sotto voce

What people do is note that 66 particular books show a harmony that is remarkable, even unique; so they become Christians.

'Different Christian factions' do not exist. People 'invent ways of doing evil', if the Bible be true. So there are, according to the prophet, very many ways of opposing the single, singular message of those books, by deliberate misinterpretation. Perhaps new ones are found in paperback almost by the month.

Duvduv

Actually there are no contradictions in the versions. The companions heard the sound of speaking but could not distinguish the meaning of it. They saw the flash. One could say that in Acts 26 the author is giving more information of what Jesus told him.
However, Paul's doctrine in Acts is different from that of the Paul of the epistles. So it does appear to be that the author of Acts and the author(s) of the epistles had two different understandings of the doctrine of Paul, suggesting that they did not know of each other.

Had the authors of epistles known about the name Saul it wouldn't have cost them much ink to mention it at least once. Had the author of Acts known about the epistles he surely would have mentioned that Paul wrote to various congregations. Same thing for the flash and revelation near Damascus. It would have been valuable to do so, especially in Galatians.

Doug Shaver

I think Acts is a work of fiction. There is no history in it, about Jesus or about anyone else.

The author of Acts had already written a gospel wherein he related all the events and aphorisms of Jesus that he thought his readers needed to know about. We should not be surprised if he thought it unnecessary to repeat any of that stuff in a narrative about events supposedly taking place after the events of the gospel.

We have no reason to suppose that the author of Acts was familiar with the epistles or, if he knew about them, that he agreed with anything in them.

It didn't precede the epistles, so the hypothetical is irrelevant.

When your opponent is no longer around to defend himself, one way to counteract his influence is to make it seem like he was really on your side all along.

Doug Shaver

Not exactly. Someone they trust tells them there is a remarkable harmony, so they become Christians. Then when they read the Bible they see what they're told they'd better see if they know what's good for them.

Duvduv

Doug, how do you know tbe author of Acts wrote a gospel? Because of a few lines at the beginning that could have been written by anyone to make that link between the gospels and Paul? And even if it were so is it credible thst none of the aphorisms and stories would be mentioned ever? What kind of excuse is that? Heck, Mary isn't even called a virgin, though its more than the epistles where she isn't mentioned at all.

sotto voce

In some cases.

So they check it out, and come to the very same finding.

They may do. They may decide to a) to pretend to be a Christian or b) forget about the Bible or c) oppose the Bible.

aa5874

Your statement is absurd and illogical. It MUST be hypothetical that Acts did NOT precede the Pauline Epistles.

1. The Pauline writings, P 46, are dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

2. There is NO corroboration by any 1st century non-apologetic source for the Pauline Epistles.

3. There is NO corroboration by non-apologetic sources for any character called Saul/Paul that lived in the 1st century Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

4. There is NO corroboration from non-apologetic sources of the Pauline Jesus, Pauline Churches, and Pauline Christians.

5. Apologetic sources claimed that the Gospel was preached to the Whole world by 12 illiterate men or the 12 disciples and did NOT include Saul/Paul.

6. It cannot be show that the character Saul/Paul in Acts did exist and was in a basket in Damascus as was also claimed in the Pauline writings during the time of Aretas.

It is an act of absurdity to state that Acts did NOT precede the Epistles when you have ZERO evidence.

Duvduv

If the unknown Irenaeus and Tertullian cannot be relied up, not to mention others, and the best that can be argued is that the epistles didn't appear until the whole Marcion scenario, a period of 100 years, then it's just as likely that the heresiogists/apologists were only in the 4th century, and that Acts and the epistles were produced likewise in the 4th century.

However, it is entirely possible that the author of Acts as the first text didn't come up with the names of Peter and Paul out of thin air, and that in an earlier period back into the 3rd century there were "traditions" of people with these names who were leaders of one or more sects that revered a Jesus figure with differences of opinion which are vaguely reflected in Acts and the epistles.

mrsonic

what do you mean by "could not distinguish the meaning of it" ?


And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man


paul defending himself before the hebrew councel


And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid;

but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Duvduv

It is possible the author simply meant they could hear a voice but couldn't figure out what it was saying. What's the big deal?