Toto

I am not sure what you find compelling. aa5874 makes a rigid interpretation that assumes that the letters of Paul did not exist before the Book of Acts was written, just because the letters are not mentioned there. He fails to evaluate alternative explanations or reasons why the author of Acts did not mention Paul's letters.

:huh:

EarlDoherty

I am not able to join in here for a few days, as I am dealing with the death of my mother. (She was 93.) She has always been a believing and even devout Christian but she was a great lady and adopted a rather mellow attitude toward my books. Needless to say, she never read them.

Earl Doherty

Duvduv

My condolences to you Earl on your mother's passing. It's great that someone can get into their 90s.

Duvduv

Toto, alternative explanations would of course be pure speculation, which unfortunately so many today would consider as fact because of the church's view.
As you know, through my personal observation of Acts I too cannot see that the author of Acts knew the epistles at all.

Sheshbazzar

My sincere sympathy for your loss Earl.

I also lost my wonderful (adopted) Mother at the age of 93.
She was not a devout Christian or believer, but was the most saintly person in her conduct,
and in her care care towards the welfare of others that I have ever had the privilege of knowing.
Its been years, but I still miss her every day of my life.

Toto

Everything in this area is speculation.

But please explain this sentence: what is the "alternative" explanation? alternative to what? What is the church's view?

It is not your "personal observation." It is your conclusion based on an argument from silence. But you have yet to demonstrate that there is complete silence, or that there is silence where something would be expected.

Toto

The question on the relationship between 1 Cor and the gospel of Thomas has been split to this separate thread

Duvduv

Some speculation does not focus on the content and context of Acts versus the epistles but starts from the assumption that they must be connected and goes from there.
I personally observe that the Paul of the Acts story does not invoke the ideas found in the epistles about that Paul at all, as we have discussed before.

Toto

I don't think so, having read a bit of speculation in this area. Christian scholars tend to believe that Acts and the epistles were written independently.

Precisely: the author of Acts rejected Paul's theology. Why should he repeat it? But he knew of the epistles.

Duvduv

It's not an issue of "repeating," but an issue of integrating the alleged historical Jesus into the events of Acts. You know, a quote from a gospel, from the Sermon on the Mount. Paul wishing he could pray at Bethlehem or Capernaum, a brief visit to Golgotha. You know....to show his familiarity with what the author believed Paul knew about the HJ.