Duvduv

aa5874 it looks like you missed this point.

aa5874

I am dealing with the unsubstantiated claims of Toto about Acts right now. When I am done I will deal with your question.

Let us look at Acts 20 It is just absurd that Acts of the Apostles was written to humiliate Paul. Paul even RAISED the dead.

The author of Acts ELIMINATED Peter from Acts 15.12 to Acts 28 [the End] and spoke of Paul over 100 times and NEVER again mentioned Peter.

Toto

Here's a thread from the archives from 2003: Confirmation and Correlation in Acts and the Pauline Epistles .

It was started by a Christian apologist who tried to claim that Acts and the Epistles represented two separate lines of historical tradition that could be used to confirm the basic historical facts in each.

He was wrong, of course. The correlations show that the author of Acts knew of the epistles.

But you can see how things have deteriorated around here. I'm having the same arguments at a much less intelligent level.

Duvduv

Toto, there you go again making a declaration about correlations that the author of Acts knew of the epistles. However, we all know that the doctrines in the epistles do not appear in Acts and Paul is not described as writing his congregations. But your declaration sure sounds like a church statement of faith.

Toto

Can you outline a theory which would allow you to draw any conclusion from these facts? If the author of Acts knew of the epistles but intended to co-opt Paul and make him out to be a loyal friend of the orthodox church, would you expect any mention of facts that went against this view?

Duvduv - do you know anything about scholarly methodology? Have you read any of the literature in this area? Have you read any statements of faith? It doesn't sound like you have.

Duvduv

But you just made a declaration that the author of Acts knew about the epistles, which any objective reader can see is not the case.

Toto

This is like a parody of an argument.

I didn't use the word humiliate. Acts does not humiliate the character of Saul-Paul described in Acts. But this character is not at all compatible with the Paul of the epistles.

Read the thread from 2003.

Toto

How can the objective reader see that? Would this hypothetical objective reader accept a scholarly opinion from someone who has spent their career studying the question?

The faith based position is that the author of Acts did not know about the epistles, because otherwise would have mentioned them explicitly. This is based on the idea that the books of the NT are all written in good faith with transparent motives. This is not my position.

Duvduv

No, you are incorrect. It is based on observation NOT faith.
If you believe that professional scholars have some secret knowledge then say so.
Faith requires denial of observation. The author of Acts does not introduce the teachings of the epistles and makes no claim that his Paul was writing to his congregations. That is my observation regardless of religious doctrine or academic faith.

Toto

So you assume that if the author of Acts did not mention the epistles or Paul's teaching, that he must not have known about them. What is the basis for this assumption?

Can you conceive of a case where someone writes a tract that does not mention every fact that the author knows? (hint - look at political propaganda.)