aa5874

Of course, people do NOT accept that the Pauline writings were composed BEFORE Acts of the Apostles because even Apologetic sources place Paul OUTSIDE the 1st century.

If Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline writings were composed how come the author NEVER claimed Paul wrote letters to Seven churches???

If the author of Acts was NOT a contemporary of Paul then it would be expected that he would have known of Paul by his letters yet he did NOT acknowledge any letters at all by Paul.

The author of Acts did the complete opposite he claimed Paul and his group were post men for the Jerusalem Church and even mentioned the Contents of the Jerusalem Church letters.

This is most fascinating.

ALL APOLOGETIC SOURCES that mentioned Paul claimed he wrote letters to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

Acts of the Apostles is MOST likely BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed.

Duvduv

Although I disagree strongly with AA on a number of matters, in this response of his I have to say I fully agree with the logic he uses.

But what people have yet to realize is that the non-professionals who study this history must always defer to the Council of Scholars of the Jesus Seminar or of Academia or both, and cannot question "scholarship."

Sure sounds like a church to me........

Toto

But what you did was inconsiderate, even if you did not intend to be rude.

I read all of your postings, unfortunately. I know that you claim that you are not just bumping up threads, but that is in fact what you are doing. Readers who are interested in your previous exchanges can scroll up and read them without having the text take up space. If you feel some need to include the text, you can enclose it in [hide] tags.

If you are SIMPLY curious, have you thought of Googling a few key phrases?

I'm not lurking. I am moderating. There is nothing politically incorrect about your postings - they are just an unproductive use of this forum. This is not a discussion group for professional scholars, but it is not just a free forum for pointless discussion.

The Terms of Use include these requirements: You appending you question to a thread started by Jake Jones, but you don't seem to have read it. Perhaps if you did, it might have answered some of your questions, or given you a framework to make a more meaningful comment.

I made some substantive comments, but you seem to be ignoring them to concentrate on how unfair things are.

Toto

His logic is faulty, but he keeps repeating the same argument like a broken record. The author of Acts did not mention Paul's letters for a good reason, which is connected to the OP. The author of Acts intended to undermine the theology in Paul's letters and portray Paul as fully in accord with the Petrine faction. The whole structure of Acts is an adventure story, with Paul traveling around and preaching words that the author of Acts puts in his mouth.

This is bullshit. You are not required to defer to any particular scholar, but when a good scholarly argument is presented, you would be wasting your time to just ignore it.

Duvduv

And you have kept repeating that refrain as a broken record as well, and the layman (=non-professional scholar) can simply ask HOW you know what the author "intended" since you cannot read his mind or his email or his notarized will and testament or that of the so-called Petrine faction.

And what, pray tell, is the definition of a "good scholarly argument"??

I mean, really, if this isn't religious allegiance I don't know what is. For heaven's sake. The intolerance for alternative views not abiding by the Church of Academia Consensus is too much.

Duvduv

Do let us know why you single me out for a sin - i.e. what you call "bumping up a thread." I personally have never seen a posting doing what you call hiding a tag or similar.

Toto

It's a reasonable inference based on reading the entire text in its historical context. You might have to read a book.

You know it when you hear it.

It's not a question of intolerance for alternative views. It's a request that you discuss the issues with some sort of focus and understanding, instead of just posting vague questions.

aa5874

Again, you make unsubstantiated claims about Acts of the Apostles. You cannot and will NEVER be able to present the supporting passages in Acts that show the author undermined the theology of the Pauline writings.

I am completely disappointed in your baseless assertions that seem to derive from Chinese Whispers.

I will SHOW that you are WRONG.

The author of Acts DEDICATED 13 chapters of Acts virtually to Paul and Never mentioned Peter and Barnabas After the Acts 16 to Acts 28.

After the Acts 15--Paul is mentioned OVER 100 times and Peter 000 times.

The author of Acts claimed people Received the Holy Ghost through Paul and that GOD performed miracles by him.

Acts 19. 6Acts 19 Toto you have NOTHING but a Broken record of Chinese Whispers. You cannot ever show that the author of Acts undermined the Pauline theology.
NEVER.

Duvduv

I have never yet seen this argument from AA refuted by anyone. People simply rely on old tired refrains about "most scholars" this-or-that.

Duvduv

There is something rather vague and intangible in your response, Toto.

And as far as my questions are concerned, I ask them for TWO reasons: a) To learn from other and hear the perspectives of others since I am not here to reiterate my own doctrines but to discuss and learn; and b) To obtain information that I cannot find elsewhere from those who may know more than I do.

I think that is perfectly legitimately, thank you.