aa5874

The author of Acts did NOT CLAIM at all that Paul wrote letters to Churches from the supposed Bright light conversion to the End of Acts.

Incredibly there is NO corroboration for the Pauline letters in the Canon.

tanya

Hi Bronzeage, you and gurugeorge have misunderstood the point of my quoting 1Corinthians 15:3
κατα τας γραφας

DOES NOT MEAN: "according to the scriptures", as it has been translated, into English.

It does mean: "according to the writings".

I claim, these writings = one or more of the four gospels. Please read, in English, the surrounding verses, and it will make sense: i.e. the argument that Paul wrote AFTER the Gospels, not before them.

"scriptures" are HOLY writings. In this case, they refer to the Hebrew "old testament", which contains not one word about Jesus.

Huon

The Pauline Epistles are useful. If they were useless, they would'nt have been preserved. To whom are these epistles useful ?

My feeling is that the Pauline epistles are useful to bishops and deacons.

They are meant to enforce the power of the hierarchy over the ordinary believers.

Peter was illiterate. Paul was the "good" possible author. Acts tells us that he had travelled through Asia Minor. He could have written letters to the fidels of this region. He could ? NO, he DID.

Horatio Parker

OK.

But when you say that Paul's letters were post-Gospel and gLuke's author is writing about him, how can that be? It would seem that the latest date for Paul, if not his letters, would be concurrent with or earlier than Luke-Acts.

When was Luke-Acts written and when did Paul live?

aa5874

I went through that already. Let me explain.

Logically, if the author of Acts wrote AFTER the Pauline letters then it would be EXPECTED that he would have known about them when he wrote of the ACTIVITIES of Saul/Paul.

The author of Acts CLAIMED the Jerusalem Church wrote letters--Not Paul.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul and his group DELIVERED the LETTERS of the Jerusalem Church and even mentioned the Contents of the Jerusalem Church letter.

The author of Acts did NOT ever claim Paul wrote letters and did NOT ever state LETTERS of Saul/Paul were SENT, DELIEVERED and RECEIVED--Nothing--Zero.

But, Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul by name just ONCE or TWICE claimed he wrote Epistles.

Paul is mentioned ONE TIME in writings attributed to Ignatius and immediately it is claimed Paul wrote Epistles.

I can logically deduced that the author of Ignatius writings wrote AFTER the Pauline Epistles.

Paul is mentioned TWO TIMES in a writing attributed to Clement of Rome and it is claimed Paul wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.

I can logically deduce that the author of writing attributed to Clement wrote AFTER the Pauline letters.

Acts mentioned Saul/Paul 150 TIMES and NEVER claimed he wrote any Epistle.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

The author of Acts wrote about the SECOND visits to the Churches by the supposed Paul which should have been PREDATED by the Epistles.

Acts 15:36 KJV The places were named and supposedly visited but NO letters of Paul were SENT in advance or delivered. Surely, the author of Acts should have remembered the VERY, VERY LONG and DETAILED letters of Paul.

The author of Acts in 13 chapters described in details events and ACTIVITIES in the Second visits but NEVER mentioned the letters.

I can logically deduce that Acts was written BEFORE the Pauline letters.
Based on the DATED NT manuscripts that have been found and Apologetic sources that are Compatible with those Dated Texts the Pauline writer appears to have composed his Epistles some time AFTER the writings of Justin and the same applies to Acts of the Apostles.

The DATED NT manuscripts show a BIG BLACK HOLE for the 1st century and before c 70 CE and sources that are compatible with those DATED Texts suggest that the Jesus cult was in its INFANCY stage around the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

AA, you can logically deduce from observation of the facts that Acts was written before the letters.

You can ALSO deduce that Acts stemmed from a different source about "Paul" than the epistles, and not only because of the lack of mention of letters from Saul/Paul in Acts, but also from other things as well, such as the total absence of any mention of the name SAUL in the epistles, and that Acts never discusses in the name of Paul the issue of the indwelling of the Christ which is paramount in the epistles. The issue of "belief" is mentioned, but not belief in WHAT.

aa5874

Please, you cannot tell me what I can deduce. You don't seem to want to be held accountable for your own position.

My postion is that the Pauline writings are ANTI-MARCIONITE Texts because of statements found in the Pauline writings, Apologetic sources and DATED NT manuscripts which show a BIG BLACK HOLE for the 1st century.

The Pauline writings are sosphicated philosophical arguments AGAINST Marcion and the Marcionites who claimed the Son of God was a Phantom and had NO real human body and could NOT have bodily resurrected.

The Pauline letters show that Churches were ALREADY in existence and WELL ESTABLISHED with Bishops.

It would have been the Bishops of the Churches that would have been in CONTROL of the Churches whether or not there were no Pauline letters.

Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians The Churches did NOT need any Pauline letters because they ALREADY had BISHOPS based on the very same letters--NOTHING can be done WITHOUT the Bishop.

One or two letters to Churches throughout the Roman Empire OVER a possible 17 year period would have negligible effect on the day-to-day function of a Church.

sotto voce

It's a real problem. It's perfectly obvious that Paul wrote to existing real churches, because nobody writes literary letters for publication with the practical and sometimes embarrassing detail that is found in Paul. Some of them he had brought into existence, some, apparently not. So who was responsible, if not that alleged maverick Paul of Tarsus? It does not suit to suggest that were people starting up churches without 'proper authority'. So it's said that Peter was responsible. But of course, Peter could not have been everywhere. Neither the MJ position, nor the Catholic one, makes sense.

So people started their own churches, electing elders, yes, that's plural elders or bishops, take your pick, as they had in their synagogues, which they would have stayed with had they not been thrown out by people who thought it their right to throw out. It's what people are doing now, in their own homes; so people could do it then, as well.

Toto

I think CS Lewis did in the Screwtape Letters. Many in the classical period wrote fiction in the form of realistic sounding letters (See Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature (or via: amazon.co.uk). In fact, "epistolary fiction" appears to be a recognized category of writing - there's even a wikipedia entry for Epistolary_novel

Bronzeage

If someone has the patience, would they please explain how the statement "There were churches before the Pauline letters", changes or contradicts currently accepted Christian beliefs.