aa5874

The claim that Acts was written to contain Paul is highly illogical. The author of Acts dedicated the last 13 chapters of Acts of the Apostles almost exclusively to Saul/Paul and completely eliminated Peter from the same chapters.

The author of Acts also stated that he traveled with Saul/Paul all over the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts humiliated his character called Apostle Peter.

Duvduv

I feel the same way. I don't think it's a question of ignoring his theology but that the author didn't know about it. That's what I'm stuck with. I am not a professional scholar but that's how I feel. If the author wanted to downplay "Paul's" theology etc., why does he make his Paul seem to be on a better footing than in some of the epistles where he exposes himself as incapable of handling his troops?!
And why would the author of Acts consciously create discrepancies? Why does the Baptist get a mention with Paul in Acts but not even a hint in a single epistle?
On the other hand, IF Acts was the FIRST publicly produced text about a Christ sect, WHY did the authors introduce this guy and not write about the Christ himself?
Acts' Paul has no link to the people who knew his "historical Jesus," no interest in the places where the Savior walked, no reverence for those who saw and walked with the Savior, no interest in quoting any sayings of the Savior or mentioning any of his teachings.
No context that connects him to the Christ Savior.

Of course this is true of the epistles as well, however since Acts links Paul to Peter and to Jerusalem etc., one would expect this to be introduced UNLESS Acts was produced without any direct knowledge of any gospels or the epistles themselves.

It is unlikely that two different sects produced Acts and the Epistles Package independently, so one would have to wonder why the discrepancies between Acts and the epistles wasn't worked out. So if it can be argued that Acts PRECEDED the ENTIRE collection of epistles, it is strange that no one would have gone back and straightened out the discrepancies. Of course the same thing could be said about the epistles themselves. The discrepancies aren't straightened out there either.

Duvduv

Introducing Peter and Paul in Acts as a "first act" would only make sense if there were two competing sects who revered each of them as some kind of mythical founder for each sect, and who the author wanted to bring together under roof. If both "Peter" and "Paul" were leaders of the celestial Christ sect, whereby Peter was closely associated with the Jewish orientation, then Paul had the other orientation towards the gentiles.

But such a major and novel change then required further "explanation" by way of the epistles to legitimize this path.

aa5874

Again, where is your SOURCE of ANTIQUITY for the "Celestial Christ" of Peter and Paul? It makes no sense to make statements about celestial characters that were not even mentioned in antiquity.

The Pauline writings are Canonised and do NOT contain the Heresy of the Celestial Christ.

Duvduv

Can we separate discussion about which texts came first from the issue of the celestial Christ? And return to that subject?
I have found the writings of Wells, Doherty and Gandy and Freke very interesting.

aa5874

Again, I just need a SOURCE of antiquity that mentioned the "Celestial Christ" of Peter and Paul.

Surely, Wells, Doherty, Gandy and Freke must have made references to some sources of antiquity that mentioned the "Celestial Christ" of Peter and Paul.

When a matter is reviewed it is the evidence that is re-examined not opinion.

Duvduv

I am sure each has sufficient methodology as does Hermann Detering.
However either way I don't see the purpose of introducing a text like Acts as the first text relating to the Christ ....a view which itself needs ancient sources to confirm and which I haven't yet seen except by way of INFERENCE which is good enough for me in certain cases!

aa5874

It is Evidence first and then opinion. You must first introduce the written statements from antiquity for the "Celestial Christ" of Peter and Paul so that it can be examined for credibility and its historical value

Duvduv

I assume that the authors I have mentioned understand your point as well as you do and also rely on logical inference which I have seen you use as well.

aa5874

I really don't know why you are telling me about what you ASSUME about other people.

I need texts, texts ..........texts of antiquity for the "Celestial Christ" of Peter and Paul. I need to examine them for credibility and for their historical value.

You don't have anything from antiquity at all????