aa5874

Your claim is unsubstantiated. The author of Luke and the author of Acts did NOT STATE anywhere that they opposed the doctrine of any epistles.

They did NOT mention a single epistle that Saul/Paul wrote to any Church.

The author of gLuke and the author of Acts did NOT show that they had read any Pauline Epistles.

Acts of the Apostles was MOST likely written BEFORE the Pauline writings since virtually nothing of the Pauline Gospel that Jesus was the End of Jewish LAW based on Pauline revelations were ever mentioned.

Duvduv

A very concise reply, aa5874. Simply on the last paragraph, how do you envision the emergence of the epistles following Acts since elements of Acts were not integrated into the epistles and ideas of the epistles are not found in Acts as you just mentioned??

It would be LOGICAL to assume otherwise IF the author(s) of the epistles KNEW about Acts.

Hence, my view that Acts and the epistles must have emerged from different sources.

Plus it can be added that Acts cites not a SINGLE aphorism in the name of the gospel Jesus nor recounts any of the stories about the interactions of Jesus during his ministry or his birth, etc. And I KNOW the view that "this is unnecessary" but in an entire book? In fact it's easier to argue the "unnecessary" argument for a letter here or there than for an entire book ostensibly written by the same person.

Toto

The conflict between the portrait of Paul in Acts and the persona in the epistles is too well known and too obvious. It causes too much trouble for Christian apologists. I'm not sure what the point of continuing here is.

Toto

They don't have to. You just have to read them critically.

Except for the numerous cross references.

If Acts was written to counter the Pauline faction, what would you expect? You would expect something like Acts.

aa5874

It is clear to me that Canonised Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline writings since the author did NOT show at all that he had read a single Epistle of Paul nor expounded on the Pauline Gospel that Jesus was the END of Jewish Law.

Now, as soon as you examine all the WRITINGS of the Canon it will be noticed that Only the Gospels contain the Jesus stories in detail. ALL other writings have very little or virtually Nothing about the supposed Life of Jesus on earth.

Epistles by Peter, James, John, Jude and Revelation were supposedly written by Apostles, disciples and Relatives of Jesus yet we have virtually ZERO about the supposed Life of Jesus.

The Jesus story, the Gospel, was ALREADY KNOWN and Publicly circulated when Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the Pastorals, and all other Canonised epistles were written.

Duvduv

aa 5874, BUT did the authors of the epistles who does not express ideas of the Book of Acts know about Acts?! MY point is that it appears that he did not.

Duvduv

Toto, that is EXACTLY the point! Reading critically.....
And you keep repeating the allegation with no source that Acts was written to counter the pauline faction. There is nothing in Acts that says that the author OPPOSED the teachings of the epistles at all! Oh, but perhaps he had a gun to his head and could only hint at it.....!!
The author did not OPPOSE it, he SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW about it! I don't see him mention the ideology of the epistles and then "oppose" it, do you? I do see that he simply does not refer to it at all!

Duvduv

WHERE is the "conflict" Toto?? ALL I see is a different Paul in Acts from the Paul in the epsitles. WHY does that ipso facto mean a conflict unless you are trying to say that the author of Acts just hoped the readers would be smart enough to figure it out......Come on....

sotto voce

No reference, then.

aa5874

But, you could not even show one. It is a waste of time to say there are "numerous cross references" when there are virtually none.

Nowhere in Acts of the Apostles did the author of Acts claimed he read a Pauline Epistle.

Not at all. You appear NOT to have read Acts of the Apostles or is spreading mis-leading information.

I would NOT expect the author of Acts to travel ALL over the Roman Empire with Paul and document the Success of Paul.

Acts 16Acts 17 Acts 18 Acts 19 Toto, your claim about Acts is not even logical. It is baseless.

The author of Acts DOCUMENTED the success of the supposed Paul in chapter after chapter.

Acts of the Apostles was NOT written to humiliate Paul.

It was the Complete Reverse.

It was written in an attempt to show that Saul/Paul supposedly did preach to the Gentiles and that the author himself did WITNESS his activities.