PhilosopherJay

Hi JamesABrown,

Yes, the apostles aren't really developed as personalities or characters in the gospels. They seem to be there just to show that Jesus had followers.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Hi Once Again Philosopher Jay,

Your comments about Jesus writing a last will and testament really got me thinking. Wouldn't it be nice indeed if we all had such a document before us so that we could gauge what was in the mind of Jesus at that time. In other words, precisely what teachings or series of human thoughts would such a testament reveal?

Fortunately for us, in the 4th century, that resourceful researcher and Head Chief Heresiologist Eusebius, claims to have found just that - a hand written document outlining the intentions of Jesus, which appear threefold ...

Summary of Jesus's Only Written Testament

Item (1): Dont worry! Be Happy! Find the writings! [My Old Man is God] Believe in me, believe in the Greek writings, believe and Be Happy!.
Item (2): All your problems will soon be solved, including Eternal life for you and yours -- It's now in the mail !!
Item (3): May the enemies of Jesus not prevail ! [We may presume these are those who dont believe at Item (1)]

To the modern mind this looks like standard door-to-door sales pitch spam. These pitches dont work as well today as in antiquity due to education of the masses and the slaves. Nevertheless, the pitch certainly worked! The question is when it worked. The problem as I see it is that I cant see too many people buying it without tax exemptions. And these were introduced (along with the "Belief") rather late.

Acts may have been concerned with the marketing advice to the gentiles, more of routine conversions of cities and various multitudes, rather than any sort of ethical or philosophical education. We must also remember that Acts is just one small cog in an extensive and intricately geared machine of Greek speaking belief. That according to Acts, Jesus taught the Apostles nothing, seems to indicate that it was not a teaching at the fundamental core of "Early Christian" doctrine, but a simple belief. The apostles were certainly portrayed as simple people. The fact they they learnt Greek writing is commendable, but they dont seem to be able to conceal the fact that the teaching was nothing but a sales pitch for an authoritative belief, and what acts such belief accomplished in such a short time. Oh what a wonderful story.

Of course some people class this letter as a common forgery by Eusebius, so we really cant read too much into it.

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles ....

Best wishes,



Pete

show_no_mercy

I doubt that the author of the gospel assigned to Luke is the same as the one who wrote Acts of the Apostles. The little introduction to both works was meant to trick the less initiated into believing that they were written by the same person.

Our earliest witness to Luke (Marcion) did not have that preamble. Our earliest "orthodox" witness to Luke (Justin Martyr) also did not have that preamble.

Earlier gospels were written anonymously. Once "heresies" started proliferating, the need for "apostolic succession" enters the scene and we see an increasing trend of attribution. Things like the last chapter of John and the gospel of Thomas. The trend finally ends with Irenaeus giving names to the canonical gospels. The headings on canonical Luke/Acts of the Apostles are along that trend towards identification (evidence that Marcion's gospel preceded canonical Luke).

Vivisector

Hi, SNM - can you provide a little more info on the preamble? I'm without my GNT, but I wasn't aware that there were variants here. Also, my impression was that common authorship was concluded on bases other than similar preambles.

Cheers,

V.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan huller,

The relationship of the epistles to Acts is another headache we have to face, especially if we see Paul's epistles as derived from the Apostolikon and/or Luke being derived from Marcion's gospel.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

Suppose the author had portrayed the disciples as telling potential converts, every once in a while, "Jesus told us such-and-such. And furthermore, we know that what he said was true because he rose from the dead, which is a fact that we ourselves witnessed."

Are you telling us that you would be scratching your head and asking yourself, "Now, why in the world would Luke have bothered to mention that"?

Juststeve

Doug:

My response was directed to the thread starter's preposterous assertion that "According to Acts, Jesus Taught the Apostles Nothing". Its the title of the thread. I say preposterous because in what some term the preamble the author specifically refers to an earlier work in which Jesus' teachings are covered. To claim that this means that Jesus taught nothing shows that the thread starter has an agenda that overcomes a simple reading of the text.

Now to get to your question, yes, I would be scratching my head. The document is addressed to a specific person, Theophilus, and specifically references an earlier correspondence in which the teachings of Jesus were dealt with. That having been covered previously I would be surprised if he re-hashed them.

There is of course the ad hoc objection that the "preambles" to both Luke and Acts were added later by some conspiratorial cabal. Even were that correct the assertion that "According to Acts, Jesus Taught the Apostles Nothing" would still be preposterous.

Steve

show_no_mercy

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's "ad hoc". You should probably look up that phrase before you misuse is again.

Steven Carr

So what exactly was Jesus doing for those 40 days?

And if you had a resurrected person with you for 40 days, why would you not tell anybody, and wait until all your evidence flew off into the sky?

I guess your life would be transformed by seeing somebody rise from the dead, and your instinct would be to keep deathly quiet about it in case somebody else's life got transformed as well.

It makes no sense. Hey, it's Christianity.It's not even supposed to make sense.

James Brown

Peter: Yeah, yeah, Jesus. It's great to see you resurrected and all. Love what you've done with the white robes. But what I really want to know is, who said what at your trial? And don't skip a thing, because about forty years from now I'm going to find someone to write it all down for me.