sotto voce

Bubbles from among the lobster pots.

Requiescat in pace.

aa5874

Please Identify the source of antiquity that gave you that impression???

Please Identify where in Galatians it is stated that the letter was written before Acts of the Apostles???

Please Identify when Galatians was written???

Please Identify when Acts of the Apostles was written???

You'll be darned!!!

It is clear to me that it was Chinese Whispers and Rumors that are used to claim Acts was written long after Galatians.

aa5874

Please Identify your sources of antiquity that show the author of Acts??

Please Identify your sources of antiquity that show the author of gLuke???

Please Identify your sources of antiquity that show when Saul/Paul lived???

Please Identify the sources of antiquity that show when Saul/Paul died???

It is most remarkable that people here do not understand what has happened. All claims about time of authorship, attribution and chronology of Saul/Paul, Luke and Acts are provided by known unreliable sources and sources that are filled with fiction.

Please, let us do History and forget about Chinese Whispers and Rumors based on unreliable sources which are historically and chronologically bogus.

Sheshbazzar

And there is a minority minority view (mine) that parts of 'Paul's' letters (the original text) was a thoroughly Jewish writing that was written well before the rise of 'Christianity'.
I wouldn't be the least surprised if Archaeologist should eventually turn up BCE writings that contain 'sayings' of Ἰησοῦς > Iēsous > "Jesus" <sic>
or the pre-Xian Jewish 'Saul's' undoctored texts opposing the demands of circumcising of Gentile believers.

spin

:tombstone:

Poor sotto voce.

Grog

I think the argument is that what we see in Acts is an attempt to co-opt Paul. That Marcion's Paul had become a powerful meme amongst Jesus-believers, so rather than cut that arm off, it was brought into the fold. That's why you see Paul subordinated to Peter in Acts before he becomes the great missionary and becomes the great missionary. The "orthodox" position was confronted with the enormous popularity of Marcionism, with Paul being the missionary who spread the faith. So the idea was to incorporate and subordiante Paul to Jerusalem.

Duvduv--have you read Knox or Tyson? If not, I highly recommend Joseph B. Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts. If you haven't at least read Tyson, you don't really have grounds to dismiss the arguments for Marcionite influence on the formation of the canon.

aa5874

Based on the DATED Text there is a Big Black Hole for the 1st century with respect to anything about Jesus, the Disciples and Paul.

All Dated New Testament Text are AFTER the 1st century so There is no need to imagine there is earlier evidence and to maintain a position on the same imagination.

The Dated New Testament Text CLEARLY show at this time that the Jesus stories are NOT likely from the 1st century but from the 2nd century.

The Dated New Testament manuscript confirms what is EXPECTED when Jesus, the Disciples and Paul did NOT exist but were fictitious characters in fabricated stories.

Sheshbazzar

Just saying, but I can stroll down to any local church and ask a few Christians to each summarize what they recall of these texts, some after many decades of hearing them repeatedly, and it is guaranteed that their summary's will include conflicting information, misunderstandings, and revisions of the actual written material.
With stories that were intended to be selectively recited or read on occasion to a listening audience, there would have been no such critical comparison of verse with verse or text with text or oral story with story as there is nowadays among scholars and skeptics.

And most preachers if they were even aware of these discrepancies and contradictions would not be the least inclined to draw undesired attention to any of them, No more than those Fundamentalist preachers of today, who will swear upon a stack of Bible's that there are no errors or contradictions to be found anywhere in God's inspired word. (while carefully avoiding any public discussion of those verses that patently do contradict, and for which they cannot devise any reasonable apologetic.)

These texts discrepancies and contradictions were just as studiously overlooked and ignored back when they were first composed as they are within the church's of today.

tanya

Thanks for this comment. Very interesting. Can you offer any line or verse from one of Paul's epistles that you believe represents "a thoroughly Jewish writing", i.e. uncontaminated by Christian propaganda?

I am hoping that the carbonized scrolls at Herculaneum can ultimately shed light on this question, of the original text of Paul's epistles. I am confident, that if they existed, a copy of at least one of Paul's epistles would have been included with the other thousands of documents housed at the single most important library in the world, in 79CE...

Theologically, why would the "pre-Xian Jewish 'Saul's' undoctored arguments against the circumcising of Gentiles" make any sense to a typical religious Jew, living in Palestine under Roman occupation, prior to the forced evacuation following the third Roman Jewish War, circa 135 CE?

In my tiny brain, it seems reasonable, to understand that the enormous dislocation of literally millions of people, (wandering aimlessly, forced out of Jerusalem, without hope, without food, without shelter, without possessions, without papyrus, without schools to teach, without temples to learn,...) represents a fertile environment for a new doctrine to emerge, one that offers some positive aspects of the old religion, but with a few new improvements: believers need not undergo circumcision (which in that era, was literally a death sentence, due to infection, when imposed on adult males, especially, those OLD adult males, thinking about getting to heaven for a few shekels....

By contrast, proposing the same laxity in doctrine, as you are suggesting, Shesh, to the same class of old farts, who happen to have had a few extra shekels to spend, BEFORE destruction of the temple, i.e. pre-70CE, sounds to me a lot like an invitation to serve as guest of honor at the beheading squad run by jewish zealots. Those same zealots would have watched their heads placed on pikes along the street, by Roman soldiers, during the war, but, before the conflict erupted, the zealots would have had no one to pick on, apart from widows and orphans....As the conflict spread, those most eager to kill, maim, and cause harm to non-believers, would have led the charge into the phalanx...Their elimination by the Roman army, opened the path for the blasphemy that followed the conclusion of the war, in 135 CE.

I am not buying it.....I like your expression of a novel way of thinking, but, in this case, I see too many reasons to accept a late second century date for creation of Paul's epistles, though, failure to find any at Herculaneum will not reinforce my conviction....I simply can't imagine any Jewish leader, as Saul/Paul is claimed to have been, making so many claims which run contrary to the fundamental aspect of Jewish doctrine, without being dispatched tout de suite, prior to the Romans kicking the Jews out of Jerusalem.

aa5874

Again, let us do History and NOT get involved with speculation, myth fables and Chinese Whispers.

You MUST first be able to provide credible sources of antiquity for your position.

The use of Acts of the Apostles as an historical source is like using FAIRY Tales to re-construct the past.

Over and Over, for years upon years, it has been shown that Acts of the Apostles is NOT credible. Acts of the Apostles BEGINS with the Ascension of a Resurrected character called Jesus. In another chapter the author claims the Holy Ghost Instantly made the disciples Bi-lingual and in another he claimed the Resurrected Jesus was talking in the Hebrew Tongue when the Blinded Saul was arguing with him about Kicking Pricks.

Please, let us do History and forget about Acts of the Apostles as an historical source. The author of Acts did NOT even acknowledge anywhere that SAUL wrote any letters to churches.

The author of Acts is NOT, NOT, NOT a witness to a single Pauline letter even in his Fables.