aa5874

Toto, what "Chasing" are you talking about. It is the same escape in 2 Cor. 11 as in Acts 9. There were NO Jews Chasing Saul when he escaped by the wall. The Jews WATCHED the GATES day and Night.

Acts 9:24-25 KJV 2 Corinthians 11:33 KJV Well, Toto you have been arguing that the author of Acts undermined the theology of Paul but still claim that Paul and the early Church leaders were in a Love Fest in Acts.

The author of Acts EXPOSED that Peter was still operating UNDER the Law and did NOT associate himself with Non-Jews until some time AFTER Paul's conversion.

In Acts 10, Peter thought that Non Jews were UNCLEAN until he had a vision.

Acts 10:28 KJV There is NO passage in Acts where Paul's theology is Undermined.

And further it can be deduced that the author of Acts was most likely unaware of the Pauline letters because he stated that Paul and his group ACTED as "MailMen" for the Jerusalem Church and even mentioned the Contents of the Jerusalem letter.

Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul even ONCE or TWICE mention the Pauline LETTERS to Churches EXCEPT the author of Acts.

1. The Ignatius Letters mentioned Paul ONCE and claimed he wrote Epistles.

2. The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement mentioned Paul TWICE and claimed he wrote an Epistle.

3. The author of Acts mentioned Saul/Paul 152 times and NEVER claimed he wrote any letters.

The author of Acts was NOT aware of the Pauline letters and this is COMPATIBLE with the DATED evidence.

outhouse

i'll buy that.

it is a defensive statement

Duvduv

Besides, contextually there is no apparent reason why a disclaimer about lying would be invoked in just these cases in these three epistles rather than others such as the authors' more far out claims about the Christ.

Duvduv

AA, you call changes in the epistles corrections. So does that mean the author of Galatians denied Paul was called Saul because he never mentioned that name? Did the same author forget to enhance Paul's reputation by not mentioning the name of R. Gamliel? Did he ignore the revelation details in Damascus as a correction even when arguing that his gospel was from no man?
Did he correct something by ignoring that it was the Jews who wanted to kill Paul in Damascus rather than merely arrest him especially when he claims he isn't lying?!

Iskander

Some commentators of the Greek Testament have taken the differences between Acts and the epistles of Paul to be understood as the effort of Luke to present a biography of Paul acceptable to a desired church image some years after the death of Paul.


Paul’s conversion takes place in Damascus-- not on the road to Damascus -- and it is a very low key affair; god makes himself known to him in a manner that would be familiar and acceptable to many contemporary men and women everywhere on this planet.


Paul did not go up to Jerusalem directly after his conversion and Paul says he was not known by sight to the churches in Judea when three years later he visited Jerusalem; he is an independent man who needs no one other than god.


Luke could not tolerate this, but he found it difficult to destroy the surviving memory of Paul among the gentile Christians and Luke chose instead to replace it with a more convenient form that would introduce Paul as one of the boys and a member of the mother church

Solo

Even more so in 1 Timothy 2:7 : For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

So, there is at least one place where we know for sure a writer pretending to be Paul is aware of his own lie and trying to exorcise it by making a false oath.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It would have been unnecessary for the Pauline writer to claim he was NOT lying if there were no contradictory stories being circulated.

The Pauline writer made statements that contradict Acts of the Apostles which implies that the stories in Acts of the Apostles were in circulation BEFORE the Epistles were written.

Again, if Acts was written AFTER the Pauline letters then we would EXPECT that the author would have known of the Pauline letters ESPECIALLY when the author DEDICATED 13 chapters of Acts to the TRAVELS of Paul throughout the Roman Empire.

It is IMPLIED that Paul wrote a letter to each church BEFORE he arrived on his second visit.

Acts of the Apostles supposedly DOCUMENTED the SECOND trip to churches but NEVER documented that Paul wrote letters BEFORE he arrived.

Acts 15:36 KJV Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul visited churches ALSO claimed he wrote letters to those churches EXCEPT Acts of the Apostles.

Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul ALSO claimed he wrote epistles to churches EXCEPT Acts of the Apostles.

Writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexander, Origen, Eusebius, and others mentioned Paul and ALSO claimed he wrote Epistles to churches EXCEPT the author of Acts..

Paul was KNOWN for writing letters to Churches by ALL Apologetic sources excluding Acts.

Paul was KNOWN as a "POSTMAN" for the Jerusalem church by the author of Acts.

Acts of the Apostles was composed and Circulated BEFORE the Pauline letters were written.

Duvduv

Yes, that is perfectly logical, except that you would argue that the statement that he is not lying is restricted to the three cases where there is contradictory information and no others (the one in Galatians verse 20 definitely sounds like a later addition).

The reference to "not lying" in Corinthians is inserted between the discussion about his weaknesses and his visit to Damascus, so it's not even clear what "Paul" is not lying about, and the case of Romans is even more unclear as to what exactly he has to appeal to his reader that he is not lying about in reference to the Jews.

Presumably if the author of epistles wanted to give a disclaimer about the truthfulness of his statements in relation to Acts he would do so more often in relation to other contradictions, or even better, the versions in Galatians/Corinthians versus Acts could have been reconciled without that disclaimer by altering the text.

Duvduv

AA, just as you don't want to consider the possibility that GMark has two different manuscripts, one of which was with the last part missing, you also don't want to consider the possibility that Acts and the epistles emerged from two DIFFERENT sources relating to "Paul", which would explain the contradictions.

After all, the gospels are different enough to warrant saying that they emerged from different sources and hands based on the same bare-bones story regarding Jesus, so why not the epistles versus Acts as well regarding Paul?!

aa5874

I do not deal with Imagination. I can tell you what I found in Apologetic sources, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Whenever you imagine one thing you should also imagine the opposite.

Now, this is NOT my imagination.

In "Against Heresies" Paul is mentioned about 135 times and it is clamed Paul wrote Epistles about 50 times.

In "Against Marcion" Paul is mentioned over 40 times and hundreds of verses of the the Pauline Epistles are mentiond.

In "Against Celsus" Paul is mentioned over 80 times and it is claimed he wrote Epistles to Churches.

Only the author of Acts mentioned Paul about 150 times and NEVER claimed he wrote Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles.