Duvduv

You have repeated that point several times, and I keep making the point that the introductory piece may have been added later to establish a link since the body of Acts does not even enter into any mention of the events and aphorisms of the gospel Jesus at all though it throws in a brief mention of the Baptist unrelated to the gospel story, and a mention of Mary and Nazareth.

The latter verses of GMark are considered interpolations because early copies were found that didn't have them, so it is very safe to assume that the ideas were added after people already knew about Acts, not that Acts got it from GMark.

aa5874

Well, it also may NOT have been added. You seem to want to add and remove whatever will help you. Every single writing from antiquity may have passages that were added or removed without the readers knowledge.

Perhaps, the author of Acts did state he WROTE total Fiction in the 3rd century and some UNKNOWN person removed those words.

Perhaps......perhaps...maybe...what if....your presumptions are wrong???!!!!!

What if a witness lies in a trial and is NOT detected????? How can we be sure any written statement was NOT manipulated??? Perhaps...maybe....????

I don't want to Tamper with the Evidence or change any Written statements in Acts or the Pauline writings unless I have Contradicting evidence.

I can say without reasonable doubt that gMark was CORRUPTED because there is the Short-Ending gMark and the Corrupted gMark.

I can say without reasonable doubt that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings contain information that is FOUND in Corrupted gMark.

We can Examine the Extant Codices and the Short-Ending gMark does NOT contain anything about talking in TONGUES, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the Commission by the resurrected Jesus to Preach the Gospel which is found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Well, how can you ASSUME such a thing when you have NOT presented Acts of the Apostles WITHOUT the verses that you claimed were added.

I can show that there are Extant Codices with the Short-Ending and Long-Ending gMark but you can't show me Acts of the Apostles with and without the passages that you ASSUMED were added in any Extant text.

I must remind you that I no longer accept Presumptions so you MUST first present a Source of antiquity that show that Acts of the Apostles was manipulated as you assumed.

Duvduv

Acts 1 verses 1-10 is the only citation of anything concerning interaction of a historical Jesus in the Book of Acts. And it even adds a new element that is not in any gospel, i.e. that the followers ask when the kingdom of Israel will be restored.

Then there is a "speech" of Peter in Acts 2, where in verses 22-23 he makes brief reference to what happened to Jesus and declares that this Jesus who was crucified is "lord and messiah." Then another reference in the speech in Acts 3 13-15 that his name heals. Then Acts 4:10 again about the man crucified by the Jews whose name is used to heal people.

That's about it. No gospel stories about him, nothing about his teachings, sermons, aphorism, trial, and nothing about the Baptist who baptized him. And you will say that is because "everything" is already described in Luke! Which is exactly what those who claim that Paul knew all about the gospels will say, "Nothing had to be said, he knew it all and so did his readers." Yet it is strange that in an entire book (just like in entire epistles) none of the teachings, sermons, aphorisms are mentioned to followers or potential followers, nothing. The entire approach hangs on ONE SENTENCE at the beginning that "proves" that the author of the entire book knew about the GMark gospel:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven,

la70119

Just the internal evidence that there are three different versions. Why, prithee, would the writer of Acts give three different versions of the Damascus Roadway encounter?

Acts 9

Acts 22

Acts 26

And there are THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the SAME UTTER FICTION. It does NOT matter WHO lied:

The author, who made Paul out to be a liar.

The sources, who made Paul out to be a liar and the author included them verbatim.

Paul, in which case the sources and the writer CORRECTLY made Paul out to be a liar, whether they INTENDED TO or NOT.

And if he claims to be a witness of Paul telling three different versions each mutually exclusive from the other. In each version Paul's companions witnessed different supernatural phenomena. In each version Paul has Jesus say something different.

Mind you, this is about someone for whom there is zero non-apologetic evidence for in the early to mid First Century CE. Now if you're writing utter fiction about a person who likely never existed, why write something or quote sources that has Paul telling different versions to different people? :huh:

Simple. As a weapon against the Christian Sect leader who claimed Paul as the one true apostle: MARCION.

The Acts we have is a CORRUPTED, INTERPOLATED VERSION. But I thought you knew that already.

aa5874

I really don't know what you are arguing about.

The author of Acts could NOT have written any actual personal details about Jesus if Jesus did NOT exist and it was composed at least 100 years after Jesus was supposedly ascended to heaven.

Acts of the Apostles is NOT about the Acts of Jesus it is about the ACTS of the APOSTLES After Jesus ascended in a cloud.

Do you not understand the difference between the Jesus story in gMark and Acts of the Apostles?

Now, in Acts we can see that the author was AWARE that there was a story that:

1. The supposed mother of Jesus was Mary [Acts 1.14]

2. there was a supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth [Acts 2.22]

3. The supposed Jesus was baptized by John [Acts 1.22]

4. John the Baptist claimed Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost [Acts 1.5]

5. Jesus of Nazareth supposedly did miracles [Acts 2.22]

6. Jesus was delivered by Judas [Acts 1.16]

7.Jesus was crucified because of the Jews [Acts 2.23]

8. Jesus was crucified under Pilate [Acts 4.27]

9. Jesus was Raised from the dead. [Acts 2.24]

10. Jesus was expected to return to earth. [Acts 3.19]

It is clear that the author of Acts knew of a Jesus story.

Please state how in the world you can show that the author of Acts did NOT know of a Jesus story before Acts of the Apostles was composed?

aa5874

So who Corrupted Acts ? Saul or the author??

Duvduv

Yes the author of Acts did not know of any Jesus story from the canonical gospels but had his own tradition related to someone named Peter in whose name a few details are presented. This indicates to me that this story of Acts emerged away from the epistles and separate from canonical gospels. I think I have been trying to make that point all along.

aa5874

I did not ask you to repeat your unsubstantiated assertion but to show that the author of Acts did not know of the Jesus story found in the Canon when Acts of the Apostles is itself Canonised.

The writing of the author of Acts is Canonised yet the author did NOT know the Canonized Jesus story!!!!!

Such a claim is not logical at all.

It is extremely clear that the author of Acts must have known of a Jesus story that included the names of the supposed Twelve Apostles, John the Baptist, Mary, the miracles of Jesus, the betrayal by Judas, the crucifixion, the Post-resurrection visit of Jesus, the Commission to preach the Gospel and the Ascension of Jesus.

Duvduv

aa5874, you first ask me for evidence for my assertion and then proceed to assert (from silence) "it is extremely clear that the author of Acts MUST HAVE known......" but the fact is Acts is SILENT ON the stories, events, personages and aphorisms of what is in the canonized gospels. I did not say the author of Acts had no tradition of some Jesus story, but only that his source was not from the canonized gospels.

You also seem to make the traditional argument made about epistles in your argument about Acts - that the Book of Acts doesn't have to talk about events in the gospel because people already knew everything from the "previous book" (as claimed in one single sentence in chapter 1) JUST LIKE it is argued that the readers of the epistles already knew everything about the historical Jesus so Paul didn't have to talk about it.

For that matter, it is only "Peter" who is granted knowledge pertaining to anything related to a historical Jesus, not "Paul," who (as in epistles) does not discuss even the small amount mentioned in the speeches of Peter.

Acts tells us that Paul's converts "believed" but doesn't explicitly explain what it is that they believed in.

aa5874

You apparently do not understand what is an "argument from silence".

The very name Jesus of Nazareth is found Canonised Gospels.

Please tell me where did the author of Acts get the name Jesus of Nazareth.

Mark 1:9 KJVActs 2:22 KJV It is an argument from Silence that the author of Acts did NOT know of a Canonised Jesus story when the very author claimed he wrote a treatise of ALL Jesus said and did.

Acts 1 If Acts of the Apostles was written at least 100 years after the Jesus story was already circulated and Jesus did NOT exist please state what Personal information or knowledge could he have written about Jesus?

In the NT Canon, the Myth character Peter is used as a "witness" to Jesus who was Fathered by a Holy Ghost and God the Creator and the Fiction character Paul is used as a "WITNESS" to the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer who lived sometime AFTER the mid 2nd century would FABRICATE a story that OVER 500 people WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

You will have to read Acts of the Apostles to find out what Saul/Paul believed based on the author of Acts.