Duvduv

When I refer to the canonized gospels I mean the texts that would eventually become part of the canon but that were not yet written wen Acts appeared! So in that case Acts got its few brief references to a historical Jesus from some other source, including a source that had followers asking Jesus when the kingdom of Israel would be reestablished.
For all I know Acts may be a composite of more than one story line.
And I don't think it or the other texts that joined the canon were written in either the first or second centuries, and maybe only in the fourth.
And I don't believe the author of Acts "must " have known all the stories that found their way into the gospels.The first sentences of Acts nothwithstanding. And I don't believe the apologists wrote in the second century either.
Am I being any clearer??

Toto

There is no reason to think that the gospels had not been written when Acts appeared. If you think so, at least provide some scrap of evidence or argument.

There is no basis for this claim of fourth century authorship. Please stop posting it unless you can show some basis for the claim. There's enough nonsense circulating on the internet as it is.


You need to explain why you assert the things that you do.

Duvduv

When someone cavalierly demands censorship on the internet we are looking at the dawn of a police state. And we find ourselves going back to the battle of questioning sacred cows such as the doctrine of no NT texts were authored after the second century because it necessarily calls into question the hallowed compliance with the tradition that apologists were writing in the second century despite the questions that arise from these assertions.

Toto

It is not censorship to ask you to back up your assertions.

I have tried to explain that the sacred cow is that the NT was written in the first century. Feel free to question that. But please provide some reasons.

Duvduv

Toto, you were asking me not to post certain statements anymore. Then you mentioned what is circulating on the internet. You seemed to seek censorship. Perhaps that was not your intention.

Toto

You seem to have a problem understanding plain English. Perhaps a discussion board is not the best use of your time.

rlogan

Persecution complex much? Google narcissistic personality disorder.

Getting anything to back his highness' claims is extraordinarily difficult, but at last here is your source - C.P. Sense, but not one jot or tittle about the reasoning. You don't get to assign readings to us, your majesty. What is the reasoning?



This isn't reasoning. This is some kind of weird make-believe analogy. You dismiss accounts of Marcion, without reasoning behind it other than apologists were biased - but that can be said of all the extant literature, every scrap of it. There is no point to you being here if that is the case.

That is what I said before, which you claimed was an argument ad hominem. It clearly isn't. It is the logical extension of your own claim to yourself.

Nothing is known of him? You only arrive at that by dismissing the accounts of him, so this is more than begging the question. You not only assume your conclusion, but do so in contradiction to the evidence.

Most of Justin Martyr's works have been lost, so it is a bizarre claim to say he "said nothing" of him when we do not have most of his works to begin with. But Irenaeus tells us in Book IV Ch. 6 of Against Heresies that Justin wrote a tract entitled Against Marcion, and Irenaeus quotes from it.

I don't mean Tertullian's Against Marcion. This is Justin Martyr's tract. There were others too, discussed by Mead in An Introduction to Marcion. Marcionism continued for centuries, on into the 5th century, necessitating additional similar works against Marcionism.

So the claim he didn't even exist is pretty amazing.

la70119

Who do you expect corrupted it?

Doug Shaver

I don't. I'm accepting the judgment of people who seem to know what they're talking about, and many of those people are in no useful sense committed to defending any orthodoxy.

And it doesn't matter much to my point. Let's suppose the author of Acts was only pretending to be the guy who wrote Luke's gospel. Considering the scholarly consensus, the pretense was a very good one. In that case, if he omitted certain material from Acts that appeared in the gospel, we have our explanation: He was smart enough to realize that the author of the gospel would not have included that material, and so he had to leave it out for the sake of credibility.

Duvduv

Doug, that is exactly the logic for the absence of gospel information in the epistles according to those who argue that Paul did know about them. How do you know that most of Justin's works have been lost? That also sounds like the epistle argument . I already asked why Eusebius should be believed that Justin wrote a book against Marcion . I asked Mountainman about Justin specifically because those writings must have been from a period earlier than the epistles because they aren't mentioned. That's important if it is argued that the epistles emerged in the 4th century and not when the heresiologists say they did.

Anyway I don't follow your last point in light of what I just said. You mean to say that no references to stories or aphorisms of the gospel Jesus in the context of all of Acts would be included because of credibility?