spin

Psssst, yes, he can and no amount of reason will change the fact. Your wisest solution is to click on his name when it appears next to a post and choose the last option.

Aaah, it's raining solidly and the birds are chattering like crazy.

aa5874

Your assertion has ZERO merit. I do NOT presume that the author of Acts was aware of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

I don't know why you would PRESUME that there was a legendary Paul of the Epistles. When was Paul legendary?

Name a non-apologetic source that mentioned "Legendary Paul"?

I don't waste time with PRESUMPTIONS about Paul nowadays.

I am not a BELIEVER any longer so please don't tell me Paul was legendary except if you mean he was a LEGENDARY LIAR just like the author of Acts.

I can show that the author of Acts and Paul were LEGENDARY LIARS and that the author of Acts Eliminated the name Peter from the Acts 15.12 to the End[chap. 28] and mentioned Paul over 100 times when he claimed he TRAVELED and Prayed with Paul all over the Roman Empire.

Your claims about Paul are NOT reflected in Acts at all. They are utterly faulty.

It was the WHOLE Church and the very elders and Apostles that gave CHOSEN men to Paul. The whole Church was PLEASED with their decision in Acts.

Acts 15 22 Paul and his Chosen men would attempt to UNDO the damage caused by those who came from the Church of Jerusalem.

It is just UTTERLY erroneous that the author of Acts belittled Paul. In Acts it was Peter who INITIALLY had problems associating with the uncircumcised not Paul.

The author of Acts made Paul the NEW Ambassador of the Christian Faith and was with Paul on his SECOND WORLD TOUR of the Roman Empire with the CHIEF men of the Church.

Peter was NOT named to travel with Paul and the Chief Men..

Peter was NO MORE heard of again in Acts of the Apostles from the time time Paul was given the Chief men of the Church.

Duvduv

So if Acts was the first actual text produced then where did either Peter or Paul come from in the religion before any texts were produced?

aa5874

In the Pauline writings Paul claimed he was LAST to see Jesus who died for OUR SINS, was buried and was resurrected on the THIRD day ACCORDING to the Scriptures.

The Pauline writier was AWARE of the Jesus story.

The Pauline writer wrote AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The earliest Jesus story was wtitten AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

In gMark, Jesus did NOT even teach his disciples that he would DIE for the Sins of Mankind.

The Pauline writings are AFTER gMark.

Duvduv

But this doesn't explain where the two names and people came from in the religion before Acts or why later epistles don't include important elements mentioned in the earlier Acts.

aa5874

See post #247

aa5874

Where does the name Duvduv comes from?

Where does the name Josephus come from?

Where does the name Pilate come from?

Where does the the name Romulus come from?

Where does the name Holy Ghost come from?

Where does the name Zeus come from.

There is not enough evidence from antiquity for us to know how and why every single character in the NT was fabricated or why every change was made to the original story.

The earliest Jesus story in gMark did NOT require any person to preach about Jesus as the Christ and establish a new religion BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

In gMark, the Jews would not know who Jesus was until AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem based on the so-called prediction in Isaiah 6.

The Jesus story of gMark was CHANGED and 12 verses were added where the Resurrected Jesus COMMISSIONED the disciples to preach the Gospels when NO such commission could have been given from a resurrected dead.

Duvduv

I am not talking about GMark. And I know you can't know what was going on before Acts appeared perhaps only in the fourth century followed by the other texts.
However I was looking for inferences or informed speculation. Because if the two persons talked about in Acts are so important, the question is who are they and what might the religion have looked like in the period Acts appeared and what purpose was there in writing Acts as the initial text.

Where did the Peter and Paul figures come from?

Secondly, if Acts was indeed the earlier text, why weren't some of the elements included in the subsequent epistles, I.e. Nazareth, the Baptist, the revelation details in Damascus??

One possibility is that the epistles set and Acts were written by two different sources who had similar but not the same traditions about the Paul and Peter figures. After all, Acts does not even suggest that its Paul wrote any letters and is missing some of the theological material of the epistle, while containing a few elements lacking in the epistles. On the other hand this would not explain why there are no sets of Peter epistles aside from 1 and 2 Peter , so why was there a compulsion to write Paul epistles but only two Peter ones in the source that produced the Paul epistles?

Duvduv

There must also be an explanation why the Acts figure Peter later would get an important place in gospels and yet the other guy, Paul, would be ignored despite Acts and subsequent epistles, unless the gospelist had his own tradition about Peter but did not know about Paul or Acts or epistles.

aa5874

Do you not understand that in the very Canon that there are 13 Epistles attributed to Paul and only 2 Epistles of Peter of which one was ADMITTED by a Church writer to be a Forgery and did NOT belong to the Canon.

In "Church History" it was PUBLICLY circulated and acknowledged that ALL EPISTLES under the name of Paul were AUTHENTIC and that an Epistle of Peter did NOT belong in the Canon.

Again, Peter is belittled by the Church and its writers.

"Church History"3.3 And later in the same book.

"Church History" 3.4 The NT Canon does contain an ADMITTED forgery in the name of Peter based on the very Church and its writers.

Peter was USED [belittled] by the Church and its writers as a NUMBER for Apostolic succession and Paul was used for THEOLOGY [doctrinal issues] with 13 Epistles in the NT Canon.