Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-26-2012, 04:01 AM | #181 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
|
01-26-2012, 04:11 AM | #182 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
Why 'the' pope? Is there some objective reality referred to here? |
|
01-26-2012, 04:12 AM | #183 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
|
01-26-2012, 04:15 AM | #184 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
|
|
01-26-2012, 05:30 AM | #185 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
|
A crystal ball can be very useful
|
01-26-2012, 05:51 AM | #186 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
|
|
01-26-2012, 05:57 AM | #187 |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
|
01-26-2012, 09:35 AM | #188 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
David Hindley, this is very interesting indeed, that the author of Acts is speaking in an idiom familiar to readers, though I wonder WHICH readers would know maxims from Greek sources hundreds of years old. Were these the elite or the common people or both?
What is also of interest is IF there was a strain of monotheism among Greeks, to what extent were the Christian authors creating a real comfort zone for those elements of Greek society that were more linked to this old Greek monotheism than to the pagan beliefs?? Regarding my original point, IF the author of the epistles had known Acts, then presumably he *should* have known about the GLuke, but did not integrate any of this into the epistles. I am still looking over the correlations Toto referred me to, but I still tend to think that Acts and the epistle writers had access to some common sources that were similar but not identical. Then there is another very interesting issue: that there was a clear strain of MONOTHEISM in Greek culture which seems to have existed alongside the paganism. Quote:
|
||
01-26-2012, 10:35 AM | #189 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The Pauline letters are the ONLY Significant things that he did NOT write about. It is MOST remarkably that the author of Acts wrote about LETTERS and EPISTLES written by the Church of JERUSALEM. And even more DEVASTATING the author of Acts mentioned the FULL CONTENTS of a typical Letter. The Letters by the Church of Jerusalem were EXTREMELY short as can be seen in Acts 15 and consisted of about 150 words and occupy only 6 verses of Acts 15. 23-29. The author of Acts was NOT a witness of the Pauline writings and knew NOTHING at all of them. The Pauline writings are the MOST SIGNIFICANT doctrinal writings in the Canon and they are NOT mentioned anywhere in Acts of the Apostles. Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline writings since the author of Acts only wrote of extremely short Letters from the Church of Jerusalem. Acts 15.23-29 |
|
01-26-2012, 11:25 AM | #190 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Your points are well taken, aa5874 . This doesn't PRECLUDE the possibility of longer letters, although we do know that such long letters written to congregations by "Paul" are not mentioned in Acts.
Now with regard to your last sentence, if you believe that Acts was written before the epistles, WHY do you think the author(s) of the epistles did not include some important elements from Acts? Do you think the epistle writers never saw Acts, and no one ever thought to interpolate Galatians or some other epistle with information from Acts? Do you believe they each stem from a different tradition and location? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|