Toto

It does in fact make it somewhat probable that the author quote mined the Hebrew Scriptures for details of his narrative in Acts. We do know that was typical behavior for NT writers.

I agree that the author believed that Paul existed, but that is not the question here.

Why would you not believe that the Paul of the epistles claimed to have that sort of revelation? It wasn't the Damascus revelation, but it was a spiritual appearance.

1 Corinthians 9:1 Did I not see Jesus our Lord?

Or read Earl Doherty here

Toto

I don't see the point of discussing this with you, since your standards for evidence seem to shift around and you have ignored everything else that I have written.

stephan huller

They should use aa's posts to torture prisoners at Guantanamo

aa5874

What you is just blatantly erroneous. You have NOT pointed out any standards for evidence that I have shifted around. You yourself have NOT shown any standards for evidence of your own but is just making wild unsubstantiated accusations.

I have presented the written statements of Acts of the Apostles that show the author claimed that it was the Jerusalem Church that gave the Pauline group short letters of about 150 words to HAND-DELIVER. [Acts 15.23-29]

It was the Church of Jerusalem that SENT letters with the Pauline group explaining the Doctrine of the Church with respect to circumcision, matters relating to food and fornication. [Acts 15.29]

In Acts 15.30, the Pauline group delievered the Epistle with the Doctrine of the JERUSALEM Church.

In Acts of the Apostles, it was the Jerusalem Church that was the AUTHORITATIVE body. NOT Paul. [Acts 15.22]

The author of Acts wrote NOTHING about Pauline letters that were deliverd to Seven Churches.

Toto, you have no evidence that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline letters to the Churches only wild baseless accusations so I don't really know why you want to argue with my position that Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline Epistles.

You cannot NOT win any argument against my position on Acts.

DCHindley

Snotto,

I was thinking something aligned with Scottish Presbyterians, but I was apparently wrong. C of E? High Order? I grew up Episcopalian, but Low Order.

Reading your posts is a lot like reading the introductions to books, footnotes and elucidations, from the Ante Nicene Fathers series. Mid 19th century "we know we are right" smugness.

Instead of assuming we have read the critical work of this or that bishop of York or Canterbury, and are familiar with the folly of Petavius, etc, just do us a favor and come out and say why you are so self assured in your comments.

Thanks.

DCH

aa5874

The Pauline writer did NOT state that he had a spiritual appearance of Jesus. Paul claimed he and over 500 people SAW Jesus that was raised from the dead According to the Scriptures and that he testified that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Pauline writer is talking about post-resurrection Visits similar to post-resurrection visits in the Gospels.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV Paul is claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus in Corinthians.

However, in Acts, the author claimed Paul was BLIND at the time he heard the voice of the supposed Jesus in Acts 9 and 22.

Again, this is another indication that the author of Acts did NOT know of the Pauline letters to the Churches because he REPEATED his Blinding light conversion.

The author of Acts wrote NOTHING about the more than 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus.

In fact, in Acts of the Apostles, it is mentioned that there was 120 persons who were in the upper room, NOT over 500. [Acts 1.15]

There is simply NO indication that the author of Acts was aware of the Pauline Epistles to the Churches.

Additional details in the Pauline writings to ENHANCE and EMBELLISH Acts of the Apostles were NOT used.


Acts of the Apostles is BEFORE the Pauline Epistles to the Churches.

Sheshbazzar

Uh oh! personal pronouns! NOT ACCEPTED! .....NOOO wiiiire hangers! :hysterical:





.

Chili

His own Cana event.

He is just confirming that Christ stayed and Jesus left and promised he would come again, and so than Paul is telling you that Jesus came for him and he had 500 ppl attend his own Cana event or Hypostatic Union, if you like that better and that put 500 years on him. Not that hard to figure out ....as Christ did stay and it was Jesus who left, remember the guy who called himself the way [but not the end inferred]( just in case he did not say)? And even those today who think that Christ will come again shall raise not! because he never left! and so they will not be raised.

sotto voce

'If Christianity is properly named, then humanism must be absent from it.'

Neither John Knox nor Duns Scotus, dogged, coercive humanists both. Maybe Robert Burns, a canny sort who was not a bit impressed by Scottish Presbyterianism, with a refreshing honesty about the Bible, yet without entailing upon others a necessary commitment to it.

Cauvin (aka Calvin) was a Catholic with a relatively ingenious lawyer's mind. His proposition was a form of humanism, one designed to replace mediaevalism with a subtler, less brassy idea, though equally acceptable to the worldly. It's no accident that Calvinism and Presbyterianism are so often described as 'Reformed', a hint that, despite a claim for Protestantism, what is in view is the old Catholicism, re-formed. As one may purchase an inexpensive pastry that uses 'reformed' meat as its main ingredient. Caveat emptor, perhaps.

The very concept of a christ or messiah is premised on the helplessness of humanity to be its own saviour. It is the concept found at the very beginning of Genesis, and what follows is its realisation, as claimed. It is the very antithesis of humanism. There is nothing novel or advanced in this. It is basic theology, not arbitrary pontification. So the notion that a mere biological relation of one reckoned to be the messiah, can, in effect, act as messiah, is perverse. More so, when it is realised that Jesus of Nazareth, the individual concerned, specifically and repeatedly rejected blood relationships as meaningless, when eternal destiny is at stake.

There is not one syllable written about Jesus' mother in either Old Testament or New that is in praise of her, either as an individual or as necessitated by her physical role or propinquity. Indeed, disapprobation seems to be indicated. Yet the humanism of the 'church' predicted by Peter (it was hardly a prophecy) synthesised out of thin air a 'Mary' to fulfil its desires. This development was predictable, especially in view of the existing contrast between the character of Judith in the non-canonical Jewish book of that name with the character of the canonical Esther.

Duvduv

I just looked at 1Samuel 19 and am not convinced that Paul's escape was inspired by David's. Many houses in walled cities were built on an upper floor and it wouldn't be unusual for escape down the wall. King David didn't escape in a basket.
I think the similarity is rather superficial.