aa5874

You have already claimed that it could be true that Acts was composed before the Epistles.

My argument cannot be contradicted.

On the other hand, I have not agreed that the Pauline Epistles were composed before Acts of the Apostles based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

In other words, it could not be true that the Pauline Corpus was composed before Acts using the present available evidence from antiquity.

jgreen44

Let me make sure I have read you correctly:

Because you have not agreed that it could be true that the Pauline Corpus was composed before Acts of the Apostles it could not be true that the Pauline Corpus was composed before Acts.

Adam

You're going to try reasoning with aa ? Good luck.

spin

You can't fight it. It's deductive reasoning, so it must be true!

aa5874

It is most astonishing and extremely disturbing that you have decided to completely ignore what I have written although it is directly infront of you as posted.

You should be able to repeat what I write!!

jgreen44

But your evidence is no better than mine.

So the only difference between my argument and your argument, as you found important enough to point out, for some reason, is that:

while I have stated that it could be true that Acts was composed before the Epistles, you have not stated that it could be true that the Epistles were composed before Acts.

aa5874

No, No, No!! You have already conceded that my argument could be true and I have stated that your argument is false based on the existing present available evidence.

jgreen44

But the evidence for Acts being written before the Epistles is just as bad as the evidence for the Epistles being written before Acts. We simply do not have enough data to come to a confident answer to the question of which came first.

For example, based on the evidence known to me, I can claim you are a Jew living in Miami. But its just not enough evidence for me to conclude with confidence that you are in fact a Jew living in Miami. It's the same with the question of which came first, the Epistles or Acts. I just can't be sure with the data available to me. But it's possible your hypothesis is correct. It's also possible you are a Jew living in Miami.

aa5874

We have gone through this before. You have already admitted that my argument could be true that Acts was composed before the Pauline Corpus.

The evidence from antiquity for late Pauline writings after Acts is extremely good and far more abundant than previously thought.

I have not admitted that the Pauline Corpus could have been written before Acts based on the present existing evidence.

Again, you present strawman arguments that are hopelessly irelevant. The possibility of me being a Jew living in Miami requires a separate and independent inquiry and the results can be transfered to the inquiry of the chronology Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

I have already declared with resonable confidence that Acts of the Apostles was composed before the Pauline letters based on the present existing abundance of evidence from antiquity.

outhouse

False


Acts describes that not Paul