Duvduv

Whether or not the Book of Acts was the first text of a Jesus sect to appear, reading between the lines of the first half of the book suggests that prior to its writing the sect believed in a Jesus figure as a conventional Jewish messiah of sorts. Of course we know that Acts does not suggest anywhere that the Paul figure writes any letters, and there is very little that could be said to match what is found eventually in the canonical gospels.

In the English we find Jesus referred to as Christ and as Messiah. Are these words different in the original Greek?

Acts really does not reflect the theology of Paul in terms of the indwelling of the Christ and Christ being involved in the life of the believer. The Christ is external to the believer and basically a Jewish messiah, though membership through baptism affords the member "the holy spirit" which must be afforded by the now celestial messiah waiting to return, and this view comes through the teachings of "Peter."

A different theology seems to emerge with Saul/Paul where the dispute over fellowship between Jews sand unconverted gentiles erupts and admission of gentiles to the sect through baptism (which grants the holy spirit to the members). Chapter 15 is where the Jerusalem group permits this fellowship as long as the gentiles observe the Noahide commandments.

In Chapter 1 the followers ask when the kingdom of Israel will be restored. This is perfectly appropriate within the context traditional Jewish beliefs of the Messiah with the idea that he would return from heaven to complete his work.

The speeches of Peter in Chapter 2 and 3 also reflect an understanding of the Jewish messiah as a holy man, prophet, etc. Heaven keeps Jesus until God decides to send him back.

In Chapter 4 Jesus is now identified with Nazareth and verses of psalms understood to refer to the messiah. Otherwise Jesus is a healer, miracle worker, prophet.

In Chapter 6 the opponents of Jesus claim that he would change the "customs" Moses handed down.

In Chapter 7, Stephen first refers to "our ancestors" and then accuses his opponents by comparing them to "your ancestors" in verse 50 and claims that God does not need a Temple - which is never stated anywhere in the name of Jesus himself.

Peter's preaching is of Jesus as the messiah and uses powers of healing to convince people. Yet God speaks to him about clean versus unclean in Chapter 10 with no vision of the risen Christ at all as Paul had. And despite Paul's vision, Paul is treated merely as one of the guys rather than someone above and beyond everyone else.

aa5874

It is MOST remarkable that you completely forgot to mention that the author of Acts claimed that he wrote a TREATISE on Jesus.

How could you have ignored the very START of Acts?

Acts of the Apostles 1

Duvduv

I didn't ignore it. Given what we find in Acts I'd suggest the opening was merely a later addition linking Paul more closely to the Jesus figure.

Doug Shaver

You can ruin your eyes that way.

It's not so good for the brain, either.

Duvduv

Whatever little appears in Acts aboutthe historical Jesus is through Peter, and not through Paul. And that Jesus is deemed a Jewish messiah (as opposed to the Luke approach).
By reading between the lines we simply see some kind of tradition of belief in a Jewish messiah who will return. Baptism for members offers the holy spirit which is an additional feature.
But we don't see any reference to any events or aphorisms of the gospels and certainly nothing of the theology of the epistles even through the mouth of Saul/Paul.
And of course no mention of letters.
By contrast, if Acts preceded the epistles, one wonders why the details of the revelation or the name Saul weren't included in any epistles at all.
And if Acts was written by an opponent, in contrast to the epistles which have no such story, why did Acts give Saul such an exclusive and special revelation of the Christ and not to Peter?

Toto

Peter knew Jesus in the flesh. Paul only had a vision.

Where are they different?

The Jewish Messiah did not return - he ruled.

Thereby depriving Paul of his claim to fame.

Acts did not precede the epistles.

Peter knew Jesus and spent time with him after the resurrection and before he ascended to heaven. Saul got a second hand vision - he was knocked off his ass by the spiritual Jesus scolding him.

Only in the epistles did Paul receive a superior visit from Jesus.

Duvduv

I think you are overlooking the fact that only one man was described in Acts as having this revelation of the Christ which only helped Paul become a major personality in the rest of the story. By contrast the story in Galatians gives no indication of an exclusive revelation except that the writer says that his is the only gospel.
And I think the extent of an entire book gives enough fame to Paul as opposed to going to a huge effort to demean him because of a handful of letters that could have simply been ignored or discarded.
The messiah of Luke is not Jewish as he is in Matthew. He is a general messiah having nothing to do with the specific restoration of the Jews and their kingdom. But in Acts he is very much a Jewish figure.

I don't get the feeling that the absence of mention of letters is specifically designed to downgrade Paul because the entire story deals with his missionary work for which letters would be a natural element if the writer had thought such existed. If the true intention was to downgrade him he could have ignored him entirely and focused on the "real" apostles and their experiences of the Christ (which interestingly enough Peter does not do much of at all). Nor does the mention of the name Saul have any importance unless the author really thought it was a real name, compared to the author(s) of the epistles who never mention another name for Paul, which is unusual, since if he was such a great Pharisee, he most surely would have had a Jewish name.

aa5874

What a load of BS.

The "blinding bright light" event with Saul and the Voice of Jesus does NOT demean Saul at all in Acts of the Apostles.

It is the Complete reverse. Saul had MORE FAITH than those who supposedly SAW Jesus.

Examine the so-called words of Jesus.

John 20:29 KJV
Saul BELIEVED in Jesus WITHOUT having seen him. Saul was BLINDED at the time he spoke with the Voice of Jesus. See Acts 9.

The claim that the author of Acts demeaned Saul is Horribly erroneous and completely unsubstantiated.

We have Acts of the Apostles and it can be Examined word by word, verse by verse and chapter by chapter.

Duvduv

The approach that says that Acts was written by OPPONENTS of the writer(s) of the epistles depends on arguing that Acts denigrates the Paul figure subsequent to the epistles appearing in the hands of Marcion, the opponent of the Orthodox. Of course this approach also means that there is no way Acts could have been written before the epistles because the whole reason for Acts was to denigrate the "Paul" of Marcion and to put him in his place.

I personally do not accept the "mainstream" views about the evil Marcion docetic gnostic who introduced a gnostic anti-Jewish Paul through a set of epistles that forced someone to spend a bunch of time writing a whole book about apostles, one of whom was the misfit Paul who was subjugated to the apostles of Jesus (whose experience with Jesus is never even discussed or revered to any extent).

I think it's all a load of hogwash.

Toto

Acts does not portray Paul as a bum, but it does portray him as completely in accord with the Petrine faction. The Paul in Acts is humble and cooperative; the Paul of the epistles is boastful and sneers at Peter and James. There is no way to reconcile these two portraits.

Is this an objection? If so, what is the problem? There is an alternate view - that some of the epistles were written first, then Acts, then revisions were made to some of the epistles to rebut the version in Acts.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't seem to fully understand the basis of the so-called mainstream views well enough to reject them.