Godfrey

Too bad you don't hold to the "real name" credo in all your dealings. It might have saved you considerable professional embarrassment.

Specifically, it's hard to take you seriously after your Amazon review of "Acharya's" speculative mess called "The Christ Conspiracy".

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspir...681769-3965313

You may have written a few books, but your judgment is...to put it mildly... suspect.

[Edit: reading further along, I see that your mother recently passed away. My sincere condolences.]

Duvduv

Toto, we are mixing things up. I am asking from the perspective simply of the author of Luke who is alleged to be a companion of Paul (one of the "sahaba") who wrote a story of a historical Jesus. So it doesn't matter whether in fact the Paul figure knew of a historical Jesus or not. The fact is that the Luke writer who wrote this story of the historical Jesus also wrote a story about his companion. So from the logic of the writer isn't it fair to say that he believed that his companion knew about the same Jesus figure that he was presenting in the gospel?

And if the answer is in the positive, then isn't it also logical that the writer should have presented a biography of his revered companion showing his beliefs and feelings in relation to their Savior? At least once in a while mention an aphorism or an event?

aa5874

Again, Toto why are you engaged in this BLATANT propaganda. You are supposed to be a moderator but are making clear unsubstantiate claims.

Please desist.

I have lost all confidence in you as a moderator.

Toto

No. The author of Luke did not identify himself as a companion of Paul - that was a later conclusion that Irenaeus drew for complicated reasons. But the author's point has to be that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. The whole point of Acts is to take Paul and tame him and and subordinate him to the proto-orthodox, who claimed authority from the disciples who did know Jesus in the flesh.

I think you are trying to read later Christian beliefs and practices back into the first-second century. Since the Enlightenment, Christians have emphasized the human side of Jesus. But for most of Christian history, the basis of Christianity was a spiritual Jesus.

Toto

All I have to do is read aa5874's posts and see that he draws illogical conclusions, and that he has problems with English syntax. I don't know what you are seeing.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Earl,

Please accept my condolences and sympathies too regarding your mother.
Coincidentally, my mother too is 93 years old. She is in poor health and just hanging on week to week. Even though, I am totally prepared consciously for her end, I know that subconsciously it will be a terribly sad event. In some sense, I know I have not gotten completely over the death of my father 22 years. Still, life go on and we cope.

Be well,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

Right you are. I got caught up in something that is not recorded in Acts about Luke.
However, the writer of Luke believed in a historical Jesus story and if he wrote Acts this means that his portrayal of Paul had to include some kind of association with the belief in the historical Jesus even if Paul never met him in person.
So we would assume that Paul became aware of the information that Luke wrote about, yet Luke then describes a Paul who has nothing to say about anything described in the gospel about his Savior. Nothing, not ab aphorism or story even a single time.
This is despite the fact that it is assumed that he became knowledgeable about it through his life. And yet there is nothing. So it is natural to suggest that Acts was not written by the author of the gospel.

aa5874

Again, you have NOT and cannot point out any illogical conclusions so please stop your blatant mis-leading statements.

My position is that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the author of gMark, UNKNOWN before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE, UNKNOWN by Justin Martyr and Aristides c 150 CE and that the Canonised Pauline Jesus was NOT crucified in the Sub-Lunar.

The NT Canon is non-heretical and does NOT support Sub-Lunar crucifixions.

Toto

Once again, you are reading modern identification with the HJ into the second century.

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's not natural to draw that conclusion, no one who specializes in this area draws that conclusion. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all.

Duvduv

Plus then there is the question as to whether the Paul of Acts is aware of many elements found in the epistles, which he doesn't, suggesting that the author of Acts was unaware of the epistles too.