DevilsAdvocate

Now that is what you have proven...

aa5874

This is just speculation from you, since it cannot be ascertained what Irenaeus, Tertullian or Eusebius KNEW.

But, that statement from John Chrysostom's Homily is assumed to be written about 300 years after the so-called Paul, who wrote epistles to the Seven Churches and should have been a fundamental major player in developing Christianity.

Yet, Chrysostom wrote: A very devastating statement. The contents of Acts, the history of Paul and Peter, after the ascension of Jesus, is not known by many up to the 4th century.

And he continues: This statement implies that Acts of the Apostles was not even known to exist among the Churches. This would mean that Acts of the Apostles was rarely ever mentioned during the teachings of the Church.

Paul's history, as written in Acts, was not even known by many to exist among the Churches up to the 4th century.

I think Paul is fabricated fiction.

Ben C Smith

Aa___, did you even read the link?

Ben.

DevilsAdvocate

Agreed that personal conflict is not specifically stated in the limited details. Except than the fact that Paul is a representative of a church with a contention against the church of the "pillars" in Jerusalem. Nor is Paul in the position of a loyal foot-soldier of Jerusalem as was earlier suggested as proof that there were two or more distinct characters of Paul in Acts and the epistle. He is positioned as an antagonist to the Jerusalem church.

Any other conclusions depend on how you interpret the events and positions of the parties as related here. It seems the issue was clearly a hot topic in Jerusalem among the Pharisee party, and was not addressed by the "pillars" until confronted by Paul and Barnabas as representatives of Antioch.

The result looks like a compromise. Circumcision was not required, but the suggestion of James still had elements of Jewish customs. It seems if the "pillars" had no dispute with the Antioch position, there would not have been need for such discussion, and the remnants of jewish tradition would not likely have been retained in their letter. Thus it seems a compromise on a contintious issue between Antioch (Paul) and Jerusalem.

schilling.klaus

This chapter is the fraudulent work of second century churchfathers as it is antimarcionite polemics.
Only unlimited naivelings believe that the Apostoles' Acts could predate the churchfathers who scribbled against Marcion.


Klaus Schilling

aa5874

You distort my statements to make erroneous unsubstantiated claims. Please do not mis-represent me, please.

Your post is completely false.

dog-on

Acts, (along with NewLuke), seems to have been written in RESPONSE to Marcion's scribblings...imo...

DevilsAdvocate

They are your exact words. They are no more a distorition than some of your arguments taken without context. If these, your words, are restated with proper context, the meaning is different and you are correct. Presented without contextual consideration, they lead to false conclusions.

If you find it offensive, I apologize.

Doug Shaver

Is that your approach to every book you read, or just the Bible?

Amaleq13

Who are you trying to kid? It is clearly denied. Rather than opposing Paul (if only by proxy) they are depicted as entirely in agreement with him and arguing against other, anonymous apostles/elders.

No, James and Peter explicitly and publicly support Paul against the views of other, anonymous apostles/elders.

Not in Acts but in Galatians. The contrast exists whether you are willing to accept it or not.

The "pillars" are depicted as oblivious to the issue until it is brought to them by Paul. This is in complete contrast with Galatians where they are depicted as having specifically sent men to "spy" on Paul's activities and their representatives are depicted as actively contradicting Paul's gospel.