DCHindley

Hmmm ... I'm not sure what that was supposed to signify. That you can write highly nuanced narrative?

Actually, I was rather surprised by it. There's a lot in common with Jocques Barzan. I also saw a turn of phrase from Calvin's Institutes. They were from all over the place. Are you an editor of some kind?

If it was meant to be a parody of a type of bombastic style, I admire your creativity and sense of humor. :notworthy:

If it was your actual position, then I should be afraid of you. :melodramatic:

DCH

sotto voce

Reader Alert: the quoted bloc has been extensively 'edited' and the original post should be consulted.

Iskander

Thank you, sotto.

The 'ignore' facility is your dear friend.

Toto

It has not been edited. DH has inserted some comments which are clearly marked with brackets.

A little less drama, please.

aa5874

There are two fundamental positions--either the author of Acts knew of the Pauline writings or he did NOT.

If the author of Acts did NOT personally know of Paul then he either invented his stories of Saul/Paul or got them from some source.

The invention or source of the author of Acts did NOT include that Paul wrote any letters to Churches.

The author of Acts, whether by invention or from sources, STATED that it was the Church of Jerusalem that gave short letters of about 150 words to the Pauline group which the group Hand Delivered.

From a chronological point of view, Acts of the Apostles would be be in DIRECT Chronological conflict of the Pauline writings if the Epistles of the supposed Paul were ALREADY known AND PUBLICLY circulated in the Churches.

However, if Acts was written BEFORE the Pauline writings to the Churches were known and circulated , there would be far less chronological conflict.

It is far more logical that the lack of mention of the Pauline letters to the Church was due to the fact that the author of Acts did NOT know of them than to claim he simply FORGOT to mention the Most significant WORKS in the NT Canon.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters were Fabricated.

Toto

There's no chronological conflict. There are so many other conflicts that it is hard to believe the author of Acts cared about conflicts. I mean, there are conflicts between Luke and Acts even though both came from the same author.

There was no NT canon at the time.

Repetition does not make it true.

sotto voce

So it is not a quote. It's a falsehood to call it a quote.

Brackets indistinguishable from those of an author.

DCHindley

Oh my!

I always say "Where there is smoke, there is fire!"

DCH

DCHindley

Isky,

You really don't like me, eh? (sigh) :huh:

My hobby is poking fun at all pompous and hubris filled statements, whether uttered by the right or left. I am an equal opportunity fun poker. Sure I pretend to be a brainy sarcastic fart, which apparently intimidates the heck out of a lot of people. Yet it is all in fun and a few, like Stephen (himself an actual brainy sarcastic fart), "get it" and are not afraid to fight fire with fire.

I use the tactic at work all the time. When I sit down with a company representative to begin reviewing payroll and tax reports, they are often uptight, not sure what to expect from an "Audit." When they plop onto the table the (way too) large stack of records we had asked for in advance and then ask me half-testily if there is anything else I will need, usually I ask them for a winning lottery ticket or ask if the principal named Bronstein is related to Leon Trotsky. They have to stop for a second, but then almost immediately realize that I am kidding and somehow that breaks the ice. Afterwards we have a very productive honest exchange, establish the facts, and if they did wrong I give them info to explain what is the better way.

Here, when I identify something half baked or not thought through, I like to ask some sort of trumped up rhetorical question to illustrate what is half-baked or not well thought out about the statement at hand. I almost always provide links to places or suggest books that will help flesh out the matter for the curious. I almost never push my own agenda. Unfortunately, this approach utterly paralyzes people with fear and dread on this forum.

Funny, I used to get that same response from the programmers at the Cleveland PC User's Group in the early 90's. If I came up after a meeting and asked them a completely normal question about their presentation or whatever, they would recoil back in horror as if I had violated a sacred rule of intercourse by asking a question in plain English, and not techno jargon. If you don't believe me, just ask one IT administrator what is the difference between Baud and BPS (there is one, actully, a difference that lets a 400 Baud modum work at 56,600 BPS versus 400 BPS like God designed it to - damn humanists packing too many liberal biased bits into each change of state).

So, Isky & Sotto, I would much rather deal with the facts at hand, without ideology thrown in. Whether you are a believer or a non-believer, you still have to deal with the facts as squarely as you can and put them into perspective, not turn them into military weapons to serve your side of a holy war. If you cannot justify to others what you assert, you are not discussing things but boxing or fencing.

DCH

aa5874

Of course there would be chronological conflicts if it was already known by the author of Acts that Paul wrote letters to the Churches and claimed it was the Church of Jerusalem that wrote letters and that it was JAMES, not Paul, who suggested that the Church of Jerusalem should write letters.

In Acts of the Apostles, it was the Church of Jerusalem that had CONTROL of the Pauline faction and was the author the Contents of the letters, NOT Paul.


There was supposed to be Pauline CHURCHES with publicly circulated letters from Paul. These letters were NOT just 150 words or so, they were supposed to consist of thousands of words and many chapters.

The author of ACTS made no mention of Large volume of Pauline letters or used a single passage from a Pauline Epistle if it is assumed he wrote Decades after Paul.

Amazingly, the author of Acts QUOTED virtually the ENTIRE contents of a letter from the Jerusalem Church and NEVER a sentence from the Pauline writings to the Churches.

Repetition does NOT make it False.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Churches were Fabricated.

The author of Acts QUOTED virtually the Entire contents of a letter of the Church of Jerusalem and NEVER once mentioned a sentence from a Pauline letter even though he wrote about the activities of Paul from Acts 7 to Acts 28. See Acts 15.