Toto

You have no such evidence. You believe that:

• if the author of Acts knew about the Pauline letters, he would have mentioned them;
• he did not mention them,
• therefore he did not know about them.

The first part of you syllogism is false. There is no reason to believe that the author of Acts would necessarily have have mentioned Paul's letters, or would have followed them exactly.

Please stop making this basic logical error.

In Acts, Saul/Paul is blinded by light, so he only hears a voice.

In 1 Cor 15, it is stated that "Christ" appeared to Paul, NOT that Paul was seen by the risen Christ.

The word used for "appear" can refer to spiritual appearances.

steve_bnk

Two Muslims I knew claimed Mohammed appeared to them as real as I was standing there. Both were Iranian immigrants who came over after the revolution. Went to school in engineering. Smart guys.

The Bicameral Mind Theory says that it is a normal mode of our brains. Projecting onto reality with visions and hearing voices talking to you as a ode of thought.

With the rise of logic and articulate language it fell into disrepute, aka 'crazy'.

We look at ancient religion and scripture from the unspoken assumption that the state of self awareness and consciousness is as we are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)


...Bicameralism (the philosophy of "two-chamberedness") is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human mind once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind. The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind only as recently as 3000 years ago....

Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an interdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields.[2] Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods" — commands which were recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry...'

aa5874

You are WRONG. You don't know what you are talking about.

I know what logical deductions are.

You seem to have no idea what logical deductions are.

If the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus then he could NOT have mentioned them

That is EXACTLY what is found in Acts of the Apostles.

The argument that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus is secure and can be maintained forever until new evidence is found.

Only when the author of Acts mentions the Pauline Corpus can it be claimed he was aware of them.

It is illogical to assume the author of Acts knew of the Pauline Corpus when he never mentioned the Pauline letters and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

I cannot accept your presumptions and imagination as evidence from antiquity.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. You must first read the whole of 1 Corinthians.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Please examine 1 Cor.15.15 In Acts, it is claimed by Jesus that Saul/Paul had a VISION of Ananias and the supposed very Jesus sent Ananias to Paul. See Acts 9

The author of Acts knew nothing at all of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

jgreen44

OK. For the sake of argument, let's say author A betrays no knowledge of author B's writings. But it's also true that author B betrays no knowledge of author A's writings.

From 1 & 2 above we cannot conclude that author A wrote before author B or that author B wrote before author A. So in that sense, what I say does have an effect on your argument.

Well, that settles it then. According to Acts, Paul was incapable of writing.


In the entire Pauline corpus there is no mention of Acts of the Apostles or any intention by Luke to write a church history.

Contradictions between Acts and the Epistles do not necessarily mean the Epistles were written after Acts or that Acts were written after the Epistles. Contradictions could also mean that both authors were aware of the other's work but disagreed with one another. Or that, at the time of the writing, neither author knew of the work of the other. Or one work was badly edited.



OK. You imagine that Acts was written before the Epistles. I do not accept that. I mean it could be true. But I do not accept it as fact.

Or, conversely, the author of the Epistles did NOT know of the Acts of the Apostles because he claimed that Paul received a direct revelation of Jesus without the mediation of any human being.



http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/05/...ite-challenge/

aa5874

Again, you do not seem to understand what an argument is.

The argument that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus is not affected at all by your argument that the Pauline writers were not aware of Acts.

It is only when you actually present evidence from antiquity that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline Corpus that you may have a negative effect on my argument.


Again, you present absurdities and strawman arguments instead of evidence from antiquity. Who is arguing that Saul/Paul was incapable of writing??

We have stories about Paul in Acts up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-63 CE and those stories do not include anything about the Pauline Corpus.

That is precisely what is expected when the author did not know of the Pauline letters.

Your claims cannot alter the fact that the author of Acts wrote nothing about the Pauline Corpus and Paul's Revealed Gospel.

It may also mean that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

It would appear to me that you do not at all understand that arguments are developed using the present available evidence from antiquity.

If someone is charged with a crime--arguments can be deveolped for innocence or guilt.

1. Argument for gulit based on the evidence

2. Argument for innonence based on the evidence.

I am arguing that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Copus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel and there is no actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that can contradict my argument right now.

Where is the evidence from antiquity to show that my argument is not valid?

I did not imagine that the author of Acts did not mention the Pauline Copus and Revealed Gospel--it is fact.

1. The Jerusalem Church gave letters to the Pauline group. See Acts 15

2. Paul had a vision of Ananias in Acts according to Jesus. See Acts 9.12

3. Up to the time of Festus, procurator of Judea, c 59-63 CE there is no mention of Paline letters in the Entire Acts.

Again, such an argument is not in opposition to my argument. If you are not arguing that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revevealed Gospel then you have no effect at all on what I have shown in Acts.


What is your argument? I have little or no interest in flawed opinion. My argument is that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revealed Gospel based on the EXISTING PRESENT evidence from antiquity.

May I remind you that no Pauline letters have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 59-63 CE.

There is no actual evidence than can show the author of Acts knew of the Pauline Corpus.

Toto

discussion of Marcion has been split here

Horatio Parker

Yes.

Consciousness itself is a relatively recent evolutionary development. Why shouldn't we see evidence of that from two thousand years ago.

Jung argued that the progression from the Yahweh of Job to Christ represented a greater consciousness; Job's Yahweh was essentially unconscious, as the Gnostics said. Christ was a more advanced figure; a recognition or admission that God was an internal process.

But another aspect is the language we use. "Spirit" has connotations of superstition and ignorance, but "mood" is fine. If we have an idea or inspiration, who's to say it isn't a "spirit"?

jgreen44

Then, by the same token, it is only when you actually present evidence from antiquity that the author of the Epistles knew of Acts that you may have a negative effect on my argument.


My point is that letters from the Jerusalem church to the Pauline group do not rule out letters from Paul to the Pauline group. It is absurd to claim: "The Jerusalem church wrote letters to the Pauline group. Therefore, Paul did not write letters to the Pauline group."
And we have the Pauline Epistles which do not include anything about Acts of the Apostles.

That is precisely what is expected when the author did not know of Acts of the Apostles.

I am not trying to alter that fact. And your claims cannot alter the fact that the author the Pauline Corpus wrote nothing about the Acts of the Apostles.

Which, if true, does not necessarily mean the Epistles were written after Acts or that Acts were written after the Epistles.

I understand that author A's apparent ignorance of author B's work does not necessarily mean author B wrote after author A.

And I am not disputing that. But it also needs to be said, apparently several times that the author of the Epistles did not know of Acts and there is no actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that can contradict my argument right now.

So I am still not seeing how author A's ignorance of the work of author B means what you want it to mean.

The Epistles preceding Acts based upon Paul never mentioning Acts is also an argument. Where is the evidence from antiquity to show that this argument is not valid?

And that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that you imagine Acts precedes the Epistles. because the author of Acts does not mention the Pauline Corpus.

I am just pointing out that your argument from Luke's ignorance is no better than my argument from Paul's ignorance.



Fine. And your evidence for the 1st century dating of Acts is?

I agree. There is also no actual evidence than can show the author of the Pauline Corpus knew of Acts.

aa5874

I have already presented my evidence for my argument and you have not been able to show that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

You attempted to challenge my argument but instead introduce another claim which has no negative effect on my initial argument.


My argument does not rule out any other argument. Again, you do not seem to understand that arguments are developed using the present existing argument.

You very well know that the argument that a defendant is guilty of a crime does not rule out any argument for his innocence.

It is the strenght of the arguments that will make one conclude whether not the defendant is guilty or not.

It is the very same thing in the resolution of any matter at any level.


You are merely confirming that there is nothing at all unreasonable in my intial argument. In order to argue that Acts of the Apostles was composed before the Pauline letters it must be that the author of Acts could not have known of the Pauline letters.



Your strawman argument has no rebuttal effect on my initial argument. You have already acknowledged that Acts of the Apostles could have been composed before the Pauline Corpus.

We have Acts of the Apostles and it does not mention the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revealed Gospel and in addition there are Apologetic sources in the 2nd century that also show no awareness of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

Justin Martyr claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets were read in the Churches

And further, there is an Apoologetic source which claims the Pauline writings were composed After Revelation by John.

My argument is based on the abundance of evidence not just Acts of the Apostles.

You don't understand that one must examine the evidence from antiquity from MULTIPLE sources to determine whether A's ignorance of author B satisfies the argument that author A did not know of author B because author wrote AFTER author A.

One MUST COLLECT the evidence--collect the DATA.

I am dealing with the PRESENT EXISTING evidence found in Acts of the Apostles and Multiple Apologetic sources.

The DATA clearly show that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline writings because they were most likely NOT written.

You are probably not aware of the evidence from antiquity from Apologetic sources. You probably have not done any proper research on the Pauline Corpus. Are you not aware that it has already been deduced that letters in the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul?

Tell me, who is the real Paul??

You have not presented the evidence for your strawman argument.

You seem stuck with your strawman.

Again, if you have ever been to a court trial it would be seen that people make arguments for or against the defendant by presenting the necessary evidence or witnesses and they are then CROSS-EXAMINED.

Telling me that the Epistles preceded Acts is an argument is of no real value if you are not prepared to present the DATA to support your argument.

Where is the evidence from antiquity?? What sources of antiquity support you? Please, bring your witnesses to the stand so that they can be cross-examined for veracity and credibility.

I would be extremely delighted to see what data you have for your strawman argument.


Again, you have no idea what logical deductions are.

People can resolve chronological and historical problems by deductive reasonning.

We have hundreds of writings about Jesus and Paul and it can easily be deduced that the Pauline writings were planted some time after 180 CE.

Who is Luke? What did Luke write? Please present your evidence for Luke? I don't know what he wrote.

Which Paul are you talking about? The Paul that wrote the Pastorals??

According to Church writers Paul died under Nero but still was alive when gLuke was already composed. See Church History 6.

And in the Muratorian Canon Paul wrote the Epistles AFTER Revelation by John.

When did Paul really live?

I did not date Acts of the Apostles to the 1st century.
Do you understand what BEFORE means?

Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus was composed. The Pauline Corpus may have been composed as late as the end of the third century or after the writings of Arnobius' "Against the Heathen".

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus were unknown up to at least c 180 CE.

Again, you have not presented any real evidence, any real data, to support your argument.

I need to see the DATA you should have collected to make such an argument.

I need to cross-examine your "witnesses" that claim Paul did not know Acts.

You have NO data? You have no "witnesses"? You really have no argument.

If we properly examine the Pauline Corpus and other Apologetic sources it may come to light that the Pauline writers did know of Acts of the Apostles.

jgreen44

And I have already presented my evidence for my argument and you have not been able to show that the author of the Pauline Corpus knew of Acts. It's a wash.


Agreed. And in this case there is reasonable doubt re: the veracity of both your theory and my theory. Because we are both basing our conclusions upon the documented ignorance of an author.



And you are merely confirming that there is nothing at all unreasonable in my intial argument. In order to argue that the Epistles were composed before Acts it must be that the author of the Epistles could not have known of Acts.

Yes I have. For the same reason I acknowledge that the Pauline Corpus could have been composed before Acts.

And when do these Apologetic sources in the 2nd century show awareness of Acts?

Some people think Revelation may be among the earliest Christian writings.
And then there is John Chrysostom who strongly implies that Acts is much later than the 2nd century.

Acts clearly shows that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline writings. What else clearly shows that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline writings?

I'm sorry. By "Pauline Corpus" I assumed we were talking about the 7 supposedly authentic epistles.
I don't know. What is the non-fiction section of Acts?


And when was Acts planted?

I was just going with the standard assumption/belief that Luke wrote Acts.
And who wrote Acts? All of these writings are suspicious.

So neither Acts nor the Epistles can be dated to the 1st century and somehow this is evidence that Acts precedes the Epistles.


The following statement by John Chrysostom contradicts the belief that Acts of the Apostles was included in the NT canon as long ago as the 2nd century.
In the 2nd century, Irenaeus, we are told, appears to have written about Acts. Yet 200 years later John Chrysostom states that people hardly knew of the existence of the book of Acts and hardly knew its author.

Examine the words of John Chrysostom.

Homilies1 of Acts

"To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.

For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight....."

At the end of the 4th century the Book of Acts, a book which supposedly had been included in the canon of the New Testament for 200 years, was "so little known" that it was "hidden and out of sight"? At the end of the 4th century the author of Acts, Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke, was "so little known" that many people were "not even aware" that he or his writings existed?


I have presented the Pauline Corpus as evidence. You have presented Acts as evidence.