sotto voce

But you're discussing historians, 'Josephus, Tacitus, etc.', not church members. If all historians wrote about only that which was contemporary with them, there wouldn't be many historians.

Have another coffee.

Sheshbazzar

Whether he was 'God's PROPHET' or not, he did make plenty of predictions.
I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves just how accurate or valid they believe each of those predictions were.

_Of course I do that when Brother Pastor Sparks down on the corner on the East side of me makes his predictions, and when Fr. John who lives to the West side of me, makes his predictions.

aa5874

Of course, the statements in Acts of the Apostles matter. That is EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what we need to see.

Every word in Acts is EXTREMELY important whether or NOT they are KNOWN lies.

I MUST, MUST, MUST carefully EXAMINE what is written in Acts to determine if the statements are Empirically False or implausible.

Now, since the author of Acts did NOT even claim Saul/Paul wrote any letters to churches in the Roman Empire there is absolutely NO reason for me to PRESUME that he did.

And further, since the Pauline writers did NOT STATE when they wrote epistles to churches then I also cannot PRESUME that they did write letters before c 70 CE.

Remarkably, the author of Acts wrote about the bright light conversion of Paul and his preaching, travels, being stoned almost to death, being bitten by snakes, shipwrecked, imprisonned, beaten and DELIVERING Letters from the Jerusalem church but wrote NOTHING--ZERO--NIL about a Pauline letter.

What is found in Acts is EXTREMELY significant.

The author of Acts did NOT corroborate Saul/Paul as an author of any so-called Pauline letter.

Duvduv

Yes, that is correct. So really it cannot be argued that Galatians (or Romans or Philippians, etc.) corrects anything. All we can say is that the Saul/Paul of Acts is rather different than the Paul of the epistles but that both draw on some previous oral tradition about someone named Paul even if the epistles were actually composites of later Christian teachings with monotheistic writings.

Given the fact that the scribal arts were not desktop publishing or even the Gutenberg printing system, it is entirely possible that the author of one or the other did not have his own manuscript of the other text(s), could not accurately remember what the other tradition said, and got details and doctrines mixed up in a very poorly crafted story.

The general similarities between the two Pauls include:
a) Both Pauls had a Jewish upbringing
b) Both Pauls had some kind of revelations from the Christ
c) Both Pauls engaged in persecuting believers
d) Both Pauls preached to others, both Jews and non-Jews although both Pauls were supposed to preach to gentiles
e) Neither Paul cared about the historical Jesus

Of course there are so many differences, but even if they both drew on some legends about someone named Paul, HOW and WHY would this legendary figure become so important even before there was a central hierarchy of church authority and even if "his" writings were not yet holy writ and certainly not part of the Jesus gospel story?

angelo

Perhaps because the writings attributed to a Paul are the very first xtian writing ever. Before these writings there is the questionable Q documents which some scholars think can be found in the gospels of Mathew and Luke. It's all speculation.

Duvduv

Except that this would not explain the dichotomy between Acts and the epistles, especially Galatians and the background of epistle Paul versus Acts Paul.

angelo

Would there be any dichotomy if the N/T is treated like it should be? A collection of myths that really has nothing to say about the real history of that time.

Duvduv

Because the authors didn't believe that Paul was a factitious person. And there must be a rationale as to why the emerging church accepted two versions of the life of Paul who they believed to have existed that they could see were clearly contradictory.

angelo

I think the problem arises because there are historians instead of experts in mythology and it's origins seeking the truth.

aa5874

Of course, it can be argued that the Galatians writer CORRECTED the author of Acts.

Please follow the argument.

The author of Acts claimed in Acts 9 that Saul CONSULTED with disciples in Damascus before he preached the Jesus story, that SAUL went to Jerusalem, not Arabia, AFTER he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus and that Saul MET ALL the Apostles, not just Peter and James..

Now, again, we cannot fully understand the chronology of the events in Galatians and the Pauline writings without Acts of the Apostles.

The statement in 2 Cor.11.32-33 that Paul was in a basket by a wall in Damascus CANNOT be linked to Galatians 1 by reading Pauline letters alone

Even if we had NO Pauline writings we would understand the chronology in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles does NOT need the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writings need Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline letters are a chronological nightmare without Acts.

The Pauline letters were composed when Acts of the Apostles was already written and CHANGED the story to claim that it was NOT the apostles who preached the Jesus story to the Gentiles but a Pauline character.