PhilosopherJay

Hi Juststeve,

Normally, when one tells about a conversation that others had on a topic of interest, one makes clear what that person said. For example, if I say, "Harold talked to Buster about comedy for 40 days," I would then go on to reveal more specifics about what Harold said. For example, I might go on to reveal that Harold told Buster that pies in the face were only funny when done repeatedly or that a good comedian plays dumb after a joke and never smiles.

Only if it is clear what was spoken of in the conversation would i omit the specifics. For example, if I say that McCain telephoned Obama after the election to congratulate him, I need not go into the specifics because the gesture itself is what is important and the specifics, if he said "Congratulations, Mr. President," or "I congratulate you, sir," is irrelevant.

If I say that Humphrey teaches and don't say what Humphrey teaches, than what Humphrey teaches must be irrelevant. in the same way, if the author of Acts says that Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God and doesn't say what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, then author must think what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God is irrelevant or not worth mentioning.

At the beginning of Acts, the author says, "He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." The author says nothing about what he said to them about the kingdom of God in the rest of Acts. There are the five references to the Kingdom of God that the author put in the book of Acts:

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 14:21-23

21 ...Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, 22 strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. 23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders[a] for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

# Acts 19:8
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.

Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.

Acts 28:31
He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!

I presume that in the 40 days of speaking about the Kingdom of God, Jesus said things that he had not already said about it. Or do you think that he repeated what he had already said when he was alive?

In Acts, we have Philip just proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God, but we are not told what that Gospel is or if that Gospel is simply the same as John the Baptist. John taught that the Kingdom of God was near at hand. If that is all Jesus taught for 40 days, then he taught nothing, or at least nothing new, because John had already taught that.

We have the author telling us that Paul (28:31) proclaimed the Kingdom of God, but that is even less clear than John saying that the Kingdom of God is near. He also says Paul argued persuasively for the kingdom of God (19:8) and explained the kingdom of God (28:23). In neither case is there any indication what Jesus taught the Apostles about the Kingdom of God or if Paul even knew what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God.

Finally, we have the author tell us that Paul and Barnabus in the cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, saying (14:22) "“We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” There is no indication that this is linked to what Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus had already taught this in Mark 10:23-24:

There is nothing to suggest that Paul's saying was derived from Mark's gospel or was among the things that Jesus spoke about for forty days with the apostles.

So, why does the author not have the Apostles tell what Jesus spoke to them about for 40 days? It seems the choices are 1) Jesus just repeated himself and said nothing he hadn't already said before while living. The author knew this stuff was in the gospels already and thus did not bother with it. 2) The author was not privy to these conversations and thus only knew that they concerned the Kingdom of God and he never heard the apostles speak about them. 3) The author just made up the story of Jesus speaking for 40 days with the apostles. 4) Either the apostles or the author thought what Jesus said was irrelevant and thus taught nothing of any consequence worth repeating.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

bacht

Because this allows for Catholic authorities to insert teachings not specifically mentioned in the canonical texts. It's a blank cheque, a rider clause on the contract so to speak.

aa5874

You cannot make "arguments" without evidence of antiquity. You constanly confuse "speculation" with "argument".

You are SPECULATING.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that some writer called "Luke" wrote Acts of the Apostles.

You have NO idea what the author of Acts would have done or could have done.

Why did the author of Acts repeat the post resurrection teachings of Jesus found in gLuke?

Lu 24:49 - Acts 1:4 - Acts of the Apostles is NOT history. Acts of the Apostle is about the fictitious apostles of Jesus who were empowered by SOME kind of holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost and became MULTI-LINGUAL and ATTAINED the ability to ACT super-human after Jesus ascended through some clouds.

Toto

Hi Jay:

The impression I get is that Acts was not meant as deep philosophy. If Christianity resembled other religions, there was a hidden esoteric message that was only given to the inner circle. Acts was the exoteric story meant for the average householder. The only message for those people was that there was a message that other, smarter, hipper people knew, with the implication that if they kept studying, they too would learn the secret of the Kingdom of God, when they were ready.

Juststeve

Jay:

I can't tell you why some guy I don't know, (Luke/Author Of Acts as you like it) didn't write something he didn't write. I don't think there is any way I could know.

Of the possible reason you provided I would go with number two. We know from the Gospel of Luke that the author was not an eyewitness but rather wrote on the basis of what he described as his investigation. It may have been the same with Acts and Luke never learned what Jesus taught during the forty days.

I would also not exclude your choice number four. It is clear that there came a time in Christianity when the belief in the resurrection became far more important than the ethical teachings of Jesus. You see that already in Paul and you see it today among evangelical churches. It's very much about how to get to heaven, not so much about how to treat your fellow man. The Jews had already said everything J3esus had to say on the later subject.

Steve

aa5874

You have no no credible source to show that anything in Acts of the Apostles is history but we KNOW there is fiction in Acts.

1. The Ascension of Jesus in Acts is most likely FICTION.

2. The day of Pentecost when the disciples supposedly became Multi-lingual and with miraculous powers is most likely FICTION.

3. The conversion of 5000 men in Acts is most likely FICTION.

4. The conversion of Saul/Paul is most likely FICTION.

5. The raising of the dead in Acts is most likely FICTION.


Please state the source which can SHOW that JEWS had said everything about Jesus.

It was NOT Josephus or Philo.

What Jews are you TALKING about? What time did the Jews ever worship a man as a God?

What did the Jews say about Jesus and to whom? We are doing HISTORY here.

You have NO source for your speculations about the Jews.

Acts of the Apostles is a POST-ASCENSION story, a fictitious story. There can be NO post ASCENSION story when there was no Ascension in the first place.

Juststeve

aaa:

I'm breaking my normal rule of ignoring you like I would any other irritant to say that "the later subject' to which I referred and which you left out of your quote of me, was how to treat your fellow man, not the various topics you questioned me about. And yes, almost everything Jesus had to say on that subject had been said by the Rabbis before him. Nothing particularly original there. Those few exception fall into the category of hyperbole and I do not take them seriously.

Please don't take this as an expression of desire to exchange ideas with you, its not.

Steve

mountainman

Hi bacht,

But what if the "Catholic authorities", at one time before the rise of "Many Christianities", were non christian "Gnostics"?

Gnostic Gospels are these blank cheques being filled out by authors in the name of Hermes and Asclepius, way out of town in an unknown century. According to the Christian canon there is one Act. In the Gnostic canon there may have been more than two dozen "Acts of the Apostles".

Someone had cashed in on God with the codex technology. It was a free for all. Most of the Gnostic settings are post resurrection. Some of them have an opening scene in which he apostles are casting lots for the raiment of the world, its countries and its nations, just like the soldiers at the crucifixion. They may have seen the new testament just like we do right now, as a blank cheque. Of course this is an open invitation to all sorts of activity. So they invented their own stories about what Jesus did and how he spoke to the apostles in those 40 days. And they made sure that there were many teachings in the "Non Canonical Currency"

Philosopher Jay is astute to point out the obvious question, and I think the gnostics both asked that question of the text of the NT, and then answered it themselves. Jesus appears in various guises. The apostles keep asking Jesus questions, one after another, about his teachings. The Gospel of Thomas fills in the missing cheque many times over. The teaching that never came in those 40 days finally arrived with the Gnostic response to the new testament. It finally arrived, at least by the 4th century, and was physically bound in things like the Nag Hammadi codices. Unbelieving Gnostic docetic philosophy is interwoven into the blank cheques like metal strips on paper money.

Thanks for this question (and others) Philosopher Jay! I am constantly reminded of some saying about its not really the answers that are important but the questions themselves.


Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

I did not know that you even existed when I started to post here. I don't know that you have any ideas.

Now, you have NOT produce a SINGLE shred of evidence from antiquity that can show that anything in Acts of the Apostle is history.

You have PRESUMED that you know the history of Jesus when the NT is regarded as historically UNRELIABLE.

You are NOT doing history you are SPECULATING.

We have Acts of the Apostles and we can see that it contains FICTION. That is what we know.

Do you have ANY ideas what is true or could be true in Acts?

You have NO idea.

Toto

Nomina Sacra split here