bright light is total fiction.

7. Acts 9--The claim that Peter raised the dead is fiction.

8. Acts 12--The escape of Peter from prison assisted by the angel is total fiction.

9. Acts 13--The blinding of the sorcerer by Paul is total fiction.

10. Acts 14--The instant healing of the cripple by Paul is total fiction.

11. Acts 19--The instant healing by Paul with handkerchiefs is total fiction.

12. Acts 20-- The raising of the dead by Paul is total fiction.


Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction and there is NO corroboration of any event of the Apostles or the historicity of any character outside Apologetics. In addition up to the mid 2nd century Apologetic sources like Justin Martyr, Aristides and Minucius Felix did NOT acknowledge Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the Pauline Revealed Gospel and Paul.

It is clear that Acts of the Apostles is NOT a credible source and cannot be trusted for corroboration for the history of Paul.

Acts of the Apostles was composed most likely AFTER C 93 CE and up to that time the author did NOT write that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

James The Least

Yes, because the argument viz., "The New Testament writers must be Jews, else how else could they know or care anything about the Septuagint?" is basically all that you have, and all NT scholars have. This is known in logic as the argument from personal incredulity: a logical fallacy in any other field except Bible studies, where of course it is as sacred now as the scriptures themselves.

Referring to the OT is a meaningless clue as to the author's identity as anything other than another Greek Christian apologist. Ignatius, Clement, and Justin refer to the OT: are they Pharisees, from the "tribe of Benjamin"? They must be. How else could they know anything about the OT?

James The Least

Uh, no. The burden of proof is actually on you to provide a reason for giving the New Testament the merest shred of historical accuracy and integrity. We are all aware of the myths and legends of "the apostolic fathers" and the mystical wonderlands of their imaginations; they are spread out amongst the reams and reams of piffle given the grand titles "The New Testament" and "The New Testament Apocrypha," when in fact "The Protoevangelum of the Wizard of Oz" would be a more appropriate title.

Toto

Have you read, or read of Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk) ? It seems that writing fiction or theology in the form of letters was a common practice. (Think of the Screwtape Letters.)

The only question with Ignatius' letters is how much of the content is a later forgery. There are no references to Paul's letters before Marcion.

Any theory needs to explain this. I don't know why you think it is a point in your favor.

They were written by two different factions of the church. Why is that so hard?

The orthodox explanations are ad hoc and often do not make a lot of sense to anyone not part of the guild. In fact, there is a cottage industry of scholars who publish works trying to make sense of Paul.

stephan huller

I don't know how useful it is laying down a bunch of issues that need to be 'solved' like this Ted. Little by little you work your way through them as you go through the evidence. With respect to corruptions in the epistles of the early Church, I went through and chronicled the expansion of the Ignatian correspondences from the Syriac (which I feel is the most original) to the short Greek and then the long Greek. You might also read the Passing of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata which makes reference to this falsification process. The expansion of the Pauline Epistles from the Marcionite original developed similarly and probably in successive expansion efforts.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/p/...us-who-is.html

sotto voce

Oh, isn't it a shame, that people called themselves Israelites, or even Jews (tho' never Judeans) but didn't follow Moses. Outrageous! How dare they use the Hebrew Bible! Well, they did, and nobody could stop them, though hell knows, they tried. Maybe they were Martians, or even turf accountants, but they knew the Scripture passed down from the Children of Abraham, who knew not Moses. And what they wrote caught on, and the idea of following Moses took one helluva swipe when the Temple was razed, and then all the essential administrative records and structures of the Mosaic following were dismantled, lock, stock and barrel. 'Jews' were then just as advantaged as 'Christians', both having equal claim to be the descendants of Abraham; though with the 'Jews' having no means of ever properly identifying a Messiah, that, for them, had to be in the future! Cerazy, man.

The point is, that whether or not there was a guy called Paul who was a Benjaminite, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, makes no difference, because, if the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, being a Benjaminite, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin made no difference, and was no advantage, even before the Romans finished off all that sort of thing! Comprenez?

TedM

Thanks. With respect to Ignatius, the degree to which they are original OR early is really important with respect to Paul and the orthodox claim made for him.

That last statement is not true if the Ignatius letters are authentic--or at least parts that reference Paul and/or the epistles, such as Ch 12 in Letter to the Ephesians:

IF he wrote this around 100 - 115 AD this is pretty significant evidence that Paul really did establish the Gentile churches.

sotto voce

Somebody with authority did, otherwise the Orthodox would not have had to come along, wipe them out, and call themselves Orthodox.

wordy

My naive take is that Paul describing a totally spiritual Christ
that he met while the Church having a Jesus in the flash as Christs
either point to that there where two competing groups that
the Constantine "Editiors" had to reconcile or that Paul
existed while Jesus in flesh is a made up story based on
the Bible story of teh Messiah that would come in flesh.

I trust that Constantine ahs existed and that is when it all started
as we know it today. What really went on before Constantine
seem very difficult to find evidence for? why not just accept
Constantine as the person that made it all possible. Without him
no Christian dominance them had been as small as the Ebionites?

aa5874

As soon as it is understood that Acts is a work of fiction then it is realized that the Pauline letters have ZERO corroboration.

Acts of Apostles even though a work of fiction does NOT even mention that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches and neither does Acts mention the Revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus that was given to Paul.

Acts of the Apostles Predates the Pauline letters because the theology is crude and not sophisticated as the Pauline letters and also does NOT SHOW any developed Churches with Bishops, deacons and presbyters.

In Acts Salvation is acheived by Belief and Baptism which is compatible with the Great Commission of the early Synoptic Gospels, the Long gMark and gMatthew.

Mark 16Matthew 28Acts 2:38 KJVActs 22In Acts, Saul himself is baptized but In the Pauline letters there is NO requiurement for Baptism for Salvation.

Romans 10:9 KJV It is clear that Acts of the Apostles written sometime After or no earlier than c 93 CE had NO knowledge of the Pauline Revealed Gospel. The author of Acts was influenced by the Great Commission found in the Long gMark and gMatthew---A Believer Must be Baptized--even Saul was baptized.

The Pauline letters were composed Last in the Canon and this is also reflected in the analysis of textual variations of Greek New Testament.

The 1st century Paul is a fiction character--a literary construct--.