Duvduv

aa5874....understood ...but then the conclusion in your view why no epistle authors integrated any points from Acts into their letters at a later point in time?? If they rejected the book of Acts why didn't they say so, and if they did know Acts why didn't they know the GLuke?

sotto voce

'Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst.' 1 Ti 1:15 NIV

Toto

First of all - the author of Acts was not pretending to have been a companion of Paul. That was a later interpretation by Irenaeus, who tried to construct a history of the church that went back to eyewitnesses. He ascribed Acts to Luke because Luke was listed in Paul's letters as an actual companion of Paul.

Secondly, from our point of view in the 21st century, all we know about Paul was that we have letters purporting to have been written by him, that are part of the Christian canon. But that does not mean that Paul was only famous for writing letters in the second century. He might have been originally famous for converting people through his oratory, and therefore someone either saved his letters or wrote letters in his name.

Duvduv

Toto, if the texts were under continuous revision. over the centuries then for all intents and purposes what exist today are the produxt of later writers and not the original which cannot even be detected.
And who were the revisers and why were they doing it?

Toto

Yes, but you can make an educated guess as to the original.The orthodox Christians took non-orthodox material and made it fit with their evolving beliefs. Victorious Christians rewrote history to make it be the way it should have been.

Read Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk) or Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (or via: amazon.co.uk)

sotto voce

How does one demonstrate that anyone is, or was a Christian? It's impossible. What one can legitimately write is given names, such as 'the Church of England' or 'Melancthon'.

aa5874

Toto, what absurdity you post. Irenaeus is NOT known to be an eyewitness of Paul.

You DON'T KNOW that the author of "Against Heresies" used any eyewitnesses because he claimed Jesus was crucified about the age of 50 years when Claudius was Emperor, Pilate was Governor and that the disciples, John and the authors of the Gospel preached and wrote the very same thing that Jesus was about 50 YEARS OLD when he suffered. See "Against Heresies" 2.22 and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching".

Writings under the name of Irenaeus are Fraudulent and full of fiction.

Please, don't ever tell me about Irenaeus as a credible source.

You very well know that all the bogus information about the dating, authorship and chronology of the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings can be found in writings under the name of Irenaeus.

Toto, once Acts of the Apostles is a fictionalized account and is found Canonized then the author was Pretending or Lying about the Acts of Paul.

However, HE still did NOT give any account of the Pauline writings at all.

You claimed Scholars think that Acts of the Apostles is a Fictionalized account so it must be that Scholars think that the author of Acts pretended to be, lied about, or invented stories about being a companion of Paul and that he traveled with him.

Toto, it is a waste of time telling me about YOUR Presumptions about Paul.

I make NO presumptions that Paul wrote before the mid 2nd-3rd century.

I will NOT ignore the Paleographic dating of P 46 [the Pauline writings] which places the Pauline writings from mid 2nd-3rd century.

You seem to deal with presumptions, imagination, speculation and even unreliable sources like Irenaeus and Paul and do so WITHOUT any corroboration from non-apologetic sources.

I will NOT tolerate or accept your baseless opinion that is without any corroboration of non-apologetic sources of antiquity--None-Zero-Nil.

Toto

aa -that's my point. The idea that Acts was written by a companion of Paul was invented by Irenaeus.

What are you arguing, exactly?

aa5874

If you don't what the thread is about then why are you posting?

You have presented NOTHING credible from any non-apologetic source of Antiquity to support the position that the Pauline writings are before Acts of the Apostles.

You have UTTERLY FAILED to show that Paul lived in the 1st century and that he did actually write Epistles Before the Fall of the Temple.

You even stated that your suspicions of the Pauline writings yet make unsubstantiated claims that they were written before Acts.

Please, you can't win any argument with me by using Irenaeus and Paul--their writings are FILLED with bogus information.

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline Epistles!!! What are you arguing about?

Duvduv

Toto, then there really is nothing wrong per se with the Byzantium 4th century "creation" of Christianity since it is just as likely that the final drafts of the texts were finalized in the 4th century, and whatever the looked like far earlier, IF they existed is anyone's guess and is of no significance.....