aa5874

So, who knew about Jesus, Luke, Mark, John and Matthew before they were fabricated? How did four versions of Jesus end up in the NT?
Somebody claimed Matthew wrote one of the Synoptics, how did that aid that person in propagating fiction about Jesus? The same question can be asked for Mark, Luke and John, why give four versions when you can give one and how did four versions help to propagate fiction about Jesus?

It would appear to me that Jesus was fabricated, and I see no reason why an unknown author could not fabricate Paul.

You are also not taking into consideration that there is also at least one fictitious "Paul" in the Epistles, even without Acts, there is an invention of "Paul".

aa5874

You cannot use the Epistles or apologetic sources to verify the historicity of Paul, you need external non-apologetic information.

Based on your reasonning, if a Paul made certain claims in the Epistles, then these claims are true since they are in the Epistles. Total fallacy.

And Marcion lived long after a so-called Paul had died, and Justin Martyr too.

Amaleq13

It seems more like you are ignoring some of the words.

The support comes in the speech Peter gives. Right where you stopped quoting the text. :huh:

How is that relevant? The position taken supports Paul and the opponents are described as Pharisee believers.

Are you playing games? Read the passage you quoted. Focus on Peter's speech and James' speech against what Paul's opponents were claiming. :banghead:

And their view is opposed by both Peter and James in the passage you quoted.

You don't see a conflict between Paul and Peter or Paul and men sent from James in Galatians? I don't believe you.

I take it from the need to discuss the matter but the degree of their ignorance is hardly relevant to my central point. Feel free to change it to "not depicted as having an opinion on the matter" if it will help you focus.

Yes, all we have is Peter and James favoring Paul's position over his opponents in contrast with Peter and James (by proxy) as Paul's opponents. The spying from Galatians doesn't fit or make sense in Acts.

On the apparently crucial question of circumcision, he apparently did since that seems to fall under not making it "difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

andrewcriddle

Chrysostom in context can be read here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.i.html There is a useful note quoting from an earlier sermon by Chrysostom indicating that the reason Acts was little known is that it was a set reading in Church on only one day of the year. (I'm not sure which day maybe Pentecost) Most people would have known about NT books from hearing them in Church not from reading for themselves. Apparently Acts was little read in Church.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

The difference is, the secret book would have had to remain essentially secret for ~100 years if you propose no-one but these men knew of it between the time of Tertullian/Irenaeus and the time of Eusebius. How did Eusebius get hold of it then, considering Tertullian and Irenaeus were long dead?

The existence of multiple gospels is explained most simply by assuming there was at first only one, which was added to, modified and rewritten as the theology was refined.

IMHO, the intent of the original gospel was not to promote a fraud about a newly invented fictional character Jesus (which would be fairly pointless). I think the original audience probably knew it was allegorical fiction, but when the story spread outside that group, others assumed it was historical.

I agree that Jesus is fictional. I believe he evolved from the primordial man concept. But there isn't any logic in extending that to Paul, since Paul is not part of the Gospel story, and is presented as almost completely ordinary even within the fiction we call Acts, which since it quotes extensively from the epistles, is obviously based on them.

The sequence of the developing theology is probably something like:

1) primordial man
2) gnosticism
3) Paul's salvation theology -> authentic epistles
4a) Marcion (et al)
4b) Gospel as allegorical fiction -> Catholicism -> Acts (syncretism of the competing traditions) -> pseudegraphical epistles -> Syncretism with Sol Invictus and Apollonius by Eusebius

DevilsAdvocate

I asked for the specific reference and words... you provided none. It will be easier to communicate if you tell me exactly what words and sequence that EXPLICITLY supports your position.

I don't see what Galations has to do with the examination of the text in Acts. It is part of the larger argument, but has no bearing on the specific analysis of Acts 15. So I will continue to ignore it, as I have tried from the beginning, to focus on the subject at hand.

I stopped quoting for space considerations and because what I included established the timeline. The apostles took no position until AFTER discussion. Peter's monolog you mentioned was EXPLICITLY delivered AFTER the issue was raised and much discussed. He seems to refer to previous revelations he experienced with the household of the gentile Cornelius to support the position tsken sfter the discussion.

So it seems your position is an extrapolation of Peter's statement to the position of the apostles and elders BEFORE the discussion? THis seems ambiguous in the text, unless you consider the support information Peter used referring to Cornelius (perhaps) as stating his previous position on Jewish observances enforced for gentile Christians rather than the acceptance of the individuals from gentile origins. I can see how it may be interpreted that way, but it does not seem explicit in the text. Here is the text again.

"6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After [B]much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them[/B]: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." "


The action suggested by James included some Jewish observances and reference to teachings of Moses. The food laws were some of the most basic and identifying customs of the Jews. They were not held by all gentiles. James suggestion, rather than support abolition from Jewish custom, suggested that some of the ones the Jews found most troubling to be observed. I am certain that dropping the requirement of circumcision was greatly welcomed by the men of Antioch and the message was received gladly. But considering the food restrictions, the position of James does not seem to be completely in accord with the Antioch request giving some credence to the idea that it maintained the Jerusalem church at odds with Antioch and thus Paul by association.

aa5874

But, Acts is no secret book, it is canonised anonymous fiction. Tertullian and Irenaeus never objected to Acts, or the claims made by the author of Acts about Paul and the other apostles. Irenaeus and Tertullian all claimed that they knew who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and when it was written but they never claimed that Acts was fiction.

Why didn't anyone of the Church fathers or the thousands of converts of the seven Churches recognise that Acts was fiction?

Regardless of when Acts was written, there is a serious problem, Acts is fiction and it was canonised.



Which group knew it was allergoric fiction, can you be specific? Do you mean the authors of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts and the Epistles knew the Jesus and gospel stories were fiction, but Irenaeus, Tertullan and Eusebius did not know?

It is most fallacious to claim "Paul" is not part of the Gospel story, the very first verses of the so-called Pauline Epistles blatantly contradict you.

Romans1.1-2 And in the Epistles, the so-called Paul clearly claimed he is a fundamental part of the Gospel story.

1Corinthians1.17 More than half of the NT is about some "Paul", that name is an integral part of the Gospel story, the gospel of the uncircumcision, according to one of the "Pauls".



You have a vivid imagination, but all unsubstantiated. Try and keep it simple, fiction means fiction, don't make your imagination get the better of you.

patcleaver

If we are discussing in which genre some literature should be classified, then the genre would only be fiction if the reasonable reader would think that it was not true. The Chronicals of Narnia would still be fiction even if you could prove that C.S. Lewis had the insane delusion that they were true, because a reasonable reader would still believe they were not true. We should not claim that the genre of a book is fiction unless we have some justification for that belief. The genre of fiction usually includes: historical fiction, fantasy, myth, legends, folklore, fairy tails, tall tails, and folk tails.

There are lots of good reasons that we should believe that the gospels and acts are of the fiction genre:
1. Most narrative stories are fiction.
2. Stories about supernatural beings are always fiction.
3. Stories about miracle workers actually doing miracles are always fiction.
4. Stories that contain large numbers of fictional devices are always fiction.
5. Stories that are based on earlier fictional stories are always fiction.
6. Midrash is always fiction
7. Stories written in Chiasmus are always fiction.

A liar is someone who says something that is false when: they knew that it is false, or they had disregard for whether it is true of false, or they breeched a duty to verify that it was true, or they breached a duty to correct it when they later found out that it was false.

A lie is a false statement. A false statement is a lie even if the person who said it had good reason to think it was true.

The common definition of fiction is broader then the definition of a lie.

The common definition of fiction is anything that cannot be objectively verified to be true. Even if we have no idea whether its true or false, if it cannot be verified to be true, then its fiction. Even if the person who presents it makes no representation regarding whether its true or false or even admits that its false, if it can not be verified to be true, then its still fiction. If something is delusion or mistaken or revelation then it is simply fiction by the common definition.

When someone says that the Bible is fiction, they are rarely discussing the genre of the Bible, but are almost always simply referring to the common definition - they are simply claiming that the bible cannot be objectively verified to be true. When an atheist says that the gospels are fiction, Christian apologists often respond that we have not established the genre of the gospels, but its just another dishonest red herring, because the genre has nothing to do with the real issue, which is whether the gospels can be verified to be true.

DevilsAdvocate

So if a narrative has anything that can be considered by a reasonable person as inaccurate or untrue...distorts reality... then it is fiction?

aa5874

But in Chrysostom's Homilies on Acts of the Apostles, even Chrysostom himself seems to have no idea the the Gospel of Luke was written long after the so-called "Paul" was dead, so "Paul" could not have written to the Church about having already received the Gospel of Luke.

Homilies on Acts So, up to the end of the 4th century, even after "Church History" by Eusebius, Chrysostom seems not to realise that:

1. Acts is fiction.
2. More than one person used the name Paul in the Epistles.
3. The Gospel of Luke was written after Paul was long dead, so could not have been already received by the Church while the so-called "Paul" was alive.

Homilies on Acts Even Chrysostom, close to the 5th century, appeared to know very little about "it and its authors".