Duvduv

If the texts were all part of a set, then we see Acts as complementing Galatians, especially since this one epistle is the only thing linking this Paul to the unknown location in the region of Galata. But it was all that was needed.

spin

This load of conjecture doesn't deal with the assertion you made:

This only made sense to the reader who had access to the Book of Acts to complement Galatians.

You have no way of knowing what you asserted, unless you have access to such a reader. :banghead:

Sheshbazzar

The 'catholic' position. There is no controversy among us who tacitly agree to endorse this particular 'let's pretend' 'convention', ergo no controversy exists. :banghead:
Thanks <edit> spin, but I think I'll continue a protestant.

Duvduv

I was obviously addressing a different point, wasn't I?
In any case, whatever the redactors were thinking when they combined Acts with the epistles, they didn't think the literati would notice or care about the contrasts. Not even old John Chrysostom in his homilies on Acts. Nothing to explain. No anomalies. Saul and Paul in both texts were the same and complemented each other so beautifully.

spin

You can run and you can hide, Shesh, but you still made a nonsensical claim that you cannot back up. Attempting to shift the burden didn't work. Baiting here doesn't work. You were caught with your pants down and your ugly parts exposed to all and sundry after shooting your mouth off.

Your stupid claim once again: that "the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels... is a very controversial position on Christian history". You have singularly failed to show any controversy at all. But that's the topic of this thread, your claim about controversy. You can't back it up. As you have persistently failed to justify the statement and have performed as you have there is really no point in continuing the thread. You will just continue to duck and dodge.

If you would stop talking nonsense and act more responsibly you wouldn't be forced to do this amusing crab walk you've been forced to do for the last few days. So, confess and say your hail marys.

But for the sake of the forum:

stephan huller

Is this really what we want from the forum? We really seem to be at cross purposes here. There are some who just want a 'hang out' place and others who want to learn something. This has just gone to far this time. Something has to be done about this.

stephan huller

I don't think spin is in trouble or the problem. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. you have a set of beliefs. that's fine. but I don't know how we are supposed to have an engaging discussion if the two of us - or three or four or five of us - just spout what we 'believe.' that isn't the point of this forum.

Sheshbazzar

aa5874 has listed plenty of points of evidence that demonstrate that the speculations supported by catholic 'convention' are as phony and worthless as a three dollar bill.

spin his self has admitted;
Not real. 'the convention'. To be accepted because that is the catholic position, that is the 'status quo'.

So spin can claim that they are not controversial, by the simple ruse of excluding anyone that does not cleave to the catholic ('universal' or 'majority') position, (his) and to the present 'status quo'.

Raising any objections is not allowed because doing so goes against 'the convention' even though that 'convention' is admitted to be faulty and fake.
Therefore any 'controversy' over the matter cannot exist within spin's closed little world.
That is not impartial scholarship, it is an effort to defend of an existing false paradigm and 'status quo' against any change or intrusion.

This is not T-Web. True atheists and skeptics have (or should have) on this site, and within this Forum a right NOT to conform to catholic 'convention', nor bow down in worship of the god 'status quo'.




.

spin

This is continued smokescreen. No-one is defending the convention. It is stated as the status quo, making the position uncontroversial, contrary to your assertion. You have flatly failed to demonstrate your assertion ("that the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels... is a very controversial position on Christian history ...") despite having been asked to do so many times.

You seem to be unrepentently abusing the forum, knowingly purveying your own untinged opinions as facts and failing to abide by the forum guidelines regarding argument by assertion.

Sheshbazzar

And you seem incapable of rational reason. And wish to dominate this Forum like a petty tyrant king.
Your position defending 'status quo' and 'the convention', is not scholarship, it is simply intransigent and obtuse stupidity.