Bernard Muller

Thanks Andrew. Here is the complete quote because I think it gives more interesting info:
It looks the book (about history and pseudo-history) was not considered spiritual enough to be used as basis for preaching.
Actually, I have been reading some of Chrysostom's homelies on Acts, and there are relatively few quotes from Acts, and more from the gospels. It seems that even Chrysostom had difficulties to put Acts in the forefront.

Duvduv

See my comments above......and it is logically apparent that if Acts was unknown or neglected despite it being authored by the same Luke who authored the Gospel under the Holy Spirit, then it is sayint that Christians as seen by this Chrysostom at the dawn of the 5th century did not take Paul as seriously as we would imagine, that apostle of the epistles whose mind Chrysostom tells us was directed by Christ himself.
And yet a canon of all the books, including the epistles and Acts supposedly existed for over 200 years.......Can we be so sure that Pauline Christianity was even taken seriously until then, and until people like Jerome and Augustine came along to put everything in its "place"?

For that matter, if Acts wasn't take seriously, then how do we know the Gospel of Luke OR THE EPISTLES were taken seriously before the year 400 by the masses of "Christians"?

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Emphasis mine
Again, "many" does not mean "all" and Chrysostom also wrote that other "many" knew about the book but did not consider it subtantial.

Duvduv

Please see my previous posting before yours. How could the epistles be taken seriously by people who slighted the Book of Acts allegedly authored by the author of the Gospel under the Holy Spirit, and how could the gospel as volume one be taken seriously if volume two wasn't??

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
The author of gLuke did not say that for either the gospel or Acts: read the introduction for both.

Many elements of Pauline Christianity were incorporated in orthodox Christianity from 'Hebrews' & gJohn up to Augustine, through many texts and authors.

Who said Acts was not taken seriously? It was not used much or not at all in some churches, that's it. But from Irenaeus up to Augustine, many "fathers" commented and quoted and named it.
You'll find the same things for gLuke & epistles: quotes, paraphrasing, naming on many texts in that time period.

Duvduv

So Chrysostom didn't know what he was talking about, and everything was just hunky dorey. The issue is not "incorporation" but use of the texts as part of the canon. If there was a canon, then a festal letter here or an unverifiable claim in an anti-heresy book there does not prove much. And Chrystosom comes along to claim tha the Book of Acts was unknown or neglected despite it having been written by the so-called companion of Paul who wrote a gospel contained in the canon of 4 for the previous 200 years. And a book about the life of Paul was so neglected as the second volume of the gospel, then they couldn't have had much real regard for Paul at all prior to the fifth century. I don't know why you mentioned Hebrews since it wasn't written by the same person from the same sect as the person who wrote the pauline epistles.

Bernard Muller

Chrysostom was talking about what he observed in his community, among the believers, in his times. What happened in other communities at different times might be different. And the fact that many authors referenced Acts during and before Chrysostom's times does not necessarily say Acts was popular with the masses.
But I can understand that Acts was not as known as the gospels and left behind. I already cited two reasons (one very much evidenced by Tertullian's writings) and Chrysostom came up with another one.
It would be interesting to ask today Christians what do they think about the importance of Acts as compare with the gospels. I do not think they would value Acts as much as the gospels and probably a lot less. The gospels are about the alleged founder of their religion. But they do not consider Peter or Paul as such. And Acts is (pseudo)historical, not exactly a source of enlightment.
I do not think there was an official canon yet, but there were several, depending where you look. And Acts was in proto-canons I know of: Irenaeus, Muratorian, Eusebius, etc.
Suit yourself.
No, it is not the second volume of the gospel. And I think Christians (as now) were a lot more interested in what Jesus said and did, than what Peter and Paul did afterwards.
The Jews regard highly the Pentateuch, with the last 4 books all about Moses & the Law, the foundation of their religion, but are they as much interested by the "historical" sequels, Joshua, Judges and Samuel? I doubt it.
I am certain 'Hebrews' was written by Apollos of Alexandria, at times a competitor of Paul, at other times a "helper". Apollos was more popular than Paul among the Corinthians and because of that, Paul had to adopt a lot of Apollos christology/theology such as pre-existent Son of God, co-Creator of the universe and sacrifice for atonement of sins.

aa5874

Homily 1 on Acts When John Chrysostom wrote Homily 1 Acts of the Apostles was just a book and was NOT Canonised and that is PRECISELY why many did NOT know the Book called Acts did exist and did NOT know who wrote Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles is about the supposed Post-Ascension activities of the Apostles AFTER they were FILLED with a Ghost, the start of the Jesus cult called Christians and the blinding light conversion of Paul.

The Pauline writings cannot be properly understood without Acts of the Apostles.

Once Chrysostom claimed MANY did not know the book then it was NOT in the Canon.

Acts of the Apostles with 28 chapters is the Largest book in the Canon by word count and is the ONLY book on the supposed history of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr, Aristides, Muncius Felix, Irenaeus and Celsus in "Against Celsus" appear to corroborate the claims of Chrysostom. They wrote NOTHING of the activities of the Apostles AFTER Jesus ascended except that they preached to gospel to every race of men when in Acts it was Paul who made at least TWO TOURS of the Roman Empire and supposedly preached Christ to the Gentiles.

Up to the late 2nd century, Acts of the Apostles was UNKOWN to Apologetic and non-apologetic sources.

Bernard Muller

Chrysostom (347-407) called Acts part of "holy scriptures".
And it looks the christian canon (with Acts in it) was getting finalized by the times of Chrysostom:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...biblical_canon

Yes, they can, especially in the area of "spiritual" stuff, christology and theology.
I would take Irenaeus out of that list.

Here we go again. WRONG, not even ONE TOUR. I must conclude you do not know about Paul's epistles and Acts

I do not agree with that. There are bits of Acts in gJohn, epistle of Barnabas, Papias' writings, Ignatian letters & Epistula Apostolorum.

aa5874

Please look at Acts again. Paul in Acts did make at least two TOURS of the Roman Empire. From Acts 15 to Acts 28--Paul and his companions traveled all over the Roman Empire and finally Paul ended up in Rome.

Acts 15:36 KJV There are bits of forgeries in Josephus.

I have IDENTIFIED writings that are fraudulent and forgeries, wholly or in part.

Acts, gJohn, epistle of Barnabas, Papias' writings, Ignatian letters & Epistula Apostolorum are all manipulated writings and are NOT credible.

Any writing of antiquity where it is claimed the AUTHOR knew people that saw or heard Jesus, the disciples or Saul/Paul or that the author knew the apostles, NT Jesus or Paul are fraudulent or forgeries.

There is ZERO credible corroborative evidence that NT Jesus did exist and did have apostles called Peter, James and John.

Paul most likely lied when he claimed he stayed with the apostle Peter for fifteen days and the author of Acts of the Apostles most likely INVENTED the blinding light conversion of Saul/Paul.

I have CHALLENGED the historical veracity of ALL writings that mentioned the name Paul and that Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

My investigation has revealed that Paul was a FRAUD-- an INVENTION most likely of the Roman Church.