Huon

We could start from 1 Corinthians :
1 Cor 1-12 : Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I understand this as the fact that the early Christian communities were not "unified" (so to say), but they were influenced by some leaders, who were Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and I would add John, the author of the Apocalypse. Probably some other people, who have not left important names.

Clivedurdle

I think Ellegard sees evidence of pre existing church structures in Paul - the heirarchy feels complex.

But forget geography for a moment. What mythological or political reasons might there be for letters to those places?

Gamera

It would be a strange coincidence, since the cities mentioned had a large Jewish community, and elsewhere we learn that Paul's modus operandi was to first preach in the synagogues and if they rejected him, to then go to the gentiles of that city.

So whoever made the redaction also coincidently named cities that had the qualities that seemed to fit Paul's purported way of evangelizing.

Acts 13: When they arrived at Sal'amis, they [Paul and Barnabas] proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.

Acts 17:1 - Now when they had passed through Amphip'olis and Apollo'nia, they came to Thessaloni'ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.

Acts 17:17 - So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there.

Acts 18:4 - And he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:8 - And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God;

dog-on

Gamera, do you think that Acts is a later writing than the Epistles? If this is not the case, I see no real coincidence. I do, however, think that the Epistles were ascribed to congregations by the time Acts was written.

Ben C Smith

I think he started those churches himself. He may have inherited some Jewish sympathizers in the process, but the churches were of his own planting.

Ben.

Gamera

The fact that Acts is later doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that the author would have added material to give credence to Paul's evangelizing procedure in a way that would help validate redacted letters about cities he visited, all to trick modern Christians two millennia later.

It makes no sense that anything in Acts was added to help validate changes in Pauline letters about what church they were addressed to.

Unbeliever

I didn't know whether to start a new thread for this, so I'll put it in an existing thread about Paul:

What evidence is there that Paul existed as a real person? The concensus seems to be that he did exist, and did write certain letters to various churches. But I'm unaware of the evidence of his reality. Are there Roman records, or other extra-biblical evidence?

Toto

There are no Roman or non-Christian records of Paul's existence. But most people accept the existence of his letters as strong evidence that he was a historical person. Some also accept the stories in the book of Acts as having some historical value, but I doubt that.

Paul is mentioned by some church fathers, and was the favorite of some of the gnostics and other heretics. Not all of the references to him are very flattering, which increases the probability that he existed and was not just a legendary figurehead.

The more intriguing questions are when Paul lived and wrote, and whether he can be identified with Simon Magus or some other character in history or legend.

aa5874

Saul/Paul is a questionable character. Very little is known about Saul/Paul outside the Bible.There are actual contradictions of Saul/Paul in the Christian Bible. The book called Galations is inconsistent with the book of Acts with respect to the life of Saul/Paul. Saul/Paul is either fictional or the author of those books completely in error.

Ben C Smith

Agreed. Except that for questionable I would substitute mysterious.

Agreed.

Nothing fatal, but agreed.

Completely disagreed.

Ben.