Duvduv

It is an essential fact, not a minor one. Do I assume that the author of Acts never heard of the epistles because the doctrines of the epistles are not introduced. My answer is Yes.

Toto

My question is why you would think that. :huh: It makes no sense.

aa5874

Well, can't you see that I am the one telling you that Acts of the Apostles did NOT humiliate Paul.

This is your claim that is without logic and baseless.

Please do NOT divert from the discussion.

Nowhere did the author of Acts counter the Pauline Faction.

It is the COMPLETE Reverse.

Saul/Paul and his Faction which INCLUDED the very author of Acts taveled and PRAYED together all over the Roman Empire from Acts 15.12 to Acts 28, until the very End of Acts.

No way. I read Acts of the Apostles because I don't have time to waste. I deal with Sources, Sources, Sources......Evidence, Evidence, Evidence of antiquity.

This is found in Acts of the Apostles hundreds of years Before 2003

Acts of the Apostles It is UTTERLY erroneous that Acts was written to counter the Pauline faction.

It was the Complete Opposite.

Acts of the Apostles was written to PROMOTE the Pauline faction which Included the very author of Acts.

Paul was even claimed to be God in Acts.

Acts 14:11 KJV

Doug Shaver

Christians got the idea from pagans, yes, but it's still their history. To us outsiders, your doctrinal squabbles with your co-religionists are irrelevant. You don't get to disown Christians who disagree with you just because they disagree with you.

Doug Shaver

As I have already explained to you, it makes no difference to whatever point you're trying to make whether the same person actually wrote both books.

Doug Shaver

I believe there is nothing secret about their knowledge. If you want to find out what they know, all you have to do is read the journals in which they publish it.

But of course, accessing those journals does take a bit of time and effort. It's certainly a lot easier just to presuppose that they couldn't possibly know what they're talking about.

aa5874

But, Toto, isn't a similar argument used to claim the Pauline writings were written before the Fall of the Temple because there is NO mention of the Jewish Temple?

Have you never heard of such an argument?

Toto, how did some Scholars come to the conclusion that the Pauline writings were before the Gospels?

Well, now that others are using a similar argument to show that Acts of the Apostles was BEFORE the Pauline writings all of a sudden you seem not to understand how such an argument makes sense.

Well, Toto, the claim the Pauline writings were Before the Gospel because they did NOT mention the Temple can no longer make sense.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline writings because the author did NOT write about any Epistle and did NOT claim Paul wrote any Epistles to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

And this fact is EXTREMELY significant.

When the suposed Paul was ready for his second WORLD TOUR the author of Acts Traveled with Paul and NEVER stated Paul wrote any Epistle and SENT the Epistles before he arrived at his destination.

Acts 15:36 KJV The Pauline letters are extremely important and are Canonised yet the author of Acts, Paul supposed companion, did NOT account for a single Pauline epistle.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Epistles.

Toto

No, I have never heard such an argument, and it makes no sense. If the Pauline letters were written before the fall of the Temple, you might expect some reference to the Temple.

I know what that argument is based on, and it has nothing to do with the lack of any mention of anything.

Most scholars are Christian, and they accept Christian tradition that Paul died around 62 CE, before the fall of the Temple. The gospels are dated to after the fall of the Temple, based on internal evidence, including Jesus' "prediction" of the fall of the Temple.

In addition, there has been an extensive scholarly effort to harmonize Paul's letters with the events in Acts, and there are references in Acts to a particular official in the Roman Empire, the proconsul Gallio, who can be dated with certainty. The dating of Paul's letters hangs on the Roman records of the proconsul Gallio.

Of course, once you decide that Christian tradition is unreliable, and that Acts is a fictional work, the basis for dating the letters of Paul collapses.

I usually try not to interact with you because of off the wall arguments like this. But you seem to have drawn Duvduv into your alternate reality.

aa5874

Well, Toto there is NO mention of the Jewish Temple in the Pauline writings so based on your OWN statement I will consider the Pauline writings were AFTER the Fall of the Temple and After Acts of the Apostles.

The disciples in Acts did go to the Jewish Temple.[ See Acts 3]

Remarkably, Paul did NOT ever go to the Jewish Temple in the Pauline writings or give any description of the Jewish Temple.

The evidence suggest that the Epistles were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Toto

Nothing I wrote forces you to draw that conclusion, although I suspect that the epistles were written after the fall of the Temple. You would need to do more analysis.

But there is no reason to think that the Pauline epistles were written after Acts.

Acts was written after the fall of the Temple, when there was still a memory of the Temple. This says nothing about exactly when Acts might have been written.

You need to consider that Paul did not write from Jerusalem. He operated in the diaspora. So this is not necessarily remarkable.

The subject and verb in that sentence do not agree. What is your first language?