aa5874

The claim that the author of Acts also wrote gLuke is a most devastating admittance because it destroys the historicity of the Jesus character and also destroys the presumptions that there were Pauline letters to at least Seven Churches up to the time Acts was composed.

If gLuke was written by the author of Acts then we supposedly have an unbroken chronology from the conception and birth of Jesus, around the time of the Taxiing of Cyrenius to Festus the procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE when Saul/Paul traveled to Rome for trial.

The very first thing in gLuke 1 is that Jesus was Born of a Ghost and this piece of "history" was derived from witnesses.

Immediately, the author of gLuke has Denied the historicity of his Jesus.

The Lucan Jesus story is Mythology from beginning to end.

Now, it is EXTREMELY important to understand that the Good News of Salvation by the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus was NOT, I repeat, was NOT preached and could NOT have been preached BEFORE Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

1. In gLuke There was NO real Jesus.

2. In gLuke there was No Preaching of Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection.

3. In gLuke, Jesus, the Son of a Ghost MUST first be crucified, then Resurrect and Receive the Promised Holy Ghost in order for the Goood News to be preached.

4. In gLuke, Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, First Resurrected and then Later Authorised the preaching of the Good News of the resurrection.

5. In gLuke, even with the Authorisation, the disciples MUST still wait for the Holy GHOST to get the POWER to preach the Good News of the resurrection.

6. In gLuke, the resurrected Son of a Ghost MUST Ascend BEFORE the Holy Ghost can be received by the disciples.

7. gLuke ENDS Before the arrival of the Promised Holy Ghost.

8. gLuke ENDS Before the Good News of the Resurrection was Preached.

Examine the End of gLuke.

Luke 24 The GOOD NEWS of the Crucifixion and Resurrection was NOT ever preached in Galilee when the Son of a Ghost was there.

During the "Lifetime" of the Son of a Ghost and up to the very day the Son of a Ghost Ascended the Good News had NOT been ever preached.

Now, based on gLuke, it is rather easy to deduce that Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3, 20.9.1 and Tacitus Annals 15.44 are Forgeries and do NOT even corroborate the very NT Canon.

The Jesus story is total fiction in gLuke and the Good News was NOT ever preached in Judea even after the resurrection. In gLuke, Jesus the Son of a Ghost had already Vanished before the Promised Holy Ghost arrived like a Mighty rushing wind [a tornado-a trpical storm???]

Jesus in gLuke came into the world as a Ghost, left as a Ghost and even Promised to send another Ghost to give the disciples POWER to preach the Good News.

No Ghost stories of the Jesus character have ever been recovered from the 1st century.

The Recovered Ghost stories of Jesus are ALL Dated to the 2nd century or later.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and the Jesus story and cult Developed sometime in the 2nd century.

aa5874

Justin Martyr demonstrated in Dialogue with Trypho and First Apology that the so-called Pauline revelations form the Resurrected Jesus character were not necessary at all.

Justin Martyr primarily used Hebrew Scripture to develop his Christology.

In Tatian's Discourse with the Greeks there is no mention of any Pauline writings.

Eusebius claimed that he had learned that the Four Gospels were the only indisputable Gospels so it is NOT expected that Eusebius would be a credible source for Diatesseron.

Now, once the writings of Justin Martyr is examined it will noticed that the Memoirs of the Apostles contain elements of the Four Gospels.

The very same way that the authors of gMathew and gLuke Plagerised gMark they could have plagerised the Memoirs of the Apostles.

aa5874

Church writers claimed the author of Acts also wrote gLuke but in doing so they have unwittingly destroyed any argument for an historical Jesus and have destroyed the claim that the Pauline writings were early.

In gLuke, Jesus was the Son of a Ghost. He walked and talked like one.

In gLuke, it did NOT matter whether Jesus did a "million" outrageous miracles--he still had to Resurrect so that the Good News of the Resurrection could be preached.

And further AFTER Jesus resurrected the disciples still could NOT preach the Good News of the Resurrection until Jesus ascended so that he could Send the Promise of the Holy Ghost.

Now, this is extremely important.

The Goods News of the Crucifixion and Resurrection was Preached AFTER the Promised Holy Ghost came to earth.

The Good News of Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Gospel, was not ever preached by a human Jesus, not even by the Son of a Ghost.

Even the supposed disciples NEVER met a human Jesus in gLuke.

Now, examine Acts of the Apostles. After the Holy Ghost came to earth, the disciple got the Power to preach the Good News of the Resurrection.

This is important--In Acts, the Preaching of the Good News of the Resurrection PREDATED Saul/Paul.

8000 persons were already converted in Acts BEFORE Saul/Paul preached the Good News of the Resurrection. See Acts 2.41 and Acts 4.4.

Saul/Paul persecuted those who preached the Good News of the Resurrection. Stephen was stoned to death under the watch of Saul/Paul. See Acts 7.

Up to the time of Saul/Paul NO ONE in gLuke or Acts had ever met an human Jesus--they Met and interacted with the Son of the Ghost.

And it is even far worse for Saul/Paul because he was Blinded when he Heard a Voice of the Son of the Ghost. See Acts 9.

There is NO human Jesus in gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

But what about the Pauline letters what does it say in the Acts of the Apostles??

What Pauline letters??? Why does Paul have to write letters to Churches???

The Good News of the Resurrection was ALREADY Known and Preached.

The Jerusalem Church already WROTE letters and gave to Saul/Paul to DELIVER. See Acts 15.

gLuke and Acts of the Apostles mentioned NOTHING of a human Jesus and Nothing of the Pauline letters up to c 59-62 CE.

Effectively, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles are chronologically compatible with Justin Martyr.

In Justin Martyr's writings the Jesus stories were mentioned but NOT the Pauline writings and this is EXACTLY what is reflected in gLuke and Acts.

Justin Martyr's chronology appears to corroborated--if Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches then it was AFTER gLuke was composed.

aa5874

Let me recap.

Church writers claim that the author of gLuke was also the author of Acts of the Apostles.

That admittance shows that gLuke was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters were known.

This is extremely Significant.

The author of Acts Implied in the very first verses of Acts that he had WRITTEN a Treatise about the Teachings and Acts of Jesus up to the Ascension.

In effect, a Jesus story was ALREADY composed BEFORE Acts of the Apostle was composed.

This is very Singnificant.

The events in Acts of the Apostles END at around c 59-62 CE when Festus was procurator..

Acts 24:27 KJVActs 26:32 KJV The author of Acts claimed he Traveled with Saul/Paul when he Re-visited the Brethren and documented NO letters to Churches by Paul. See Acts 15.36 and Acts 16.13.

Saul/Paul wrote NO letters to Churches AFTER gLuke was written and up to c 59-62 CE based on Acts.

ALL claims by Scholars that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 59-62 CE is hopelessly erroneous and should have been known to be in error.

There is simply NO evidence whatsoever anywhere in the NT Canon that the character called Saul/Paul in Acts is the actual author the so-called Pauline letters.

But, now when was Acts of the Apostles composed??

The first mention of a manuscript called Acts of the Apostles is in "Against Heresies" supposedly written around c 180 CE.

There is NO evidence that Acts of the Apostles is an early writing.

The evidence suggests that Saul/Paul of Acts was NOT the author of the so-called Pauline letters to Churches.

Saul/Paul wrote NO letters at all before c 59-62 CE and was not known to have written letters to Churches up to the composition of Acts.

J-D

“Admission” is a much more common word than “admittance” and is a good choice for almost all contexts. You may gain admission or admittance to a college, but you’ll probably be dealing with its admissions office. When “admittance” is used, it’s most likely to refer to physical entry into some place or other, as is indicated by signs saying “No Admittance.”

In electronics, admittance is the opposite of impedance.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/admission.html



Admission and admittance are sometimes interchangeable, but they do differ in some senses. Admission is broader. It means (1) the act of allowing to enter, (2) the right to enter, (3) the price required to enter, and (4) an acknowledgment of truth. It’s often figurative. For example, you might gain admission to a college or club without physically entering it. Admittance refers to the act of physically entering. Though you might gain admission to a college months before the school year starts, admittance doesn’t happen until you actually get there.

http://grammarist.com/usage/admission-admittance/

aa5874

The history of mankind must be assembled from credible sources.

Even the very NT corroborates the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr wrote about a story of Jesus, the Memoirs of the Apostles, without ever acknowledging the Pauline writings.

The author of Acts claimed he wrote a story of Jesus but the author never acknowledged that Saul/Paul wrote letters even though he claimed he traveled "all over" the Roman Empire with Paul on his Second visit to the Brethren. See Acts 15.36

If gLuke and Acts were composed by the same author then this is what we have learned:

1. gLuke was composed Before Acts.

2. Acts was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

ALL writings that mentioned the Pauline letters were COMPOSED AFTER Acts of the Apostles.

This is a partial list of writings COMPOSED AFTER Acts of the Apostles and the writings attributed to Justin.

1. All the writings attributed to Paul.

2. The Epistles of Ignatius.

3. The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome.

In effect, the author of Acts has destroyed the history of the Church as stated in "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Acts of the Apostles is Compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts which show NO Pauline writings in the 1st century and before c 59-62 CE.

Every Apologetic writing that claimed the Pauline writings were composed Before c 59-62 CE are products of Fiction.

This is a partial list of Apologetic Sources of Fiction:

The Pauline writings.

The Epistles of Ignatius.

The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome.

Writings attributed to Polycarp.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Writings attributed to Tertullian.

Writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

Writings attributed to Origen.

Writings attributed to Eusebius.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century, the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles and after writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Aristides.

J-D

What about the history of womankind?

tanya

No friend, not quite.

admittance is the reciprocal of impedance, and since the latter is a complex number, described using polar forms to represent amplitude and phase of the voltage and current, it is not correct to write, "opposite", as though describing a linear, non-polar, non-complex entity.

One would normally ignore such trivial matters, but then, you couldn't resist attempting to hurl yet another barb at aa5874:

One supposes that your tiny arrow here is intended to glance off him, rather than pierce his skin, and is intended to simply indicate your awareness of any errors he may have penned, instead of confronting his data or conclusions.

In my opinion, your contribution to the forum would be enhanced by offering criticism of the ideas of aa5874, rather than focusing on presumptive English errors, which, he may, or may not have, committed.

J-D

I apologise for not making it clearer that I was doing no more than quoting the source I cited.Your interpretation of my intentions was inaccurate.

My intention was to draw attention to the use of 'man' as if it included 'woman' because in contemporary English this usage, no matter what the etymology, has a demonstrated distorting effect on people's understanding.I cannot offer criticism of aa5874's ideas without first achieving a clear understanding of what they are and I have discovered that this is, sadly, impossible.

tanya

I suppose, if a vote were taken, 90%+ of the forum members would share your opinion.

I do not.

I find expression of his opinion, i.e. his ideas, very clear.

Here's an example: He believes, and I share his enthusiasm for this concept, that the epistles of Paul are second century (earliest date) creations, which succeed, rather than precede, the gospels.

That is an idea. It is not a fact. It is an opinion, one which I feel is most consistent with the evidence.

You would not be alone, in disagreeing with him (and me) on this issue. But, it is one thing to argue error on his part, and quite another to reproach his submissions to the forum because of minor, insignificant, grammatical errors, or, for that matter, even more egregious errors of logic, as we are all capable of expressing, from time to time.

Rather than seeking to belittle, why not offer, instead, a criticism of the idea conveyed by his posts.

Since you have trouble understanding his ideas, you can then explain why it is impossible to criticize, something you can not understand.

This is exactly my problem, when faced with Bart Ehrman's claim that the first description of Jesus' ministry was written in Aramaic.

I cannot understand what Dr. Ehrman is writing. To which texts does this learned savant refer?

I don't have that kind of problem with aa5874. He quotes from sources, which I can identify. He doesn't quote from non existent sources.

How about this: You help me to understand Bart Ehrman, and I will agree to help you to understand aa5874. How's that?