Toto

Tyson: When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?This is a very brief summary of Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is well worth reading.

hjalti

Amen! And it's only 130 pages. N.T. Wright might learn a thing or two from that book.

aa5874

Once Jesus did NOT exist then Acts of the Apostles is a BLATANT work of FICTION.

And there is NO credible source of antiquity that can account for Jesus and the 12 apostles.

The writings of Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Aristides and Arnobius all REVEAL that Acts of the Apostle and the Pauline writings are ALL AFTER the middle of the 2nd century and may be as LATE as the end of the 3rd century.

At around the end of the 3rd century, ARNOBIUS wrote "Against the Heathen" in SEVEN BOOKS and did NOT account for Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings but was AWARE of the Jesus story.

avi

I don't know if anyone else on the forum recognizes a logical error here, but, for me, this is glaringly wrong. (I am not referring to the grammatical mistake, "this Pauline letter"--> however, there are two letters to Galatians.)

If the two epistles to the Galatians were created in the latter half of the second century, rather than in the first century, as conventional biblical scholars assert, then, all bets are off, regarding an early date for Acts.

Thus forum members again confront this important question of the genuine date of authorship of the letters to the Galatians. Until that issue is resolved, one cannot claim an earlier date, for Acts.

Again, I pose the question regarding 1 Galatians 15: 3-4:
"according to the scriptures".
We all know, now, that the correct English here, is "writings", not scriptures.

What we do not know, are the answers to these questions, and, in my opinion, resolution of these issues will assist in clarifying a second century date for Paul's letters, for I contend, these answers may demonstrate that Paul, describing "writings", in these two verses, was in fact referring to those texts which we today call Gospels.

Questions about 1Galatians 15: 3&4:

Does the word "sacred" appear, anywhere in the four Gospels? There are (at least) two different Greek words corresponding to "sacred"
a. ieros = Strong's G2413

and

b. ierouhagios = Strong's G2411; In addition, one sees:

c. osios = Strong's G3741, which may more clearly be translated "divine"

So, then we ask this: Does one ever observe, anywhere in the four gospels, "sacred", or "divine", juxtaposed with "writings"?

For, what is a scripture, if not sacred writings?

Then, if there does exist, somewhere in the gospels, {"sacred", or "divine", writings}, then, one can argue that the authors of the gospels understood the distinction between "writings" and "sacred writings", aka "scriptures".

Finding these two words closely approximated would also lend credence to the theory that "graphe", i.e. writings, either did, or did not, represent old testament documents, as every English translation asserts, so far as I can determine, without justification...

In ancient times, I believe, based thus far on only superficial reading, that graphe was used to express behaviour as distinct, for example, as writing a letter, or issuing a contract, i.e. activities completely unrelated to reading, writing, or referring to sacred documents....

avi

hjalti

avi :facepalm:

Toto

What are the two letters to the Galatians?

hjalti

The first letter to the Galatians and The second letter to the Galatians? :huh:

stephan huller

All of which begs the question - why do we, don't believe in the Catholic understanding of history, continue to perpetuate the notion 'Paul' exactly as described by these false historical documents? Why do we say he was formerly called Saul for instance? Or that he was a Jewish bounty hunter or a tentmaker or any of this bullshit? Once you throw Acts out of the window along with the pseudo-epistles the apostle of the Marcionites could be anyone.

Toto

Pauline_epistles

I don't see a Second Galatians.

avi

oops.

not enough medication.

Wait a minute,
aha,
there's the bottle....

Oh, excuse me. Sorry. I meant Corinthians 1, not Galatians 1.

Gosh, getting dumber by the minute....

avi