Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 08-13-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Yes, where are all the other stories about Jesus?

Muslims have lots of hadith about Muhammad and his companions.

But if you look for oral stories about Jesus , you hit a blank.

Surely some Christian somewhere (Clement, Justin, James,Jude,Polycarp,Papias) must have heard stories about Jesus other than the ones in those short Gospels.

But there aren't any. What sort of founder vanishes apart from one work written about his life, which other people then use as a basis for their works?

Where are the hadith?

Where are the stories stemming from James, the alleged brother of Jesus?

Why does not one Christian trace a story back to this 'brother of Jesus'?

Well, there's the NT apocrypha, but I think you're looking for something else (?)

There are false stories from later, just as there are false hadith.

But I was looking for stories which could be true.

andrewcriddle · 08-13-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Well, there's the NT apocrypha, but I think you're looking for something else (?)

There are false stories from later, just as there are false hadith.

But I was looking for stories which could be true.

I'm not sure that there is much hadith that is both genuinely historically accurate and genuinely independent of the Quran.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr · 08-13-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

There are false stories from later, just as there are false hadith.

But I was looking for stories which could be true.

I'm not sure that there is much hadith that is both genuinely historically accurate and genuinely independent of the Quran.

Andrew Criddle

That may or may not be the case. Certainly there are many fraudulent hadith.

The fact remains that no stories about Jesus in the first century AD seem to be sourced from this James.

Vinnie · 08-13-2009, 05:28 PM

Is anyone interested in discussing the question actually asked about the interpretation of Acts?

Toto · 08-13-2009, 08:10 PM

I'm still looking at it.

The difficulty with this article is that the author keeps alluding to some other work that will explain everything. But I gather that his case rests on the use of the term 'υπηρέτης, which is translated as "helper" in the NIV version of Acts 13:5, and is usually translated as servant.

5 When [Paul and Barnabas] arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

Quote:

Against this background must be studied the four related usages in Luke and Acts. In these four cases Luke cannot be referring to a literal 'υπηρέτης. He appears to use the word to describe a man who handles documents and delivers their contents to men. After all, his reader, Theophilus, must have been well acquainted with this commonest duty of the official in question.

It seems a little speculative - that this John Mark is the Mark who translated for Peter and is alleged to have written the Gospel according to Mark, and that his role with Paul and Barnabas was handling documents that represented the gospel.

spin · 08-14-2009, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Is anyone interested in discussing the question actually asked about the interpretation of Acts?

Actually, I thought I'd gone to the core of your conjecture.

But if you want more, have you asked yourself why the writer of this old paper doesn't look at how the word uphreths is used in the rest of the christian testament? I guess it's got nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't get used in his preferred meaning. There's even a verbal form uphretew.

spin

Steven Carr · 08-14-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm still looking at it.

The difficulty with this article is that the author keeps alluding to some other work that will explain everything. But I gather that his case rests on the use of the term 'υπηρέτης, which is translated as "helper" in the NIV version of Acts 13:5, and is usually translated as servant.

5 When [Paul and Barnabas] arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

Quote:

Against this background must be studied the four related usages in Luke and Acts. In these four cases Luke cannot be referring to a literal 'υπηρέτης. He appears to use the word to describe a man who handles documents and delivers their contents to men. After all, his reader, Theophilus, must have been well acquainted with this commonest duty of the official in question.

It seems a little speculative - that this John Mark is the Mark who translated for Peter and is alleged to have written the Gospel according to Mark, and that his role with Paul and Barnabas was handling documents that represented the gospel.

Mark was the most common name in the Empire.

Luke/Acts says John/Mark was a helper.

A helper handles documents and delivers their contents.

So my postman wrote the book I ordered from Amazon?

Acts 5:22 'οἱ δὲ ὑπηρέται παραγενόμενοι οὐχ εὗρον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ ἀναστρέψαντες δὲ ἀπήγγειλαν'

'But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,'

I thought ypetres were supposed to handle documents, not prisoners.

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

08-13-2009, 05:28 PM	#14
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Is anyone interested in discussing the question actually asked about the interpretation of Acts?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.