Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 06:43 AM

aa5874, you and I both know that the little bit of references to the Christ Savior in Acts does not reflect alot of information found in the canonical gospels. It makes no reference to any birth information or anything about his family background. It never invokes any statements or aphorims alleged to have been made by Jesus in the gospels. In chapter 10 the so-called Messiah of chapter 2 is described merely as "doing good" and a healer.

There are those who disagree that Acts has anything to do with the gospel of Luke, but nevertheless, the story of Jesus in Acts itself is so limited and unrelated to all the aphorism and events of the gospels, that the most one could say is that the author of Acts knew some unwritten information about Jesus and nothing else.

And of course we see none of the theological issues of the epistles in Acts about reconciliation and justification, about the indwelling of the Christ.

So as a "bottom line," IF the book of Acts preceded all other NT texts, the question is WHY was it the first written text that gave so little coverage to the Savior himself but spends most of its time on Paul and Peter?

And if so, how and why did this fellow named "Paul" get such top billing when this story never even claims that he knew the Savior during the latter's lifetime in Jerusalem during the time that "Saul/Paul" was also around there and they were both about the same age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

We have clarified this issue and I argued that the Acts version was relatively minor and not the same as the gospel stories.

You have NOT clarified any issue for your claims about Acts. You have made ZERO references to any passage in Acts of the Apostles that support your position and have asked numerous questions.

Your questions and unsubstantiated claims do NOT clarify your position at all.

Acts of the Apostles is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT because it is the ONLY Canonised book, the Apologetic source, about the start of Christianity based on the PROMISE of the Holy Ghost Resurrected.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 06:46 AM

Hi, Kent. Well, why would the writer of the *later* Book of Acts not try to keep the theological and biographical information about "Paul" corresponding to what had already been written about in those epistles?
My thought was HAD the author of Acts seen the epistles HE would certainly have done so. And even if Acts had come first, one would ask the same question concerning the epistles.

I should also add that I personally am very suspicious about the accounts that Marcion had different versions of the epistles, etc. I take claims of "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian" with a huge grain of salt. Their description of the context and scenario involving Marcion has a lot of holes in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

Duvduv wrote:

Quote:

”Those who argue that Acts followed the epistles need to explain why Acts never mentions that "Paul" writes any epistles and why significant doctrinal ideas found in the epistles are never mentioned in Acts. Not to mention the well-known discrepancies. ”

The Marcionites had different versions of the genuine Epistles, shorter with a lot less references to the old scriptures and without such things as ”born of woman”, a former persecutor of the church and a visit to Jerusalem after three years. This suggests that the followers of Marcion, with his roots in Alexandria, were the original christians (or chrestians) and that's why the epistles are not mentioned in Acts because Acts was a product of the Roman church. Acts is an attempt, and a successful one, to make ”Paul” their apostle when Paul was the apostle of an earlier rival church. This also explains the later writings of the Pastoral letters and why Justin Martyr doesn't quote Paul – he couldn't or wouldn't do it because in his time Paul was still "the apostle of the heretics.”

The claim by the highly unreliable church father Eusebius that Paul was talking of gLuke whenever he, Paul, talked of his own gospel is just another such attempt to make Paul part of the Roman church. It's a lie to cover up the fact that Paul did have his own gospel (his vision).

Quote:

”On the other hand, those who argue that Acts was written BEFORE the epistles and gospels must wonder WHY the book was introducing Paul when the epistles had not yet been written, especially if Paul had never existed. What was the need for it? ”

A very relevant question and one that clearly shoots that theory to pieces. It makes no sense at all to fabricate Acts with a fictive apostle Paul appearing as a spokesperson for the fictive Peter and THEN fabricate the Epistles contradicting what was written earlier in Acts.

It makes much more sense that the Epistles were written earlier and then countered by Acts and the Pastorals to make Paul appear to have been part of the Roman church to begin with. Acts and the Pastorals are what aa call blatant lies and bogus. The Epistles are not. Interpolated, yes, but still with a genuine core.

As to why they always appear as a package, I do not know, but I can speculate. Maybe they were written as a package of seven, because seven is a holy number, and maybe they were combined with a gospel to get to another holy number, eight.

God created the world in seven days (or so they say). This makes eight the beginning of a new era. In kabbalistic teachings, the number seven symbolizes perfection – perfection that is achievable via natural means – while eight symbolizes that which is beyond nature and its (inherently limited) perfection.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 12:35 PM

aa5874, in your view if the NT texts were produced into the 4th century, what kind of "Christianity" existed before that time, i.e. before any of these texts were produced? \

If the description in the Justin Apology is any indication, the believers would have recited prayers and stories about their Christ or heard them from their religious leaders from an oral tradition reaching back into the 2nd century?

rlogan · 01-05-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

The Marcionites had different versions of the genuine Epistles, shorter with a lot less references to the old scriptures and without such things as ”born of woman”, a former persecutor of the church and a visit to Jerusalem after three years. This suggests that the followers of Marcion, with his roots in Alexandria, were the original christians (or chrestians) and that's why the epistles are not mentioned in Acts because Acts was a product of the Roman church. Acts is an attempt, and a successful one, to make ”Paul” their apostle when Paul was the apostle of an earlier rival church. This also explains the later writings of the Pastoral letters and why Justin Martyr doesn't quote Paul – he couldn't or wouldn't do it because in his time Paul was still "the apostle of the heretics.”

The claim by the highly unreliable church father Eusebius that Paul was talking of gLuke whenever he, Paul, talked of his own gospel is just another such attempt to make Paul part of the Roman church. It's a lie to cover up the fact that Paul did have his own gospel (his vision).

Well said.

Quote:

A very relevant question and one that clearly shoots that theory to pieces. It makes no sense at all to fabricate Acts with a fictive apostle Paul appearing as a spokesperson for the fictive Peter and THEN fabricate the Epistles contradicting what was written earlier in Acts.

It makes much more sense that the Epistles were written earlier and then countered by Acts and the Pastorals to make Paul appear to have been part of the Roman church to begin with. Acts and the Pastorals are what aa call blatant lies and bogus. The Epistles are not. Interpolated, yes, but still with a genuine core.

Ditto.

Quote:

As to why they always appear as a package, I do not know, but I can speculate. Maybe they were written as a package of seven, because seven is a holy number, and maybe they were combined with a gospel to get to another holy number, eight.

They are a package because each contains different components of the Theology, and this Theology developed over time. Questions arise in a new religion, and are answered with a letter discovered by the scholars at a convenient time. They are a ruse of course. Camoflage. Even if you only start with one that serves as a counterpoint to existing religions, the need is going to arise for more as the church grows and interacts with other Churches and the world outside. Once you have introduced the legend of Paul, you have a pen-name to work with and a Bible is his collection of letters, the real-time record of Marcionite Theology.

It would be counterproductive to introduce only one letter initially if Paul is supposed to be this heavyweight in a religion spanning many communities. He needs to be the Paul that is writing letters to his various Churches around the empire - a leader of considerable import and renown. Each Church has some problem they have sought his counsel over. But on the face of them they are not letters, but instead liturgical devices. They are delivered with ridiculous ostensible purposes, but within them is the Theology.

Therefore, you introduce a collection of letters that is also interpolated and appended to later, even by your opposition.

aa5874 · 01-05-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

The Marcionites had different versions of the genuine Epistles, shorter with a lot less references to the old scriptures and without such things as ”born of woman”, a former persecutor of the church and a visit to Jerusalem after three years. This suggests that the followers of Marcion, with his roots in Alexandria, were the original christians (or chrestians) and that's why the epistles are not mentioned in Acts because Acts was a product of the Roman church....

There is ZERO corooboration for your claims about Marcion. The apologetic source "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian appears to be unknown up to the end of the 4th century and is contradicted by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KentF

... Acts is an attempt, and a successful one, to make ”Paul” their apostle when Paul was the apostle of an earlier rival church. This also explains the later writings of the Pastoral letters and why Justin Martyr doesn't quote Paul – he couldn't or wouldn't do it because in his time Paul was still "the apostle of the heretics.”....

There is no corroboration for your inventions about Paul and Justin Martyr. You very well know that Justin Martyr mentioned so-called heretics like the Basilidians, the Valentians, the Saturilians, Marcians, Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...The claim by the highly unreliable church father Eusebius that Paul was talking of gLuke whenever he, Paul, talked of his own gospel is just another such attempt to make Paul part of the Roman church. It's a lie to cover up the fact that Paul did have his own gospel (his vision)...

Again, you are just inventing. You should know that Origen in "Commentary on Matthew", and Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" also made the claim that Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

Quote:

”On the other hand, those who argue that Acts was written BEFORE the epistles and gospels must wonder WHY the book was introducing Paul when the epistles had not yet been written, especially if Paul had never existed. What was the need for it? ”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...A very relevant question and one that clearly shoots that theory to pieces. It makes no sense at all to fabricate Acts with a fictive apostle Paul appearing as a spokesperson for the fictive Peter and THEN fabricate the Epistles contradicting what was written earlier in Acts....

Well, the FICTIVE post-resurrection ascension of Jesus and the FICTIVE events on the day of Pentecost when the supposed apostles were filled with a Ghost shoot you down.

Acts of the Apostles is FICTION. Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings do NOT make sense chronologically and historically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...It makes much more sense that the Epistles were written earlier and then countered by Acts and the Pastorals to make Paul appear to have been part of the Roman church to begin with. Acts and the Pastorals are what aa call blatant lies and bogus. The Epistles are not. Interpolated, yes, but still with a genuine core...

The core of Acts is genuine Fiction from the very first verse.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 05:19 PM

The problem is that there is also no corroborative evidence for anything "Justin" says either. He may have said and it is correct, or maybe not. There is also no corroborative evidence for the claims about Marcion from anywhere. The scenario of his existing at the time of Justin with no discussion of what texts he had makes one wonder about the firmly held theory that he had a different gospel and epistles. Who knows? It sound fishy anyway that Justin wouldn't say anything about it.

The fact that "Origen" and "Jerome" made claims cannot be corroborated either about anything back in the first or second century. So there is reason to argue that nothing significant regarding texts existed before the fourth century. Perhaps there were "Jesus sects" of various kinds who reflected a very unstructured religion as described in "Justin's" Apology (which doesn't mention "Paul" or canonical gospels) using oral traditions, ceremonies and teachings, with actual texts emerging only in the fourth century.

Heck, there were presumably tons of sects of whom no texts have survived. No Mithra texts, no Isis texts......perhaps everything was basically orally transmitted before the 4th century when a certain sect became attached to the Roman leadership and apparently, whereby the specific ideology/theology was INCIDENTAL.
I would like to understand why THIS BRAND of "Christianity" made it big, whereas the others, or the Mithraites, Dionysusites or whoever DID NOT. How did this "Orthodox Christianity" do it?!

Toto · 01-05-2012, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....

Heck, there were presumably tons of sects of whom no texts have survived. No Mithra texts, no Isis texts......perhaps everything was basically orally transmitted before the 4th century when a certain sect became attached to the Roman leadership and apparently, whereby the specific ideology/theology was INCIDENTAL.

I would like to understand why THIS BRAND of "Christianity" made it big, whereas the others, or the Mithraites, Dionysusites or whoever DID NOT. How did this "Orthodox Christianity" do it?!

No need to shout.

Mithraism did not leave texts, but did leave a lot of archaeological remains.

Mithraism was confined to men, which put it at a disadvantage. Christianity provided social cohesion and a pro-natalist policy. Christians took care of the sick and took in foundlings. Rodney Stark gives the details, as far as can be known. Theology had nothing to do with it.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 07:07 PM

But what was the appeal to the upper classes and power elite?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....

Heck, there were presumably tons of sects of whom no texts have survived. No Mithra texts, no Isis texts......perhaps everything was basically orally transmitted before the 4th century when a certain sect became attached to the Roman leadership and apparently, whereby the specific ideology/theology was INCIDENTAL.

I would like to understand why THIS BRAND of "Christianity" made it big, whereas the others, or the Mithraites, Dionysusites or whoever DID NOT. How did this "Orthodox Christianity" do it?!

No need to shout.

Mithraism did not leave texts, but did leave a lot of archaeological remains.

Mithraism was confined to men, which put it at a disadvantage. Christianity provided social cohesion and a pro-natalist policy. Christians took care of the sick and took in foundlings. Rodney Stark gives the details, as far as can be known. Theology had nothing to do with it.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But what was the appeal to the upper classes and power elite?

Not much. Christianity was the religion of gullible women and slaves. But a few educated elite thinkers could see a movement that needed their leadership, and that's all it took.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 07:34 PM

So they eventually took over the empire because of the women and slaves plus a few ambitious men?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But what was the appeal to the upper classes and power elite?

Not much. Christianity was the religion of gullible women and slaves. But a few educated elite thinkers could see a movement that needed their leadership, and that's all it took.

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

01-05-2012, 12:35 PM	#183
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	aa5874, in your view if the NT texts were produced into the 4th century, what kind of "Christianity" existed before that time, i.e. before any of these texts were produced? \ If the description in the Justin Apology is any indication, the believers would have recited prayers and stories about their Christ or heard them from their religious leaders from an oral tradition reaching back into the 2nd century?

01-05-2012, 05:19 PM	#186
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The problem is that there is also no corroborative evidence for anything "Justin" says either. He may have said and it is correct, or maybe not. There is also no corroborative evidence for the claims about Marcion from anywhere. The scenario of his existing at the time of Justin with no discussion of what texts he had makes one wonder about the firmly held theory that he had a different gospel and epistles. Who knows? It sound fishy anyway that Justin wouldn't say anything about it. The fact that "Origen" and "Jerome" made claims cannot be corroborated either about anything back in the first or second century. So there is reason to argue that nothing significant regarding texts existed before the fourth century. Perhaps there were "Jesus sects" of various kinds who reflected a very unstructured religion as described in "Justin's" Apology (which doesn't mention "Paul" or canonical gospels) using oral traditions, ceremonies and teachings, with actual texts emerging only in the fourth century. Heck, there were presumably tons of sects of whom no texts have survived. No Mithra texts, no Isis texts......perhaps everything was basically orally transmitted before the 4th century when a certain sect became attached to the Roman leadership and apparently, whereby the specific ideology/theology was INCIDENTAL. I would like to understand why THIS BRAND of "Christianity" made it big, whereas the others, or the Mithraites, Dionysusites or whoever DID NOT. How did this "Orthodox Christianity" do it?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.