MrMacSon wrote,
That Paul was visiting or interacting with established churches suggests the Pauline narrative, or some of the Pauline narrative, is post 1st century ...
robert j wrote
Sure. That is if one makes what I believe to be the mistake of including as part of the “Pauline narrative” the legendary and mostly fictional tales of Paul found in the Acts of the Apostles.
Except Galatians - & other Pauline-texts such as Corinthians - also refers to established churches;
- as references & quotes in this thread, above (p1), show.
ghost wrote; in response to robert j
How do you know some weird kind of churches didn't exist before Paul?
Various versions of churches probably did exist 1st C, as Judaism had been diversifying for the preceding 200 yrs; & various versions of Gnosticism etc would have been present, too
But I'd still contend the churches referred to in the Pauline texts are/were churches more-established than one would expect from the efforts of 'Paul' the first evangelical (as we have been led to believe he was)
.
<<But I'd still contend the churches referred to in the Pauline texts are/were churches more-established than one would expect from the efforts of 'Paul' the first evangelical (as we have been led to believe he was)>>
Just how long would it have taken to 'establish' the churches Paul was writing to, and how do you come to that conclusion? I'd like someone to explain to me why it would have taken more than say-- 3 years.
TedM wrote:Just how long would it have taken to 'establish' the churches Paul was writing to, and how do you come to that conclusion? I'd like someone to explain to me why it would have taken more than say-- 3 years.
What would the basis for such alleged/proposed early Pauline-'Christian' doctrine?
The canonical gospels would not have been available ...
steve43 wrote:You nay-sayers will never admit that Acts was a pre-revolt document.
One interesting aspect is the Archeological evidence for one of the characters found in Acts, Julius Gallio. It was an inscription found at Delphi.
By the same logic of your implied argument Tacitus wrote his Annals within four years of your date for the completion of Luke's Acts.
I don't know anyone who doubts that the story of Acts was set in the "pre-revolt" era. Everyone who's ever read a basic introduction or commentary on Acts knows the archaeological evidence for Gallio and his date of his office.
steve43 wrote:Not in and of itself. Just another piece of evidence that supports an early dating of Acts.
The only dating it logically supports is that Acts was written some time after Gallio. There is no logical connection between the Gallio date and a claim that Acts was written before or after 64.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Thanks for your reply. I think we can at least agree that re-assembling the Corinthian correspondence is complex, with many inter-connected themes to weave together. Investigators have proposed many, widely-varying solutions --- usually with supporting arguments.
Because many of our basic assumptions differ, I suspect we’re unlikely to find much agreement.
steve43 wrote:Not in and of itself. Just another piece of evidence that supports an early dating of Acts.
The only dating it logically supports is that Acts was written some time after Gallio. There is no logical connection between the Gallio date and a claim that Acts was written before or after 64.
Gimme a break.
If a the Delphic inscription said Gallio was in charge of Greece in A.D. 94, for instance, you guys would be all over it.
TedM wrote:Just how long would it have taken to 'establish' the churches Paul was writing to, and how do you come to that conclusion? I'd like someone to explain to me why it would have taken more than say-- 3 years.
What would the basis for such alleged/proposed early Pauline-'Christian' doctrine?
The canonical gospels would not have been available ...
It happened sometime, so why not early as opposed to 'late'?
My curiosity is why someone would think that it could take a long time for Paul's churches to have been established. I don't know what basis there is for such a claim. If Mormonism could grow to 6,000 in 8 years, why is there a reason to think Paul couldn't have established a number of churches is just a couple of years?
