Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 04-14-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I agree. Theophilus of Antioch was a Christian who seemed to have little or no knowledge of the gospels. He would be the perfect candidate to receive an "orderly account" of Gospel Jesus seen through proto-orthodox eyes.

Jake Jones IV

In gLuke "Theophilus" was ALREADY taught the Jesus story, the author of gLuke investigated the matter to confirm the teachings given to "Theophilus"

Examine Luke 1

"Theophilus of Antioch" showed NO sign of being TAUGHT anything about Jesus or needed to know anything about Jesus in his three books on "To Autolycus"

We have what was TAUGHT by "Theophilus of Antioch" and it has NOTHING about Jesus.

"To Autolycus" 12

Quote:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible.........Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God...

"Theophilus of Antioch" TAUGHT that people were called CHRISTIANS because they were anointed with the oil of God.

I think you have the wrong "Theophilus".

How about Theophilus of Caesarea? What was he TAUGHT before the author of gLuke did his investigation?

Are you sure you are not a Christian?

Jake

andrewcriddle · 04-14-2011, 12:24 PM

Just to clarify.

Am I right that Tyson dates Acts substantially later than he dates the Gospel of Luke ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 04-14-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

AA, I'll spell out the punch line.

Theo had it wrong, so Luke schooled him.

Get it!!!???...

Theophilus of Caesarea??? Theophilus of Antioch???? Theophilus of the unknown.....???

Which Theo.....???

Lu 1:3 -

Quote:

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...

Ac 1:1 -

Quote:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach...

Your Speculations are not punch lines at all. There was more than one person called Theophilus.

stephan huller · 04-15-2011, 10:05 AM

Andrew Criddle (as always) asks an important question. I am afraid I don't know the answer to that one. With regards to the question raised by Tyson:

Quote:

Conceiving Acts as an anti-Marcionite text enables us to appreciate the contribution of its author.

It would seem to me at least that he tentatively assumes that both Luke and Acts were written after Marcion, the usual date for Marcion being mid-second century. I happen to think that Acts was written as a separate document. There are many reasons for this but most notably that the Diatessaronic tradition used Acts without any apparent awareness or connection with 'Luke.' Also I sense that Irenaeus is addressing people who already used Acts to 'explain' to them that John Mark was rejected in favor of Luke. This fact seems to have been unknown to at least some users of Acts. My guess - as stated - was that Acts was originally understood to have been written by John-Mark (notice he is the connecting link to the churches of Peter and Paul). This might have made Acts palatable to Clement of Alexandria. Clement does know 'Luke' however. It is not clear who he thought the author of Acts was.

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

04-14-2011, 12:24 PM	#32
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Just to clarify. Am I right that Tyson dates Acts substantially later than he dates the Gospel of Luke ? Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.