Duvduv

If it is argued that Acts was written neither by an opponent nor by someone who was part of the Pauline sect, then the only other option is that it originated with someone who had traditions different from those of the writers of the epistles. This possibility is never explored and it is a matter of faith that despite not a single reference to letters or important theological ideas in the epistles, it must be the case that the author made some kind of allusions to ideas in the epistles when there are clear discrepancies.

Toto

Please find one person anywhere who thinks that Acts was written by the same person who wrote the epistles. There are NO scholars who claim this. Where do you get the idea? Why do you keep repeating it?

Why not? It has been convincing for a number of people who have studied the issue.

No one says you must accept it as gospel truth. Feel free to point out these obvious contextual discrepancies.

This makes no sense.

Duvduv

I was pointing out that some accept a traditional view of the texts. I also know that academics can be intolerant of views thst do not fall in line with their hypotheses which they hold to as religious doctrine.
I personally do not see e argument that Acts was written by an opponent to be obligatory. But I did comment that the author was not familiar with the epistles.

Toto

You have given no indication that you know what that view is or why anyone holds it, which makes your post rather pointless

This is just casual slander.

You are descending into incoherence.

Duvduv

I know from personal correspondence of academics who simply wave off ideas that contradict their own views, and it strikes me as a religious conviction, to which they are entitled of course.

I am aware that there is a body of people who hold that Acts was written by someone trying to downgrade Paul though this does not make sense to me. On the other hand I know others routinely accept that Acts was written by the author of Luke who was believed to be the "companion" of Paul, in which case it was not written by an "opponent." This also does not make sense to me.

I do not believe I am descending into incoherence at all, but I do know that some post messages that are very difficult to follow in modern American English, though I do not see your observations in this regard. Maybe I have missed them.

Toto

In other words, you don't understand why they hold to their views and dismiss yours, so you ascribe it to irrational religious conviction. There's no point in trying to have a discussion, if that is the case.
Why is it that you are unable to articulate a reason for your feeling that this does not make sense?

This is the Christian view, dating from the time of Irenaeus. It is based on certain passages in Acts which are written in the first person plural, as if the writer were part of Paul's entourage, combined with examining the epistles to identify a person that Paul lists as his companion on journeys that correspond to those described in Acts. This view ignores the many contradictions between Acts and the epistles, because Christians ignore or explain away contradictions in the Bible as a matter of course.

If you understand the reasoning behind the statement, you can go on to have a meaningful conversation.

Is English your first language? Could you diagram that sentence?

Duvduv

No, that is not correct. They simply adhere to certain positions without addressing the contextual issues. For example, how is it possible that Justin wrote nothing about Paul or the four gospels and yet 30-40 years later Irenaeus knew all about them? The answer is no problem, what's the problem?! Or "maybe" Justin did know, etc. Or of course he knew.......

Yes, English is my first language but do not always follow certain out of space arguments. It's not just on this Group but elsewhere as well. I guess you don't feel that you encounter that. That's fine.

Toto

You are making an argument from silence. To do that you need to show some reason for Justin to write about Paul or to name the four gospels.

It is clear that Justin is familiar with details from the gospels: gospels in Justin's writing. From this, most scholars assume that the gospels anonymous and were given identifying names around the time of Irenaeus. What is the problem with that?

As for Paul - I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong, but you need to make an argument, not just wave your hands and accuse everyone else of religious bias.

Duvduv

Nothing's wrong, but I find they consider their inferences holier than mine.
All they can do is speculate about Justin because they are convinced the gospels were around earlier. But the possibility that certain aphorisms ascribed to Jesus landed in different places at different times escapes them. Or logic and context.
An apostle has a name. He is important. Justin knows about some obscure record in a dusty Roman basement but cannot name a specific text or source for his quotes about hi Savior.
He can't even tell us what the Old Man told him a Christ is or who his teacher was.

aa5874

Well, it is a PRESUMPTION from silence that Justin Martyr was familar with the Pauline writings and the Four Gospels.

You need to give reasons why you PRESUMED from SILENCE that Justin Martyr was familiar the Pauline writings and the Four Gospels when he NEVER claimed he was AWARE of them and did NOT name any writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul of Gospels or Epistles.

It is WRONG to assume anything WITHOUT corroboration from credible sources.

You very well know that writings attributed to Irenaeus are loaded with BOGUS information.

1. The authorship, dating and chronology of the Four Canonical Gospels as stated by Irenaeus has been REJECTED by Scholars.

2. The authorship, dating and chronology of the Pauline writings as stated by Irenaeus have been REJECTED by Scholars.

3. The authoship, dating and chronology of Acts ofthe Apostles as stated by Irenaeus has been REJECTED by Scholars.

4. The age of Jesus when he was crucified as stated by Irenaeus has been REJECTED by Apologetic sources and the very Church.

5. The succession of Bishops of Rome as stated by Irenaeus has been REJECTED by Apologetic Sources and the very Church.

6. The claim by Irenaeus that Pilate was Governor under Claudius has been REJECTED by Non-Apologetic sources, Scholars and Historians.

Writings under the name of Irenaeus are historically and chronologically BOGUS and have been REJECTED by the Church, Apologetic sources, Non-apologetic sources, Scholars, and Historians.

It is a complete waste of time using writings under the name of Irenaeus for the "history of Paul".