aa5874

So, you have manufactured some other Jesus. Now tell me about your Jesus, when was he born, did he do miracles, when did he die and from what source did you manufacture your Jesus?

Perhaps your Jesus is a myth, too, but first just tell me about him.

Is he coming back a second time for dead believers?

Maybe within minutes and I can tell you what I think of your Jesus.

But, the Gospels and Pauline writers all claimed Jesus was found alive three days after his crucifixion.

Jesus Christ was eating fish and bread after his crucifixion and gave the disciples fishing instructions and at one time Jesus was cooking or frying fish in gJohn when he was supposed to be dead.

Who died? Not Jesus. His real life began after the crucifixion and he had a ball it would seem, he is coming back again. More fish and bread and perhaps and on a cruise.

Acts of the Apostles is not really about doctrine, as the title implies, it is about the post-ascension acts of the apostles, including Peter and Paul.

The Pauline writer needed an independent source as a witness to his whereabouts and the author of the fiction called Acts was used as a companion of Saul/Paul as found in the book.

kcdad

Manufactured? :rolling:

He definitely has been mythologized
No.

Who cares? I certainly don't care what you think.
Really?
And you believe they meant that literally? Perhaps your belief is the problem.

Rreally? Is he still alive then?

It is a Christian attack against the Res Geste of Octavian.

and was that author a fiction, too?

aa5874

Well, just as I expected. Your Jesus is a real big joke.

kcdad

GREAT response... no really... GREEEEEEAAAAAATTTTTT response! I'm not kidding... it was one of your best... well thought out, concise, precise....

completely off topic, and irrelevant and a waste of internet space... but really amazing!

Toto

Please avoid this sort of cross sniping with no content.

I can lock this thread if no one has anything more substantive to say.

aa5874

It my position that the Pauline writer was absolutely aware of the Gospels. Now using information supplied by the NT, it can be reasonably established that the writer called Paul wrote after the book called Acts of the Apostles.

If Acts 9 is examined it will be noticed that the chronology of events of Saul after his so-called conversion contradicted the chronology given by Paul in Galatians.

Now, if Acts of the Apostles was written after the Pauline chronology as found in Galatians, then it would be reasonably expected that Acts would be in chronological harmony with Paul.

Acts and the Pauline writer are not consistent.

There would have been be no advantage to the author of Acts to contradict Paul when his [Paul’s] chronology would have been well established in the churches all over the Roman Empire decades before.

1. The author of Acts did not appear to know that Saul/Paul went to Arabia.
2. He did not appear to know how many years it took before Saul/Paul went to Jerusalem after Saul’s conversion.
3. The author of Acts did not appear to know that Saul/Paul only met Peter and the Lord’s brother in his first trip to Jerusalem.
4. The author of Acts did not appear to know that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem 14 years after his first trip to Jerusalem.

It is almost certain that the author of Acts, then, was not aware of the Pauline post-conversion chronology.

But, when Galatians is examined, it will be noticed that Paul appear to be correcting Acts. The writer claimed he was not lying when he claimed that in his first trip to Jerusalem he only met the apostle Peter and James, the Lord’s brother.

In Acts, Barnabas did take Saul/Paul to the apostles after they initially were afraid of him.

Now, the author of Acts claimed to have travelled with Paul, and even the church writers like Irenaeus wrote that the author of Acts and Paul were inseparable, however based on Acts 9 and Galations 1&2, the author of Acts seemed aware of some other Paul and some other chronology, not the Pauline writer's chronology.

Acts 9.17-30

Galatians 1.13-22 Galatians 2.1-2 Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and after Acts of the Apostles.

spamandham

...and if they were written simultaneously, or if Paul's letters were written after Acts, we still have the same problem as long as we assume these writers were intimately familiar with eachother's works. So it's the assumption of intimacy, not chronology, that's the issue.

aa5874

It cannot be only intimacy when in fact the passages in Acts 9 and Galatians 1&2 are dealing with the chronology of certain events with respect to the whereabouts of the Pauline writer.

There are obvious chronological problems with Acts and the Pauline letter. The writer called Paul is specific with his timeline.

The author of Acts shows that he was not aware of the Pauline chronology.


Paul ....... I did not confer flesh and blood.
Acts.........Saul/Paul was with the disciples in Damascus and immediately preached about Christ in the synagogues.

Paul ......I went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus.
Acts.......Saul/Paul left Damascus after the Jews tried to kill him and went to Jerusalem.


Paul......When I was in Jerusalem, I only met Peter and James the Lord's brother.
Acts.....Saul/Paul did meet the apostles in Jerusalem, Barnabas did take him to the apostles and he introduced Saul/Paul to the apostles and explained Saul/Paul's conversion and that Saul/Paul was already preaching in Damascus.


Paul......I went a second time to Jerusalem after fourteen years.
Acts......Saul/Paul was in and out of Jerusalem with the apostles about the time of his first visit.

It should now be clear that the author of Acts did not appear to have known about any Pauline chronology.

The events of the first trip to Jerusalem by the Pauline writer is vastly different to the events recorded by the author of Acts.

It is obvious that if the author of Acts had known the Pauline chronology that he would been in harmony with the chronology. He was not.

The author of Acts have inadvertently shown following:

1. He was not aware of the Pauline chronology at the time of writing.
2. The author of Acts appeared to have written before the Pauline letter.
3. The story about the author of Acts and Saul/Paul being close companions is not credible.


Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and wrote after Acts of the Apostles.

JoeWallack

JW:
I feel like a referee here and the baal has just gone out of bounds. A fair mid-range dating of P52 is probably c. 165:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel

c. 150 also lacks Patristic support as no Father through Justin is aware of "John".

You know what they say, Christian Bible scholarship is like being on TV. It adds 15 years to how old you look.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15:25

spamandham

:sigh:

Really, this gets old. You can not simply assume the writers knew of eachother's works. If Acts talks about Paul, then we can be assured the writer of Acts was familiar with the character Paul, but we can't simply assume the writer of Acts had copies of the epistles memorized and available for reference.

Acts was written by a different author than the epistles. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Doesn't that suggest that the author of Acts was not intimately familiar with the writings of Paul (under an assumption that writings attributed to Paul came first). But if Acts came first, then doesn't it suggest the writer of Paul's letters wasn't intimately familiar with Acts?

These discrepancies do not help to establish what was written first.

So you claim Paul was written after Acts. Why then was the author of Paul not familiar with Acts so as to prevent these discrepancies?