aa5874

Don't you even understand that PAUL is the name the author used? I can ONLY refer to the writer as PAUL because that is EXACTLY the name in the PAULINE writings?

I just can't call him any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Don't you understand the difference between PAUL did NOT exist and that the Pauline writings were COMPOSED AFTER the mid 2nd century by a writer using the name of PAUL?

Don't you understand that it is a writer UNDER the name of Paul that was a LIAR?

Some NAME MUST BE USED TO IDENTIFY the writings and PAUL is the name used simply BECAUSE that is the name of the supposed author.

1. A writer under the name of PAUL claimed he received his gospel from a resurrected dead called Jesus. That is a Pauline LIE.

2. A writer under the name of Paul claimed he received information about the LAST Supper from a resurrected dead called Jesus. That is a Pauline Lie.

3. A writer under the name of Paul claimed he WITNESSED the resurrected dead called Jesus. That is a Pauline LIE.

4. These PAULINE writings were UNKNOWN to Apologetic sources up the mid 2nd century.

5. The PAULINE LIES were written under the name of PAUL after the mid 2nd century.

When I say that the MYTH CHARACTERS Romulus and Remus were human brothers Born of the Same woman and that the body of Romulus ascended to heaven it is NOT because I believe the story but it is the Story written by Plutarch.

The Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES and are chronologically and historically bogus.

I don't think we will know the REAL NAMES of the FRAUDSTERS who composed the books of the NT Canon.

Duvduv

But whoever Paul was, he still managed to have gained sufficient importance before the epistles were written to have large parts of the Book of Acts written about him in a story that has substantial discrepancies with the epistles and doesn't mention a blessed thing from the stories and teachings of the Savior of the world because it is ostensibly linked to one historical gospel called Luke that already "said it all", isn't that right? Makes perfect sense, right?
And yet the contents of all this is ignored in the Nicenn Creed as late as the early 4th century with a hint of it only in the second Creed of 381.

And reliance for the correct unfolding of events is primarily on the words of biased writers such as Eusebius and Socrates of Constantinople because of a lack of corroborative external data.

aa5874

Your claim that Acts of the Apostles did NOT mention anything about Jesus is completely erroneous.

1 showed you Acts 1.1-4, Acts 2. 14-36, and Acts 10.34-43.

1. The author of Acts claimed he wrote a teatise on ALL that JESUS did and taught.

2.The author of Acts wrote about a character called Jesus of Nazareth and that same character is found in the Gospels.

3. The author of Acts wrote about the 12 Apostles of Jesus and did NAME them as found in the Gospels.

4. The author of Acts wrote that Jesus was BAPTIZED by JOHN as stated in the Gospels.

5. The author of Acts wrote that Jesus performed miracles as found in the Gospels.

6. The author of Acts wrote that Jesus was BETRAYED by JUDAS as stated in the Gospels.

7. The author of Acts wrote that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified which is in the Gospels.

8. The author of Acts wrote that Jesus was resurrected on the THIRD DAY as found in the Gospels.

9. The author of Acts wrote of a POST-RESURRECTION visit of Jesus which is found in the Gospels.

10. The author of Acts wrote of the Commission by the resurrected Jesus to Preach the Gospel as stated in the Gospels.

11. The author of Acts wrote that the disciples were told to WAIT in Jerusalem for the PROMISE of the Holy Ghost as found in the Gospels.

12. The VERY Acts of the Apostles is about the EVENTS and ACTIVITIES which supposedly occurred AFTER the disciples RECEIVED the PROMISE of the Holy Ghost found in the Gospels.

It would seem to me that you do NOT want to accept the written statements in Acts but are relying on some ABSURD and FLAWED "expert opinion".

Again, look at the VERY FIRST VERSE of Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 1:1 -
Remarkably the author of Acts claimed he wrote about ALL that Jesus BOTH DID AND Taught.

Please tell your favorite "experts" that they were horribly wrong about Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

Leaving aside the first chapter, the other references are similar to gospel descriptions but are NOT the same according to the speaker Peter. The theology doesn't reflect ideas in the gospels or any aphorisms, not to mention the nativity. He is called a prophet and healer without any quotations. It reflects oral traditions but not the canonical gospels. And the reader is never referred to other texts about it. This Jesus is not the main figure and is of secondary importance which is mighty strange.

aa5874

You seem to have been INDOCTRINATED and have been led astray by "experts" and REFUSE to accept the FACT that Acts of the Apostles was written BASED on the SUPPOSED PROMISE of the Resurrected Jesus.

ACTS of the Apostles is BASED DIRECTLY on the JESUS STORY in gLUKE.

THE PROMISE of the HOLY GHOST in gLuke 24.

Luke 24 Acts 1. 4 The author of Acts KNEW a Jesus story and wrote ACTS of the Apostles BASED DIRECTLY on the PROMISE of the Resurrected Jesus.

Avts of the Apostles is about the EVENTS and ACTIVITIES of the Apostles AFTER the Apostles RECEIVED the Holy Ghost as PROMISED in A Jesus story written by the VERY SAME author.

Please advise your favorite "experts" that they were HORRIBLY wrong about Acts of the Apostles.

It is absolutely clear that the author of Acts of the Apostles KNEW of a Jesus story and also claimed that others were NOT only aware but did see Jesus even after he, Jesus, was resurrrected on the THIRD DAY.

Duvduv

How do you know it is based DIRECTLY on it if the gospels had not yet been produced, and neither had the epistles, at the time of Acts?

aa5874

How do you know Acts of the Apostles does not mention anything about Jesus?

Duvduv

We have clarified this issue and I argued that the Acts version was relatively minor and not the same as the gospel stories.

aa5874

You have NOT clarified any issue for your claims about Acts. You have made ZERO references to any passage in Acts of the Apostles that support your position and have asked numerous questions.

Your questions and unsubstantiated claims do NOT clarify your position at all.

Acts of the Apostles is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT because it is the ONLY Canonised book, the Apologetic source, about the start of Christianity based on the PROMISE of the Holy Ghost Resurrected.

Kent F

Duvduv wrote: The Marcionites had different versions of the genuine Epistles, shorter with a lot less references to the old scriptures and without such things as ”born of woman”, a former persecutor of the church and a visit to Jerusalem after three years. This suggests that the followers of Marcion, with his roots in Alexandria, were the original christians (or chrestians) and that's why the epistles are not mentioned in Acts because Acts was a product of the Roman church. Acts is an attempt, and a successful one, to make ”Paul” their apostle when Paul was the apostle of an earlier rival church. This also explains the later writings of the Pastoral letters and why Justin Martyr doesn't quote Paul – he couldn't or wouldn't do it because in his time Paul was still "the apostle of the heretics.”

The claim by the highly unreliable church father Eusebius that Paul was talking of gLuke whenever he, Paul, talked of his own gospel is just another such attempt to make Paul part of the Roman church. It's a lie to cover up the fact that Paul did have his own gospel (his vision).

A very relevant question and one that clearly shoots that theory to pieces. It makes no sense at all to fabricate Acts with a fictive apostle Paul appearing as a spokesperson for the fictive Peter and THEN fabricate the Epistles contradicting what was written earlier in Acts.

It makes much more sense that the Epistles were written earlier and then countered by Acts and the Pastorals to make Paul appear to have been part of the Roman church to begin with. Acts and the Pastorals are what aa call blatant lies and bogus. The Epistles are not. Interpolated, yes, but still with a genuine core.

As to why they always appear as a package, I do not know, but I can speculate. Maybe they were written as a package of seven, because seven is a holy number, and maybe they were combined with a gospel to get to another holy number, eight.

God created the world in seven days (or so they say). This makes eight the beginning of a new era. In kabbalistic teachings, the number seven symbolizes perfection – perfection that is achievable via natural means – while eight symbolizes that which is beyond nature and its (inherently limited) perfection.