aa5874

Your post is extremely contradictory.

You are now stating that some Pauline letters and gJohn seem to have been fleshed out AFTER Acts but in an earlier post you claimed it is IMPOSSIBLE to know.

Why are you making claims about the chronology of the compostion of books in the Canon when you knew in advance that it was IMPOSSIBLE to do so??

You have exposed that you are NOT credible.

Duvduv

The fact that the epistles are not referenced is an indication that they were not written before Acts. I was earlier referring to final drafts of the texts. We cannot know whether final drafts were the same as today.

aa5874

Again, you are NOT credible. You are compounding your problem. Once you admit that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether the Epistles and Acts are the same today as they were original composed then you are in a most contradictory position.

When I claimed Acts of the Apostles was based on gLuke you claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to know yet all of a sudden you have no difficulty in making claims that you very well admitted is impossible for you to know.

Please, tell us if the final drafts of the Epistles and Acts are the same today.

Duvduv

I really do not follow you. I am not making an definitive determination. No one can do that. Not even you. All I was doing was inferring from the various types of material and texts. Thus I do not think Acts was originally related to GLuke. Would I swear to it? Was I there? No. But that is my judgment based on the picture I see.

aa5874

I FOLLOW you.

You claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE to know--that is a most definitive determination.

You are NOT credible.

Your post is recorded.

Duvduv

OF COURSE it is impossible to know what the original drafts looked like compared to the ones known today, unless you were there at the time........right, AA?
But that was not my point in the latest postings.

aa5874

You are digging a deep hole for yourself. Examine your own post.

How come you are sure Paul in Acts is not the same as the Paul of the Epistles when there is NO way it can be empirically proven based on your OWN words??

Again, you are NOT credible.

Duvduv

I don't know why you jump from one thing to another. Of course no one can claim CERTAINTY because that is impossible. But if you compare the theology in Acts with the what we have in the epistles we see that in the epistles it is more extensive, and we see that the Paul in the epistles is a different kind of Paul than that of Acts. SO WHAT?

Sheshbazzar

It always presents a problem when it is attempted to take the content of these writings as being a historical and logical sequence of events.
Because of latter redactions, and snippets culled from other sources, versions, and readings, along with inserted doctrinal polemic additions, these texts cannot be trusted to be following any natural sequential order.
This is very evident when one attempts to plot out the events of the Passion story and resurrection, where each author presents sequences that are contradictory and if taken sequentially are mutually exclusive.

The rest of the NT writings suffer from the same problem to a greater or lesser degree, all having underwent hundreds of years of 'adjustments' and 'corrections' by the emerging church to 'fit' them to developing orthodox theological traditions and opinions.
Thus if material from one book shows up in another, it is no surefire indication of which text that particular verse or passage first appeared in, or even whether it was at all present within either of the original authors texts.
Ignoring this fact leads to a lot of misunderstandings and to arguments that go nowhere. Arguments based simply upon "the text says; "......" often suffer from the problem that what 'the text says' may very well be a latter 'adjustment' of the original reading, or 'borrowed' material from sources other than the original author.

Little different today. I can lay out a dozen different 'versions' of the Bible
And carefully compare the renderings in each. In many verses there are substantial differences, And often, when the Hebrew or Greek texts are examined none of my English language Bibles accurately convey the sense of the original language.

Because each of these texts are reflective of a particular partisan doctrinal view, or a committee compromise. If this were not so, there would only be one English language Bible, and with all containing the exactly the same texts.

The 'adjustments' to these texts are still subtly ongoing, with a 'better' word (one supportive of a particular doctrinal persuasion) being supplied here, and an 'improved' for reading comprehension' verse adjustment there. Bit by bit the texts is evolved int what the sect wants it to be.
You would be amazed at the supposed 'translations' and renderings that appear within some of my more obscure sectarian 'Versions' they just go ahead and substitute what ever they want regardless of what the original language texts actually say.
And there are always some 'out there' that are to willing to accept damn near anything as long as it fits their confirmation bias.

aa5874

That is EXACTLY what you claim was impossible to know. You very well suggested that versions may have gotten mixed. Examine your own post.

Why are you using scribal documents that may have gotten mixed up???