Bernard Muller

NO, you are wrong. Where would that be in Acts? Provide the verses.
Now, you are adding Paul's epistles in the mix. It's not only Acts anymore! Sure that adds more territory, mainly Cilicia and Syria. And the Pastorals, that no critical scholar thinks as written by Paul, added Crete.
No, you cannot say "all over the Roman Empire", when Paul is never said to have preached in the whole southern part (Judea to Morocco), the whole western part (except Rome) and many area in the East (nowhere North & NW of Macedonia and East & North of Galatia). I'll draw a map soon.

BTW, if Acts and the Pauline epistles would have been written so late, don't you think they would have Paul preaching REALLY all over the Roman empire?

Grog

(First, I'm not trying to pick on you, outhouse!)

would that this were true. In fact, most scholars do use Acts as a source for their biographies on Paul. Open any biography on Paul and it will start with "Saul" from "Tarsus" who was "tentmaker..." the rubbish goes on and on. Even from scholars who acknowledge the unreliability of Acts. They will say that in one paragraph and in the next quote from Acts.

The principle they actually folllow is this:

Unless Acts is directly contradicted by data in the epistles, then it is fair game for use.

IMO, Acts is pure fiction...the only elements of truth are those that the author lifted out of other documents (e.g. Josephus) or known facts (such as Gallio). It is historical fiction.

Sheshbazzar

From my unique perspective there is at least one other thing in Acts that has elements of truth.

outhouse

I agree there is some, your pretty much correct. I was speaking generally.



Some scholars place some acts over some of the epistles, and vise versa.

Its a mixed bag but as you stated in general, they do find it unreliable

aa5874

It is illogical, flawed reasonning, to assume the Pauline writings are historically accurate or most likely to be when there are dis-agreements between the Pauline writings and Acts.

It is BASIC knowledge and does NOT require a PhD, that whenever two statements dis-agree and contradict that one or both are not credible.

The Paul of the NT Canon is being INVESTIGATED for historical accuracy so Nothing can be ruled in or out.

It cannot be assumed that Paul is beyond dispute and that writings under the name of Paul Must historically accurate.

I know of NO inquiry where a person under investigation is Exempted or Exonerated by Presumptions of veracity alone.

It is Extremely significant when an Apologetic Canonized source and supposed contemporary, the author of Acts, Contradicts Paul.

One or both may be lying.

outhouse

but we dont throw one book because the other is different

it doesnt mean there is no historicity in the one suspected of being unreliable

it means it has to be investigted carefully



No scholars take a literal interpretation of either scripture, im not sure where your going with this

aa5874

You are just going around in circles.

Please tell us who told Scholars Paul wrote letters before the death of Nero?

It was NOT the author of Acts and the Pauline writers.

outhouse

The dating of pauls uncontested epistles, are not in question by anyone with credibility

Duvduv

Outhouse, do "people with credibility" have some inside secret knowledge that enables them to be so sure of their dating of the epistles??

aa5874

Your statement is extremely similar to fundamentalists. Your position on Paul has deteriorated to nothing but worthess jargon.