Originally Posted by Maklelan

Since when is Acts a biography about Paul? The title, Acts of the Apostles, seems to indicate to me that it has to do with apostles and their ministry. You're not paying attention to genre again. Additionally, the narrative about Jesus' life had already been told.



You keep mixing things up. Paul is not narrating Acts. The author of Acts is telling stories about what Paul and other apostles did. Paul may very well have told numerous stories about Jesus' life, but that does not mean that the author of Acts needed to include them. After all, most of the time Paul is preaching the author just glosses over what he actually says. What is the purpose of his story? That's what you have to ask before you can say something should or should not have been included. The emphasis is on the events, not the gospel narratives.



The fact that the author of Acts does not mention this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Paul did that. You need to address what it does and does not make sense for the author of Acts to have included in his narrative, not what does and does not make sense for Paul to have done. The book of Acts is not a fully comprehensive record of everything Paul did and said.



It seems to me that fabricating a framework that supports your presupposition is what interests you.



Does the author of Acts need to include it if he did?



It's also a silly point. John the Baptist is appealing to prophecy. They were expecting a messiah at the time, and within the narrative where that comment is found, Jesus' coming is imminent. In other words, John says, "Believe on this guy," and then that guy showed up. It would be like me telling a group of employees to be good when corporate shows up on the day that corporate is supposed to show up. There's nothing peculiar about it at all. Again, you have to be sensitive to genre.



But you've already acknowledged that scholars have plenty of evidence for the unity of Luke-Acts. Are you now contesting that?



Why would we expect the author of Acts to flesh out Paul's personal theology like that when the point of the story is just to narrate the acts of the apostles?



Or they just weren't germane to the story, and had not yet found wider circulation than the churches to which they were addressed and sent.

Of course, when one carefully considers genre and the context of the composition of Acts, none of those wild speculations really make any sense.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Maklelan, you dismiss each point and try to engage in pretty good apologetics, but it isn't satisfactory.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You say, "Acts isn't this, and Acts isn't that" and "Acts wasn't intended.....and Paul didn't have to....." Are you an official spokesman of the Office of Apologetics??!

Originally Posted by Duvduv

HOWEVER, all I am saying is very simple. ACTS DOESN'T HAVE to be a book of theology. However, since it is part of a literature supposing a historical Jesus and gospels that Paul "surely" knew about, one WOULD EXPECT SOMETHING relating to his feelings about his HISTORICAL SAVIOR.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Reverance for the apostles who knew him; a visit to Bethlehem; a visit to Nazareth, something. But it doesn't exist. I don't care who is "narrating" Acts in the first or second person. It comes out the same.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

OF COURSE it is not fully comprehensive, but what about SOMETHING as I have described?!

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Something of his ideology, something of his knowledge, something of the alleged world of the historical Jesus and ideas of the epistles.

You keep criticizing me on the basis of the furthest extreme, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
I am talking about the contextual gaps between Acts, the gospels and epistles. That's all.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

IF I were to write Acts, I would say something about the indwelling of the Christ, SOMETHING about the historical Jesus and even the historical Baptist. Something about the great disciples who saw and talked to him. NOT A LOT BUT AT LEAST SOMETHING TO RECOUNT MY INNER FEELINGS ON OCCASION.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Correction : Even if I were writing about Paul I would incorporate some elements of his world of belief ....hope that helps Maklelan or McClellan. ..

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is nothing to 'help' when you start with an idiotic position - i.e. that the Dialogues 'might' have been written in the fourth century. This is stupid. It is akin to arguing that 'maybe' aliens control the White House. It is unnecessary to take serious an idiotic position. The onus is upon the idiot to prove that his position isn't idiotic especially when it contradicts everything noteworthy which has ever been written on the subject of the topic at hand (in this case the Dialogue) and not upon those who hold a position who hold an accepted position to 'disprove' the fool from being a seen as a fool.

This should be obvious to everyone but the fool of course.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

I'm not engaging in apologetics, I'm correcting a pretty naive misapprehension. One does not need to be an apologist to be concerned about an accurate representation of the literature.



So it is "apologetics" to acknowledge the importance of genre?



One might expect something, but one cannot demand it, and one can certainly not insist that the failure to meet their expectation alone shifts the preponderance of evidence from unity supported by the literary and linguistic evidence to disunity.



No it simply does not come out the same. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're making up standards for a brand of higher criticism that has a long and very established history of which you appear to be completely ignorant. I know you feel strongly about it, but that doesn't really mean anything.



It's not an illogical expectation, but the genre certainly doesn't demand it, and certainly not to the degree that its absence calls into question the historical background of the text in toto.



But you're egregiously misunderstanding that gap and attributing a weight to the evidence of that gap that it simply does not bear.

And you are not a first century Christian and you clearly do not understand first century historiography. Your impressions and feelings about Acts, as strong as they may seem to you, are presentistic and naive. You can't even speak intelligently about genre or about higher criticism in general. All you can do is say "Nu-uh!" and then reassert your thesis.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well since you weren't there when the Dialogues were written there is no other empirical way of either of us proving who's right within the hotly contested century or two.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes I do think itis apologetics in the defense of what you deem to be sacrosanct academic views which is your right.