Sheshbazzar

Were the Popes with all of their anti-Jewish propaganda and pogroms, and the 1700 years of Christians composing the known Christian church's all really Jewish?
Are you seriously suggesting that those medieval Christians that were torturing, murdering, and engaged in forcing conversions to Christianity. were really Jewish?
Care to explain how they could be Jewish and yet carry on all of those centuries of anti-Jewish Christ killer propaganda?
Was Martin Luther the virulent anti-Semite really Jewish?
Was King Edward I of England really Jewish?
Were the Southern Baptist KKK Grand Wizards all really Jewish?

I think you are trying to live in a strange world of your own imaginations.

spin

That you feel you need to project your predilections onto others.

Looks like we have a winner tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Prize is a makeover at Nolene Dupre's Beauty Salon including full-facial and wax job.

sotto voce

Interesting projection.

spin

Deep response.

aa5874

It is NOT at all necessary for the Galatians author to RE-WRITE all of Acts just to Change a part of the story.

It was NOT necessary for the Interpolator of the short-ending gMark to re-write all of gMark--the Interpolator simply added 12 verses.

Why don't you read the other books of the Canon first that see FLAGRANT discrepancies do NOT mean that one author was NOT aware of the other???

Mark 16.8 is still found in the long-ending gMark although it contradicts the Interpolated 12 verses.

Your statement does not make much sense. The Galations writer did NOT attempt to replace Acts of the Apostles. The author CHANGED the chronology of certain events in Damascus and his visits to Jerusalem. That is all.

Acts 9 is pretty straight forward. SAUL, after the blinding light, did meet with the DAMASCUS disciples before he preached the Jesus story and then Escaped and went to Jerusalem.

The Galatians writer CHANGED the story and claimed he did NOT consult with any "Flesh and blood" and still first went to Arabia before he went back to Damascus and then to Jerusalem three years later.

In Acts of the Apostles, SAUL is known to be preaching the Jesus story by the Damascus disciples who were BEFORE him but in Galatians Paul preaches the Gospel and was Authorized BY THE RESURRECTED Jesus UNKNOWN to those Before him.

Duvduv

There are many other contradictions besides just that one. So the author of Galatians decided to devote part of one chapter just to "set the record straight" on one element, leaving all the contradictions in place. Well, he doesn't mention his previous background of Saul or his education under Gamliel in Galatians, so those discrepancies remain.
What's more, the final canonizers of the NT thought all these contradictions between texts were just peachy keen for their theology in one collection.
So you totally discount the possibility that the authors of Galatians and Acts didn't know of each other, even without any evidence for that.

sotto voce

Those who are similar but affecting difference must exhibit hostility.

What is notable is that Jews rarely acknowledge the existence of Protestantism, casting opprobrium for the crimes of all Christianity on the RCC.

Would a Jew spare another if the notion of Messiah Jesus not be suppressed thereby?

He retained all of the central Judaising dogmas of the Vatican but one.

Undoubtedly.

Adolf Hitler considered he was continuing the work of the medieval popes.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

sotto voce

Proportionate.

aa5874

Again, you are not making much sense. Just examine your OWN post. Is it NOT absurd to assume that you are NOT aware of all of Acts of the Apostles and all of Galatians because you only mentioned some of the chapters???

It is absurd to suggest that you are NOT aware of Galatians 2-6 because you did NOT mention any of those chapters and the same applies to Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels, and other books of the Canon.

Again and again, SAUL was introduced in Acts 7 AFTER the Commission and Authorisation to preach the Jesus story was already given to the disciples by the Resurrected Jesus.

Peter and the other Apostles did ACTS before SAUL.

The ACTS, the ACTS of the Apostles, were INITIATED by the Holy Ghost before SAUL.

The ACTS [preaching the Jesus story and performing miracles] was wasted and peersecuted by SAUL.

There can be no simpler chronology. The apostles ACTED before SAUL was blinded by a bright light on his way to Damascus and then LATER changed to PAUL.

Jesus called SAUL--NOT PAUL. Paul is a late invention.

The resurrected Jesus SPOKE Hebrew when he called SAUL.

Acts 26:14 KJV The Galatians writer attempted to CHANGE the chronology in Acts.

Duvduv

But this does not address the question of the need for many corrections in Acts, and the fact that Acts was assigned a position alongside the epistles despite the contradictions. So are we to assume that every time an epistle has an idea that is different from Acts that it is a "correction" and that the authors never knew that the two contradictory stories would go together? And that the name Saul couldn't have been included in a single epistle?

So what about the crucifixion where virtually nothing significant is mentioned by Paul in Acts about it as compared to the epistles:
Acts 13:28-29 versus Romans 5:6 or 2 Corinthians 14.
Or the missing trip to Arabia in Acts? Or the simple issue of who was after him in Damascus?
And what's with the confusion over whether he had a special mission to the gentiles or not, which although is very unambiguous in Galatians is ambiguous in Acts, i.e. Acts 9:15, 18:6 and 22:21?