Duvduv

aa5874, why should have to answer your question when you don't even respond to my question that I have asked you repeatedly? I will gladly respond to your question when you have answered mine.

Duvduv

If the same subject matter is expanded so much in Acts but given relative short shrift in the epistles it is natural to wonder why, Toto. After all, the epistle writer(s) wrote extensively in several cases and couldn't have expanded on the subject, especially in Galatians.
In other matters I see you are postulating rationales for the differences as much as I have but demand more evidence from me than you do for yourself, i.e. about the extent of stories versus my point about separate traditions.
I see you AGAIN propose that Acts was OPPOSED to teachings in the epistles, but this is a hypothesis without any evidence.
I have discussed that previously.
Yes, I have tried to read Detering's book on Galatians but my lack of knowledge of Greek makes it very hard to understand it.

aa5874

Well, you seem to have a problem with logics. Where did you learn your logics?

You state that " the author of Acts does not refer to letters or to Paul writing letters" so based on your statement, it CANNOT logically be assumed that any event of Paul in Acts is from the contents of the Pauline writings.

This is basic logics.

Even the name "SAUL" in Acts is NOT from the Pauline letters to the Churches.

You very well should know that Paul could have used Acts of the Apostles if it was written BEFORE the Pauline writings.

You will NOT be able to show that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline writings to the Churches so you are wasting your time.

The author of Acts showed it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote short letters of about 150 words and gave the Pauline group to be Hand-Delivered.

Again, it must be noted that all Church writers that made substantial references to Paul claimed he wrote Epistles to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

Apologetic sources like Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and others that mentioned Paul all claimed he wrote Epistles to the Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline Epistles to the Churches.

Toto

It's not clear what you think the problem is here. The author of Acts was writing a different sort of book, with more entertaining scenes of shipwrecks and Paul's adventures, so some things would be expanded.

What "extent of stories?" I actually read quite a bit about this in 2003, but I haven't thought about it in a while. Your questions seem unfocused, and most of the time I'm not sure what problems you see.

NO IT IS NOT. It is well accepted and documented. Contract Acts and the epistles on circumcision, or the Jewish law, or Peter/Cephas' role in the conversion of gentiles, or whether Paul was the only true apostle...

Toto

The same place I learned that "logic" is a singular noun.


:wave:

Duvduv

I think the difference here between us is that you are hypothesizing WHY what you observe isn't what it appears to be. However, I simply observe and draw conclusions from the contrasts.

aa5874

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logics#English


Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary

LOGICS--English Noun

1.Plural form of logic.

Toto

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you think that you "simply" observe something, it may just mean that you are totally unaware of your misperceptions. You don't seem to have observed the obvious contradictions between Acts and the epistles. You've admitted you don't know enough Greek to follow Detering's arguments.

You will really get much more out of this if you do some background reading so you can understand the historical context what you are reading.

Duvduv

I disagree. I am not referring to the subtleties of the Greek language. I am simply referring to the content of the narratives. In the case of the revelation of the risen Christ, it isn't discussed in any great detail in the epistles but discussed in much detail in Acts. To hypothesize that the epistles don't have to detail it is to second-guess the author without evidence.

I simply observe that the naratives are not the same and that there is a reason for this, namely that the author of the epistles didn't know that story (even in the first person of Paul) of Paul/Saul and his revelation of the risen Christ.

Duvduv

Regarding correlations.......some will say observation is not enough, but rather hypothesizing and second-guessing the authors is what is required.......

In Acts 9 after verse 23 the piece about Damascus flows as part of the overall story in a context about SAUL. Notice the difference in the story, how in Corinthians there is no mention of a threat of death against PAUL, only arrest. In Acts his followers are involved in saving him, in Corinthians below nothing is mentioned about them. Also notice the mention of "revelations" and visions of "the Lord" with no details of this great accomplishment:

23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

In 2 Corinthians 11 we have two verses regarding Damascus within a discussion about boasting that continues in chapter 12. In my opinion this has nothing to do with the flow of the content.

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
12: 1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.