Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-16-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's not an issue of "repeating," but an issue of integrating the alleged historical Jesus into the events of Acts. You know, a quote from a gospel, from the Sermon on the Mount. Paul wishing he could pray at Bethlehem or Capernaum, a brief visit to Golgotha. You know....to show his familiarity with what the author believed Paul knew about the HJ.

...

Repeating is your word, not mine.

The author did not think that Paul knew anything about the HJ. He (or she?) explicitly has Paul visited by a spiritual Christ and struck blind. The HJ was not part of the process.

Duvduv · 02-16-2012, 02:22 PM

I think that is a much too simplified explanation given the extent of the entire book.
About the repetition, you stated:
Precisely: the author of Acts rejected Paul's theology. Why should he repeat it? But he knew of the epistles.
That's what I was reacting to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's not an issue of "repeating," but an issue of integrating the alleged historical Jesus into the events of Acts. You know, a quote from a gospel, from the Sermon on the Mount. Paul wishing he could pray at Bethlehem or Capernaum, a brief visit to Golgotha. You know....to show his familiarity with what the author believed Paul knew about the HJ.

...

Repeating is your word, not mine.

The author did not think that Paul knew anything about the HJ. He (or she?) explicitly has Paul visited by a spiritual Christ and struck blind. The HJ was not part of the process.

Toto · 02-16-2012, 02:29 PM

You go back and forth between asking why the author of Acts didn't insert historical references, and why he didn't insert references to Paul's theology. I see those as two distinct questions.

I still see this as an argument from silence, where you have not explained why speech would be expected.

Duvduv · 02-16-2012, 02:46 PM

This is something of an alleged biography of a highly revered follower of the Savior Christ. Thus we would certainly expect some degree of evidence of what this great man knew and felt in his own life of his Christ. His feelings about the sayings, life and teachings of this Savior. And since this Paul is alleged to be the author of the epistles or at least held to the theology of the epistles, one would expect to see some expression of it through the pen of his devoted companion. Yet we see none of this at all.
My conclusion is therefore that the author of Acts provides no evidence that he knew the epistles or gospel stories. That's all. Not too complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You go back and forth between asking why the author of Acts didn't insert historical references, and why he didn't insert references to Paul's theology. I see those as two distinct questions.

I still see this as an argument from silence, where you have not explained why speech would be expected.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the author of Acts rejected Paul's theology. Why should he repeat it?

The ‘calling on the name of the lord’ motif (Joel 2:32 LXX) is present in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

Where did the author of Romans get his idea to quote Joel? It looks like 'Paul' was repeating 'Peter'. - Maybe even correcting Peter (over the issue of the Gentiles).

In any case - we should consider literary dependencies – not just 'theological' dependencies.

Toto · 02-16-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This is something of an alleged biography of a highly revered follower of the Savior Christ. Thus we would certainly expect some degree of evidence of what this great man knew and felt in his own life of his Christ.

We have that - the spiritual Christ appeared to him.

Quote:

His feelings about the sayings, life and teachings of this Savior.

He didn't know anything about the sayings, life, or teaching of a historical Jesus. Why would he? That's the whole point - his religious was not based on a historical Jesus.

Quote:

And since this Paul is alleged to be the author of the epistles or at least held to the theology of the epistles, one would expect to see some expression of it through the pen of his devoted companion. Yet we see none of this at all.
My conclusion is therefore that the author of Acts provides no evidence that he knew the epistles or gospel stories. That's all. Not too complicated.

How long will you go on missing the point?

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Doherty has ALREADY written books based on an Early Paul. Quite logically, Doherty cannot ever accept or agree that Paul was a LATE writer, AFTER the Short-Ending gMark, After the Long-Ending gMark, After gMatthew and AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple unless he recants or discredits his own writings.

Right.

</thread>

Toto · 02-16-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Doherty has ALREADY written books based on an Early Paul. Quite logically, Doherty cannot ever accept or agree that Paul was a LATE writer, AFTER the Short-Ending gMark, After the Long-Ending gMark, After gMatthew and AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple unless he recants or discredits his own writings.

Right.

</thread>

Eh? If Doherty thought that he could show that Paul wrote all of his letters after 70 CE, he could rework his theory into something even more radical.

He has spent a lot of time on reading early Christian writings. You might not agree with his conclusion, but there's no reason to think this motives are that self-serving.

If you seriously think that aa5874 has a point, please start a new thread. Most serious posters here have him on ignore for a reason.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Doherty thought that he could show that Paul wrote all of his letters after 70 CE, he could rework his theory into something even more radical.

Not if it never occurred to him. - Not if he just assumed that Paul was real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He has spent a lot of time on reading early Christian writings.

Nevertheless this is all he has to show relating to the historical Paul:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/04/...rtys-position/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you seriously think that aa5874 has a point, please start a new thread.

Why? All anyone has to do is read his posts to see that he has a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most serious posters here have him on ignore for a reason.

I have no way of knowing if that is true.

I have no way of knowing what you mean by ‘serious posters’

I'm not sure that you and I would agree on what a ‘serious poster’ is.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-16-2012, 04:13 PM

Thanks again Earl.

</thread>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2012, 02:29 PM	#63
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You go back and forth between asking why the author of Acts didn't insert historical references, and why he didn't insert references to Paul's theology. I see those as two distinct questions. I still see this as an argument from silence, where you have not explained why speech would be expected.

02-16-2012, 04:13 PM	#70
Bingo the Clown-O Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 310	Thanks again Earl. </thread>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.