aa5874

My observation is that the Pauline writer KNEW of Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul and the Pauline writer EMERGED from a Basket at the SAME TIME and Place

Acts 9:25 KJV2 Corinthians 11:33 KJV The vast "DETAILS" of stories about Saul/Paul are NOT from the Pauline writings but the very small limited information about the Pauline writer was most likely LIFTED from Acts when the Pauline letters were READY to be Composed in the 2nd century or Later.

The Pauline letters are ANTI-MARCIONITE Texts with the claim that PAUL was a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus.

Paul TESTIFIED that he was a WITNESS that God RAISED Jesus from the dead.

Duvduv

What do you mean by "most likely LIFTED from Acts"?? Isn't that called speculation and imagination rather than "evidence" as you like to say?!

aa5874

Well, I DOUBT that you have credible evidence to support your claim.

You very well know that you have NO evidence of Paul before c 70 CE yet is spreading a most blatant error thay you have NO DOUBT of his existence.

Not even the Church of Rome know when Paul lived, what and when he wrote.

Church writers claimed Paul was EXECUTED under Nero c 64-68 CE and that he was ALSO Aware of gLuke. Such a claim is DOUBTED to be historically accurate and is contradictory.

What we know now CAST DOUBT on the very time Paul lived.

The Church writers claimed Paul wrote letters to Seneca but the letters were DEDUCED to be forgeries.

An Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claims Paul WROTE the Epistles AFTER Revelation by John.

Apologetic sources, Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius did NOT acknowledge Paul as an early Evangelist and did NOT claim he wrote letters to Churches.

An Apologetic source in "Against Marcion" claimed Marcion was AWARE of the Pauline Epistles" but NO Church writer knew of "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

ALL DATED Texts of antiquity cannot account for a Pauline writer in the 1st century

There is REASONABLE DOUBT that Paul is a 1st century character.

aa5874

Again, I am using the WRITTEN STATEMENTS OBSERVED in the NT Canon and NOT my imagination.

People CAN make Logical deductions from OSERVERED WRITTEN STATEMENTS.

This is done on a daily basis throughout the world by ordinary people.

Duvduv

Just like it is possible to make logical deductions from OBSERVED WRITTEN STATEMENTS on Philippians 2 regarding incongruity of text and the possibility of composite texts. Thank you.

aa5874

Did you not imply that what I do is speculation and imagination in your previous post???

Come on, Duvduv!!! You keep changing your story AFTER I post.

You speculate and imagine the contents of the Pauline letters. I do NO such thing.

Derlid

I have to appologise having reread the thread it's clear I got completely the wrong end of the stick, I'd tell you to ignore my posts, but luckily you already did. Sorry, carry on.

Kent F

AA, why do you assume Acts was written before the Pauline epistles when the textual evidence within them suggest the opposite?

Why would the writer/writers of the Pauline epistles not include material from Acts which prove without a doubt that Paul in his epistles knew of a historical Jesus? Why did they not make Paul mention John the Baptist, the virgin Mary, Jesus miracles, Lazarus, Pilate, Golgotha and the empty tomb? Why did they not make Paul visit at least some of the places of Jesus, like the empty tomb? Instead, they made Paul utterly unaware of a historical Jesus. They even made him say that his gospel was of no man, despite him being portrayed as a spokesperson for Peter in the, according to you, previously written Acts. It defies all logic.

I know, aa, you will say: ”because it's all fiction anyway.” But even if the RC invented their historical Jesus and all the persons surrounding him, why didn't they invent that Paul met Mary and had visited the empty tomb? This would make Paul tied closer to their own beliefs.

Perhaps you might answer that the epistles are about the resurrection and it was no need to mention Jesus' mission on earth. But according to the Roman church, Jesus resurrected from an empty tomb on earth so why not at least mention that? Why keep silent about such an important event in their own beliefs? And why did they make Paul visit Jerusalem and stay with Cephas for 15 days without adding that Paul saw the empty tomb? Again, it defies all logic.

Another example: If the RC created the epistles, then why did they make them gnostic so that Irenaeus had to rely upon the previously unknown Pastorals to prove that Paul was no gnostic but belonged to the Roman school of thought?

And what about all the contradictions? In Acts, Peter said he was the first apostle to the Gentiles. In the Epistles, Paul said he was. In Acts, James decided that circumcision was not needed for the Gentiles. In the Epistles, Paul decided this. In Acts, Paul upholds the old Jewish law, in the epistles he talked of a new law. In Acts, Paul was made into a spokesperson for Peter and had the utmost respect for the so called pillars. In the Epistles, Paul had his gospel of no man, he ridiculed Peter and he thought the pillars added nothing to his faith. There are many other examples where Acts and the Epistles contradict one another and to assume from all this that Acts came first is just absurd. Why would they first write an orthodox book like Acts and then go on to tear it all apart by adding the epistles with its mysticism, its unhistorical Jesus, its talk of a new covenant and its contempt for their own founder Peter? Logic has it that the Epistles were first, Acts later.

The King Aretas bit in 2 Cor is an obvious interpolation. It's stuck at the end of chapter 11 and doesn't fit in with the preceding text in verses 29-30. If deleted, the text flows much better from verse 30 and directly on to verse 1 of chapter 12. It's been added by the same person or persons who wrote Acts. The same with the visits to Jerusalem: there are several sources saying that Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was after 14 years, not three. Then we have Jerome who said that Marcion's version of Galatians did not include ”through God the father” so that the first verse instead read: ”Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, who raised him from the dead.” Why do these different versions of the epistles exist if they were all invented by the RC?

And why didn't Paul at least once or twice address the questions his listeners must have asked regarding why he never wrote anything about Mary, the Baptist and Jesus' mission on earth?

But all of this is explained by saying that Paul did not belong to the Roman church to begin with. He had Alexandrian roots and this church was earlier than the Roman church. This is why the epistles look like they do, interpolated but not fabricated from scratch. Paul was the apostle of the first christian or chrestian church. His epistles, probably all written after 70 CE, were stolen and reshaped by the winning heretics, the Roman church.

Duvduv

.....Or, Kent, there never was a Paul who wrote any epistles in the first or second centuries at all, and the epistles are simply composites of montheistic tracts and emerging Christian references before the canonical gospels were finalized as written documents with their storylines.

Kent F

No, this doesn't make sense either because of the content of the epistles. Since the NT did not exclude the old Jewish law, but was added as a fulfillment of it, why the need for quotes or references ascribed to a Paul where he declared the old law obsolete? Why the need to include that he was brought up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words and that his gospel was of no man?

Wouldn't a composite of material show more coherence with the beliefs in a historical Jesus since they, the Roman church, in your scenario was able to pick and choose what to include? In other words, we're back to the silence on Mary, Jesus' mission on earth and so forth. Why weren't these references included in the Pauline material? Because they didn't exist? But if so, what stopped the Roman church from including it?

As I see it, the most plausibe explanation is still that the Pauline epistles had different roots and they were included in the Roman canon as a means to incorporate the followers of the earlier Alexandrian church.