RE: Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans
November 1, 2015 at 1:02 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2015 at 1:09 am by GrandizerII.)
(October 31, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote:(October 31, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Irrational Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...e_Apostles
A key contested issue is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[/url] Acts differed with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_Judaism]Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.
Book chapter and verse please.
where does acts describe paul differently than how he describes himself?
Or is this empty conjecture? Meaning show me the descrepency rather than point to an unnamed 'expert.'
It's not just one verse or chapter. And it isn't just one unnamed expert. This is the expert consensus.
Bart Ehrman is one example, obviously. And if you don't believe me, check what he has to say about this. Here's just one link:
http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts/
Here's another link by a professor emeritus of religious studies that affirms that the majority of "modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date" (i.e., near the end of the first century). You can read about some differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Epistles there.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml
And, for some more material to read on, here's a book by Richard I. Pervo (New Testament scholar) arguing for the view that Acts was written in the second century.
Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists
