Adam

Yes, Duvduv,
You did readily absorb new ideas on this board,
But only those that support the direction in which you were headed in the first place. You ask questions, but apparently only to gather together from the responses what you like rather than what the evidence or the logic indicates.
You are using this board to serve your own purposes and not to further the discussion nor to contribute new information.

Duvduv

That is preposterous. I have just as much a right to analyze and assess information as the next guy. As I told Toto unless this Board is reserved for "professional scholars" then everyone has a right to ask whatever questions they wish based on what they as non-professional scholars have learned and observed.

And are you seriously suggesting that I am the only person who has views on these matters that discomfit you? And what do you say to people who "contribute" nonsense to this Board instead of substantive discussion? I haven't seen your comments on that at all.

I don't have to issue any disclaimers or restate anything that I have raised in my postings. They are all in the archive. If you care to ask me questions about things you are not familiar with I dare say I won't insult you.

Toto

Then you haven't been paying attention.


Paul in the letters opposed circumcision. Paul in Acts circumcises Timothy.

Paul in the letters is at odds with Peter over table fellowship. In Acts, Peter has a vision that tells him all food is clean, and goes on to baptize the first Gentile.

In the letters, Paul claims that the pillars of the Jerusalem church agreed that Paul would be the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the apostles to the Jews, but Acts has Peter baptizing Gentiles and Peter and Paul preaching in concert to Jews and Gentiles.

I could go on if I wanted to take the time.

The author of Acts promoted a character called Paul, but this character had little in common with the Paul who wrote the letters. So you have not shown that the author of Acts promoted Paul's theology as expressed in his letters - quite the opposite.

So what is the argument here that needs to be refuted?

aa5874

I am really disappointed in you Toto. I NO longer think that you are capable of making a proper argument. You know very well that in Acts Paul OPPOSED circumcision and it is claimed he went to Jerusalem to ARGUE against circumcision.

Acts 15 It was AFTER the disputation over circumcision in Jerusalem that Paul was NOT ever in the company of Peter again.

The author of Acts ABADONED Peter from Acts 15.11

So how does the author of Acts undermine the theology of Paul when he attempts to show that it was Peter who had Theological problems???

You very well know that it was Peter who REFUSED to eat foods that he considered unclean in the vision.

Toto you cannot present a proper argument and your claims are not only baseless but you must have known in advance that they had no real validity.

Again Toto, you have NOT shown that the author of Acts undermined the theology of Paul.

You very well know that in Galatians it is claimed that Paul stayed with PETER for 15 days and that Paul visited the Churches in Judea. See Galatians 1.18-23.

Toto you have been a dismal failure. You attempted to cover up your unsubstatiated claims with passages that do NOT SHOW that the author of Acts undermined the theology. In fact, they do the opposite.

In any event I am delighted that you responded to my post because I am now certain that you cannot ever provide any credible evidence for an early Paul.

Duvduv

Toto, I personally never had the impression that the Paul of Galatians opposed circumcision for Jews, only for non-Jews who he argued did not need to convert to Judaism.
By contrast Timothy was circumcised because he was a Jew in Acts.
However, I made the point that nowhere in the epistles does the bragging Paul claim to be a qualified mohel-circumciser which would add to his reputation by rejecting a vested interest in his claims concerning gentiles.
That is another reason to suggest that the author of the epistles did not know Acts.

Duvduv

Toto, I thought you might have a response to this. Also, maybe you could let us know how to hide threads with tags. I have been looking around here but am not sure how to do it, and when.

Toto

But that was the issue.

If he hadn't been circumcised, he wasn't really a Jew, was he? Why would be need to be cirucmcised?

Most people assume that the author of the epistles did not know Acts.

The idea of Paul as a qualified mohel does not fit any known picture of Paul. It is clearly rhetorical excess on the part of the author of Acts, yet another reason to reject the historicity of Acts, in case you needed one.

aa5874

Please do not hide behind the phrase "most people". You must be held accountable for your own assumptions. Tell us of your assumptions because you have already admitted there is NO hard evidence to date the Pauline letters.

Well, Toto, those who claim Paul LIVED, traveled and preached throughout the Roman Empire RELIED on Acts of the Apostles.

You are promoting Selective double standards for Acts and the Pauline writings.

It is just absurd to put forward the notion that Acts is only historically accurate if it is compatible with the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

Not at all, since Timothy (unlike Titus) had a JEWISH mother then he was obliged to be circumcised as a born Jew. No issue here in relation to circumcision for Jews. I have yet to be pursuaded that the Pauline speaker anywhere claims the laws of the Torah were annulled FOR JEWS, including circumcision.

Duvduv

And of course we know that nowhere in the epistles does the epistle writer invoke any of the Old Testament verses pertaining to the Davidic messiah or Elijah from Zechariah, Isaiah or Malachi even when the writer of Romans mentions Jesus as the seed of David. None of this is discussed in Acts either. Thus whoever the Christ figure was originally to believers he wasn't the Jewish messiah figure that is indicated by the later nativity stories and the Baptist in the gospels (GMatt and GLuke). Even if the epistles were composites of monotheistic tracts and Christ references.

Yet such references are found in the Dialogue with Trypho. So if the Justin writer didn't know about the epistles, didn't the epistle writers know about the same verses referring to the Christ that Justin did? Unless the two Christ ideologies emerged from totally unrelated places where. the Justin writer also knew about the Logos that was unknown to the epistle writers.