TedM

You are obviously not inclined to look at the corroborative evidence. Instead you want to look at the supposed 'contradictions'. You can't deal with the corroborative evidence. Or don't want to. Close minded. It's right there in front of you aa. I even gave you the direct link. How can you possibly pretend they aren't there? Do you see how dishonest you are being? Don't you want try and find the truth? Or do you simply want to argue?

TedM

Yes. Luke ends his book with the ascension. Act begins with the ascension. The only 'problem' is that 'Luke' doesn't suggest a period of time between the appearance to the 12 and his ascension. It's not a big deal, and there is some logic to closing out Luke with the ascension and then recapping it with some more detail in Acts.


The first account is Luke's. The last 2 are Paul's. Paul's account need not match Luke's. He may have indeed said it wrong in his speech. He may have heard different accounts from his companions. And 'heard' also can mean 'understood' . Not seeing Jesus can be equated to not seeing anything..just different interpretations are easily made, and they aren't particularly important. What matters is not what OTHERS saw or heard but what Paul saw and heard.

OTOH, Luke may not have been concerned with what really were unimportant details. I would expect him to be concerned with important ones, and to try and be historically accurate. One of the themes of ACTS has to do with scriptures PROVING Jesus as the Christ. Truth mattered to him for the important issues. What evidence do you have that he was not concerned with telling history and was happy to make things up for theological purposes? It's a convenient theory but what EVIDENCE is there for it?



And I gave you a passage to dispute this claim. He was bold, he was combative in both, he was 'all things to all people for the sake of Christ' in both.

I do. I plan to read the Vidar blog. Pervo's book had 2 reviews. Strikes me as a wanna-be trying to sell skeptical books (there are others like that by him) but maybe he's better than that. I couldn't find anything indicating he has credibility with any scholars.

aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed he did NOT consult with Flesh and blood when he was called to preach to the heathen.

Galatians 1 The author of Acts contradicted Galatians.

In Acts, Saul/Paul did confer with Flesh and blood when he was called to preach the Gospel.

In fact, it is claimed the resurrected and ascended Jesus sent Ananias to CONSULT with Paul.
Acts 9 Again, we see that the author of Acts does not corroborate the Pauline writers. Saul/Paul did not go to Arabia.

Saul/Paul preached Christ in the Synagogues of Jews and consulted with flesh and blood, was baptized and immediately preached Christ in the Synagogues of Jews in Damascus according to Acts.


The author of Acts knew nothing of the Pauline letters.

The author of Acts corroborate that the Pauline letters are forgeries or manipulated.

TedM

You're doing it again. More contradictions. I don't care about your contradictions aa. I'm talking about corroborative accounts between Acts and the epistles. You are clearly not willing to address the evidence? It's right in front of you. How can you explain it? If the author of Acts knew nothing of the epistles, how could he have known the things that match up with them--Layman's list of 54? How did he know Paul hung around Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and many others, and in the places that exactly match to the epistles? Was he psychic?

aa5874

I am dealing with the facts. I am talking about corroboration too. Examine an excerpt from my last post.


Layman's list of 54 is virtually wholly flawed in connection with the Pauline character.

In the Pauline letters it is claimed that Paul was seen of the Resurrected Jesus after over 500 persons.

1 Cor 15 In Acts, Saul/Paul did NOT see the resurrected Jesus. Paul was blinded like a bat by a bright light and heard a voice.

The author of Acts contradicts the Pauline letters

Acts 26:13 KJV The author of Acts does not corroborate the Pauline claim that he was seen by the Resurrected Jesus.

Saul/Paul merely heard a voice.

The author of Acts corroborate that the Pauline letters are forgeries or manipulated and were composed After the very same Acts of the Apostles.

TedM

aa, you keep telling me instances that seem to show a LACK of corroboration. I get it. Now, why not examine the claims that seem to show DEFINITIVE corroboration? That basically PROVE common knowledge between events claimed in both. Too long a list? Just pick 2 or 3 at random. You can't explain them if you refuse to look at them. You won't be able to explain them under your current paradigm that both the Acts and Epistles knew nothing of each other--both fraudulent forgeries made up. You are unable to explain the corroborations. IF you think you can, try it. You won't be able to. Just choose a few at random.

Are you asking 'how can it be corroborative when I am showing how it isn't corroborative?' IF that's what you are asking, I see your dilemma. Here is an example that might help: What if you saw a person pick up a ball and throw it? That person says they picked it up, but never threw it. He has corroborated part of your account, but failed to corroborate the other part. However, the very fact that he admits he picked up the ball suggests that you weren't making THAT part up, and neither was he. You had common knowledge. Same thing with Acts and the Epistles. Does that help you?

I will be banning myself again tomorrow. I see little to gain from continuing this thread. Toto has given me a blog link about Acts which I intend to review before returning. Until then Toto is right--there isn't much more I can say.

spin

Asking questions based simply on your common sense in areas that have nothing to do with the experience your common sense is based on only leads into nonsense. Obviously, Paul didn't write to Seneca, but the sort of question you ask about literature you have little contextual help for (here Acts) should be seen as meaningless given the problematic analogy with the Paul/Seneca correspondence. There is no way you can twiddle a text to get history out of it without getting outside corroboration at some stage for the writer's credibility.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that it's alright to shoot in the dark, as long as you shoot, trusting your "gut" naturally. What I've offered already is an effort to show you why your naive approach to a text will only end in nonsense.

TedM

But I consider Pauline Epistles to provide a great deal of corroboration for Acts. Thus, a certain amount of credibility. Even hearsay is better than no say statistically speaking.

Not exactly. I"m suggesting shooting by moonlight is better than not shooting at all. It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to shoot at all. You really would prefer to not even read the 'we' passages because you might actually be faced with turning down your own gut instinct since you just can't justify paying attention to it. Correct?

spin

Please read what I said again, if you are trying to respond to it.

The analogy is wrong. You gull yourself into thinking your common sense rationalizations are somehow of some historical validity, ie light in the analogy.

Darn tootin', kid. I have more respect for what's around me than to shoot willy-nilly as you suggest.

I don't know what sort of fouled up mental world you are operating in, but you have absolutely no justification for saying any of the above comment. You may have a bee in your bonnet about the "we" passages, but you are not the only person who has read them and other people react differently to you. And this crap about "gut instinct" is utterly stupid as I have alluded to before. Gut instinct works in familiar contexts, not in analyses of literature for which you know next to nothing. It provides you with no meaningful controls as it leads you into some ditch, blind leading the blind.

TedM

Whoa. I didn't mean to upset you. I don't understand your objection to my conclusion. You validated what I was saying above -- ie better to not even attempt it. Are you saying that I shouldn't trust my gut about the 'we' passages because I'm not skilled in analyzing literature but that YOU should because you ARE skilled at analyzing literature? IF so, feel free to give me your opinion.

Of course I know that 'gut instinct' doesn't just magically happen. Some people are naturally more gifted at recognizing 'embellishment' and authenticity than others though, and it doesn't necessarily require familiarity with 'literature'. I don't believe in a cut and dried formula.