bacht

It's only one possibility among others, none of which are "provable" are they?

If we agree that both Acts and the letters are ficticious then anything goes

If the letters are assumed to be from some early Christian or gnostic we can speculate as to their evolution

Personally I think it's more logical to see full-blown "history" like gospels and Acts as the latest or furthest from Christian origins. Revelation and Hebrews have zero history.

I respect your knowledge aa but not your tendency to making unconditional assertions

aa5874

But, whether you think nothing is "provable" is irrelevant since you have no basis or sources of ANTIQUITY to support your proposition that the Pauline writings predate Acts of the Apostles.

No! No! No way! There must be a reason why both Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are fiction. There must have been a reason why the author of Acts did not write about the death of Paul. There must have a reason why SAUL/PAUL of Acts was claimed to be the author of ALL the Epistles.

You simple cannot just GUESS your own history and then AGREE with your GUESS.

So, is this an "unconditional assumption"? If you make assumptions that are not supported by sources of ANTIQUITY then you are engaged in futility, or simple wasting time.

If you assume the letters were early when they were really late your speculations would be a total waste of time. Such an exercise would be tantamount to "garbage in-garbage out".

But, what full-blown "history" are you talking about? The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are full blown fiction.

Please state an event with Jesus Christ that is full blown "history"?

I will state categorically that the conception of Jesus is full blown fiction and everything else with Jesus and his disciples. Once Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, then fiction will follow.

But, it is just not true that I made an unconditional assertion. I have produced sources of antiquity to support my position that Acts of the Apostles predated the Pauline writings, but on the other hand you have not shown a single source that can place the Pauline writings before Acts of the Apostles.

A supposed agreement that the Pauline writings were early has no value as evidence. There need not be any EVIDENCE for some people to agree on anything.

Now, a Pauline writer claimed he received his gospel from JESUS CHRIST who was raised from the dead.

It must be NOTED that JESUS CHRIST and HIS GOSPEL was invented in stories written after the FALL of the Temple.

A Pauline writer claimed he spoke in "tongues" but it must be NOTED that ONLY the LATE long-ending of gMark and Acts of the Apostles made references to talking in "tongues".

This is no unconditional assertion. The Abundance of evidence shows or tend to show that the Pauline writings were after Acts of the Apostles.

Please provide a source of antiquity that can support "your agreement" the Pauline writings were before Acts otherwise you have an unsubstantiated claim or an unconditional assertion.