Duvduv

And independent force to be tamed long after he was dead simply by writing a story book biography?
He doesn't seemed tamed anyway in the book at all. He's out there working harder than anyone else.
And unity of purpose? Why would the ideas in the epistles interfere with any of that especially when Acts itself says that Paul had a revelation from the Christ himself not experienced by anyone else?
And if unity of purpose was so important, then why not have Paul speak a word or two from the aphorisms of the Christ himself to show his devotion to the GLuke party line?

Toto

Yes- he's working for the common purpose. He's not casting aspersions on the so called pillars of the church, as he does in his letters.

Acts doesn't imply that Paul's revelation was superior to that of the apostles, who both knew Jesus in the flesh and saw him after his resurrection. Paul's epistles imply that Paul's revelation was superior, and that was Marcion's opinion. Acts tends to refute this. Paul's revelation in Acts was Jesus telling Paul to get with the program and stop being a loner.

You are still trying to read a later concern with the historical Jesus back into the second century. That was not the defining test of the party line.

aa5874

You are PRESUMING that the Pauline writings are earlier than the Gospels. Your Presumptions are useless as evidence.

What BS. Acts of the Apostles is the Canonized and authorised biography of Paul after his blinding light experience and is regarded by the Church as authentic.

If Acts is Fiction then the Pauline character is dubious.

Duvduv

What is the basis for all of these interpretations of the straight text? Is it your oral tradition? Is a secret document? And if the readers of Acts never saw the epistles, how would they understand the interpretation you are giving it without some secret knowledge?
The fact that Acts was eventually accepted TOGETHER with the epistles doesn't seem to reinforce these interpretations of the texts. Especially since in Acts Paul does travel and preach as he does at least in the epistles thereby reinforcing and not diminishing the message of the epistles of "St. Paul."

However, standing on its own we do not see the interpretations in the Book of Acts that you suggest, but rather a story of a different Paul. Again, the doctrines in the epistles of justification etc. do not have to contradict anything in the gospels teachings at all, and are not even contradicted in Acts though they are not discussed in the storyline one way or the other.

aa5874

It can be seen rather easily that the author of Acts was used as a supposed WITNESS of the Pauline character.

From Acts 15 to Acts 28 the author supposedly documented in great detail the activities and places where Paul visited and excluded Peter.

The author of Acts even claimed he traveled and prayed with Paul.

If Acts of the Apostles does NOT reflect history then the Pauline character cannot be PRESUMED to be historical?

Why did Paul need Acts of the Apostles if the biography of PAUL was already known and was NOT compatible with Acts?

There was NO PAUL until Acts of the Apostles was already Composed.

Duvduv

Toto and others set up a dichotomy between a collection of contrasting LETTERS ascribed to "Paul" and a BIOGRAPHY about Paul, which are not the same thing at all.

There are enough contradictions among the letters to show that there was not one unequivocal personality of Paul that needed to be "tamed" by a BIOGRAPHY as argued by Toto.

IF Toto wanted to make the argument that elements of Acts were to downgrade the writer of Galatians and perhaps Corinthians, we would still wonder why this is not explicit in Acts itself, i.e. an indictment of ideas or personality of the writer of Galatians.

But certainly the Paul of other epistles could have lived in harmony with Acts even according to the hypothesis that Toto presents.

Toto's interpretation still simply requires some kind of secret tradition about Acts in relation to the epistles that just is not obvious to those of us who are "initiated."

Toto

What I have posted is fairly standard. If you don't see it, I can't help you. You are free to develop your own interpretation, however idiosyncratic. It's not an issue that I have any investment in at present.

Duvduv

I wasn't asking you to help me. I was challenging your assumptions....
In the previous posting I meant to say "NOT initiated ".

aa5874

Please, Toto!!! Where do you get your INVENTIONS???

In Acts, Paul was a Persecutor, not a loner.

In Acts, Paul was NOT alone when attempting to wipe out the Christian Faith on his way to Damascus.

Toto

Until he stopped being a persecutor and got with the program.

Funny thing, no one was alone in ancient times. There was always a crowd, family, followers, etc.

But in terms of being a Christian, the Paul of the letters was something of a loner. He preached HIS gospel and dissed those who preached another Jesus. He said disparaging things about the pillars.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "loner." I meant it in a idiomatic sense that might not have communicated my meaning to someone from another culture.