Duvduv

Of course if there was no central or supervising authority of a "church" in 150 CE to present epistles as holy writ or even just religious sermonic material, then it had to have happened later on, especially given the fact that the epistles are ALWAYS presented as a set by the apologists.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, GakuseiDon. Would you care to join me in this Wiki thing?

ApostateAbe

Shoot, maybe you are more of an activist than a resource.

Sheshbazzar

The opinions of authors, -any of them- do not dictate nor determine what I believe or accept. My own knowledge, and my own conscience, and my own integrity is what I depend upon, it does not function by, nor require confirmation by others.
Not a 'someone'. The NT texts were fabricated by multiple church writers in far-flung locations with variant traditions and views over a long period of time.
Various factions would 'bend' the tale their own way for reasons now lost to history.
People like you like to think of the NT text as being as fixed and as stable as rock. Truth is the surviving early exemplars display thousands of variations, and the text is more like thick clay that has only finally been squished and molded by despotic force into some semblance of integrity.
Neither Galatians nor Acts are accounts of any actual church history. They are nothing more than religious fiction and propaganda through and through. The 'events' and the characters 'dialog' are all contrived and fictional, and simply never happened.
This horse crap was forged entirely, as a means of propagating theological views fabricated from a mixture of Hebrew Scripture and Platonic philosophy. It has nothing to do with reality or as any valid source of history.

ApostateAbe

OK, so precisely what do you think explains the account in the epistle to the Galatians of the sharp dispute between Paul and Peter despite a contrary account in Acts? It is cool if you are not relying on any authority--that is actually how it should be--but I was curious about the names of authors who have elaborated on your perspective.

Sheshbazzar

First you need to get it out of your head that this was an actual historical dispute that took place between the two individuals in the story.
They are simply characters, serving as 'talking heads' for the competing and opposing 'Petrine' and 'Paulinist' Church factions, with the earlier 'Petrine' leadership faction of Acts and its views (still too 'Jewish' for the taste of the 'Paulinians') getting trounced, and then totally supplanted by that 'Paulinian' faction that composed the Galatians epistle.

Its all nothing more church politics dramatized in a fictional tale, invented to explain to the members why there was a change in views and leadership.

aa5874

Once the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles contradict each other then it cannot be assumed that Only the Pauline writer is truthful.

Both the authors or either one may be.

Now, it is already known that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are sources of Fiction, Embellishments and implausible accounts.

It is highly illogical to assume that one source under the name of Paul filled with fiction, embellishments and implausibilities is historically accurate because there are contradictions.

Not even the Church can say when Paul really lived.

Some say he was ALIVE and wrote the Epistles After Revelation and AFTER gLuke was already composed.

proudfootz

Apparently some 'mythicists' are inclined to accept that 'Paul' wrote in the 1st century AD.

Surely that claim should be highlighted in the wiki...

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks. Which do you think came first: the account of the council of Jerusalem in Acts or the account of the council of Jerusalem in Galatians? Do you think that the two accounts were known to the same audience at the time the latter account was published? Or was it two different audiences at each time of publication?

ApostateAbe

Yeah, you are right, I think I should include a survey of perspectives among mythicists concerning the dates of early Christian writings.