Sheshbazzar

Now I'd like to see if anyone can demonstrate that the evidence proves the opposite, That 'Paul's' Epistles were written before Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

AA, you will admit yourself that according to your view Galatians only "corrected" Acts selectively. It left quite a number of mistakes.

And when you argue that it changed Acts you mean that it intended to replace Acts with accurate information, in which case the author of Galatians could have written a competing version of Acts, not mere letters existing side by side with the "mistaken" book of Acts to add more confusion to the mix!

Duvduv

In such a case the implications are the same, i.e. that the "corrections" to Acts in the epistles were selective and left the reader more confused than with Acts alone.

All that makes sense to me is that they were believed to have emerged from at least two different sources (and more considering the likelihood of composites in the epistles), and that the emerging Christians didn't even necessarily believe that the epistles were literally written by the person named Paul but merely didactic instruments, and that the epistles and Acts both had an "authentic" background.

How else could one understand that they would leave two texts with blatant contradictions between them exist side by side, EVEN if the texts were not yet considered to be holy writ??

aa5874

Please, do NOT confuse the issue. The author of Acts made certain claims about Saul and in Galatians we can see that the story has been changed and that the author now claims he is NOT lying.

The Pauline author most likely knew of some other version of his story and attempted to set the "record" straight.

I do NOT deal with Imagination. We have the so-called Pauline writings and they make certain claims in Galatians.

We have Acts of the Apostles and it also make claims about SAUL.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Saul or Paul wrote any letters to churches so I cannot assume that the Pauline letters were known to the author of Acts.

Letter writing was NOT one of the Acts of SAUL in Acts of the Apostles so I must DEDUCE that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Acts was written.

But, in any event, there is a Complete BLACK Hole in the 1st century for Jesus, the disciples and Paul, which I EXPECTED.

Duvduv

Why do you so often argue that you are the only person allowed to deduce or infer things based on certain non-empirical premises, but you do not allow others to deduce or infer things based on different premises?

Sheshbazzar

Been trying to wrap my brain around why the church allowed all of these discrepancies and inconsistencies to remain between the various texts, for years.

My present best guess is that most early Christians were either unaware of these contradictions (never normally heard one text so closely contrasted with another)
Or- they may have been aware of these contradictions, but simply ignored them, choosing to concentrate on 'more important matters' of Faith, Doctrine, and Practice.

I have many church-going Christians in my family, and I know from my conversations with them that this is how they deal, (or rather -avoid- dealing) with such problems now. Perhaps it has always been that way?

Once the text had became considered 'sacred' and inviolable it could no longer be corrected or the rewritten to remove these contradictions. So they were just forced to live with it, like an elephant in the room, that all politely consent not to see.

I know in normal practice, my Christian relatives only read their Bible's in small bites, normally not more than a chapter or two at a sitting, and usually more like the 'Verse of the Day'. (if that)
They DO NOT closely examine and diligently compare book with book or verse with verse. Their job is to assemble, sing, pray, and 'testify' on Sunday, That intensive kind of 'Bible study' is the sole domain of their Denominations trained Theologians, and interpretations or 'conclusions' are dictated by their leadership (Synods, Councils, etc.)

If they have questions about anything they come across that they don't understand, or seems to contradict, it is imperative that they take the matter to there Pastor or Priest for 'spiritual advice' and 'counseling', and NOT lean upon their own understanding.
It seems then that 'order' is only maintained by having a respected, and viewed as unquestionable, distant hierarchy that controls the church, and individual members ability to think, Otherwise there is a 'falling away' or formation of splinter groups with their own set of interpretations and a similar set of restrictions.

Just some free-flow musings as to why christian things are as they are.

aa5874

Your statement is unsubstantiated. It would seem that you do not understand that YOU MUST DEFEND your OWN argument. You MUST first identify what I have inferred that is not based the evidence from antiquity.

It is clear that the chronology of events in the Pauline writings cannot be understood without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Please examine Galatians before you make baseless accusations.

1. When did God call the Galatians writer to preach to the Gentiles??? What year??? What time period???

2. When did the Galatians writer go to Arabia??? What year???? What time period???

3. When was the Galatian writer in Damascus??? What year??? What time period???


4. When did God raised Jesus from the dead in Galatians??? What year??? What time period???


5. When did God send forth his Son in Galatians??? What year??? What time period???


6. When did the Galatians write the Galatians letter??? What year??? What time period???

7. Who are the Apostles called Peter and James???

8. When did the Galatians writer go to Jerusalem?? What year??? What time period???

9. When did the Galatians writer persecute the Faith??? What year??? What time period???

10. When did the Galatians Jesus get crucified??? What year??? What time period???

Without Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels we would NOT be able to understand the chronology of the Galatians writer.

It is most reasonable to deduce that Galatians was AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

angelo

Am I Correct in assuming that the author of Acts was not the author of Luke? That goes contrary to the orthodox position of most scholars who seem to imply that Luke was trying to set the record straight about the apostles and is almost a travelogue of Paul and the Jesus movement. That Luke was written some two generations after the death of Paul.

Toto

No, you can't assume that.

I don't know of any scholars who think this.

If Paul died around 62 CE, this is probably close.

Duvduv

There are too many holes in the Swiss cheese to hang on to the claims of the old Church apologists that the author of "Luke" was also the author of Acts.

There are even more holes in the Swiss cheese to accept their claims that the author(s) of the epistles wrote before the destruction of the Temple, and despite the claims of Church apologetics that would place "Irenaeus" and his mention of the epistles in the last third of the 2nd century EVEN if it shows that the epistles were unmentioned for a century.

It is just TOO MUCH even for secular scholars to call into question the "evidence" provided by the apologists of the mid-2nd century for the existence of a Paul even when it has Irenaeus mentioning "Paul" a mere 30 years after "Justin" never knew about Paul.