sotto voce

:rolling: What did I tell you?

"Homosexuality ban, Easter, now priesthood. What next? Papacy? " May 19, 2012

Bingo!

Vorkosigan

Actually, it means that they are in conversation with each other.

Duvduv

Yes, it is my conjecture, and makes sense given the context of the whole issue. Specifically, IF they thought that Paul actually wrote Galatians (the alternative being that a first-person account was a didactic technique rather than an actual record of fact) then they would certainly have wanted to make the two versions more consistent unless they simply viewed the two stories as two different second-hand versions of the story and could not come down on one side (Acts) or the other (Galatians), not realizing of course that such texts would ever end up as part of a canon of holy script.

Otherwise it appears patently ridiculous they would intentionally overlook such glaring contradictions in the two texts.

aa5874

Contradictions in Galatians 1 and Acts 9 do NOT mean that the author of Galatians did NOT know of Acts 9 and vice versa.

It merely means that the author of Galatians ATTEMPTED to "correct" the earlier story in Acts 9.

We have many many glaring contradictions in the NT and we can see that one author was AWARE of the other.

The Interpolator of the short-ending gMark used 100% the short-version but ADDED 12 flagrant contradictory verses of Fiction which completely changed the ENTIRE short-ending gMark.

There are flagrant contradictions in Virtually every event with Jesus in any gospel but that does NOT mean none of the authors were NOT aware of the other.

It ONLY means that each author ATTEMPTED to change the story.

But, there is another clue that the Galatians author called Paul is AFTER Acts of the Apostles.

The name PAUL is a LATE ADDITION to Acts of the Apostles.

When the author of Acts introduced SAUL in Acts 7.58 he gave no hint that SAUL was also called PAUL.

The change from SAUL to PAUL was sudden in Acts 13.9 immediately after Saul met Sergius Paulus.

The author of Acts could NOT have used the Pauline letters for the name SAUL but the Galatians author could have used Acts of the Apostles for the name PAUL.

In Acts of the Apostles 9 the Bright light conversion happened to SAUL who was on his way to Damascus.

It was SAUL who went to Jerusalem in Acts 9.

The resurrected Jesus in Acts called SAUL---NOT Paul. See Acts 9.4 and 22.7

But, it was PAUL in Galatians 1.

The name SAUL is NOT in Galatians but the name PAUL of Galatians is in Acts.

The Galatians author was AWARE of Acts and attempted to change the story in Acts.

The resurrected Jesus NEVER called PAUL based on Acts.

Acts 22:7 KJV

Duvduv

AA, if you want to argue that there was a correction involved, then you have to ask yourself why both texts were accepted together if one was "wrong" and the other was "right."
And if the Galatians author was aware of Acts, why didn't he throw in a verse saying "his" name was once Saul, and why did he say that the representative of Aretas wanted to arrest him when Acts says it was the Jews who wanted to kill him, with no mention of the governor or an arrest?

Besides, there are contradictions within Acts itself, i.e. about the revelation to Paul. Why aren't those "corrected" within Acts or by Galatians?

Sheshbazzar

You may think you are defending the existence of a historical Jebus.
But your above statement would have been a blasphemy that the authorities of the Christian religion throughout most of the centuries of Christian existence would have had your blasphemous tongue cut out before burning you at the stake.

sotto voce

Was that Christian existence, or Jewish existence parading as Christian?

aa5874

Have you NOT even read the Four Canonised Gospels??? Can't you see that there are FLAGRANT discrepancies in them even though the authors appear to be aware of an earlier story???

Are you not AWARE that the Existing Codices still contain those FLAGRANT differences even though they were NOT all written same time.

Why do the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke flagrantly differ???

Based on your FLAWED view if there are Flagrant differences between two written statements then both statements could NOT have been made by the same person.

The differences in Galatians and Acts and in the NT stories occur when CHANGES are made to the story.

We can deduce from the Gospels and Acts that Paul was a LATE ADDITION.

We can see that the PAULINE writers CHANGED the post-resurrection story and Changed the Commission of Jesus from the TWELVE Apostles to include the Pauline writers.

In Galatians, the Pauline writer is claiming to have some kind of Personal and Private Commission by revelation from God UNKNOWN to the Apostles BEFORE him. See Galatians 1.15-19.

In Acts 9.19, it is claimed that SAUL, not yet called Paul, did CONSULT with the Damascus disciples BEFORE he started to preach.

The author of Galatians CHANGED the story of Acts to give the impression that he was Commissioned and Authorized DIRECTLY from the resurrected Jesus and preached Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected even BEFORE the Apostles were aware of his conversion and authorisation from Jesus.

Duvduv

AA, if someone is going to CHANGE something he can rewrite Acts with a new Acts just as someone wanting to CHANGE a gospel story can rewrite a gospel as a replacement.

But the story of Acts is not replaced by a relatively meager letter that doesn't discuss all the details found in Acts. And Acts itself contains internal contradictions as well. You would be correct IF Acts version 1 was replaced by Acts version 2, but this isn't what we have. So I don't see how you can argue that Acts is corrected to be replaced by a letter.

And the authors of the epistles "change" Acts 18 - 19 by deleting any reference to the Baptist that supposedly preceded the epistles? Apollos is never mentioned in the epistles, nor is the "baptism of John," or the idea that a follower of John never heard about the baptism of Jesus that was famous in the all the gospels.

LegionOnomaMoi

Seriously? They would have cut my tongue out for defending a good Simpsons joke? Huh.