Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 12:01 PM

But what you are offering isn't even inferences, it's just pure speculation. You're telling me that the writer from this sect provided information somewhere preventing any book about the SAVIOR (who is not just any Joe) to be written, and then proceeds to write about fictitious new followers with hardly a passing mention of anything about the Christ, his story, his sayings, his aphorisms, nothing.........

This makes no sense at all. Nothing significant written about the life of the earthly Savior and a whole book about two guys that no one ever heard of before.......!!

aa5874 · 01-02-2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But what you are offering isn't even inferences, it's just pure speculation. You're telling me that the writer from this sect provided information somewhere preventing any book about the SAVIOR (who is not just any Joe) to be written, and then proceeds to write about fictitious new followers with hardly a passing mention of anything about the Christ, his story, his sayings, his aphorisms, nothing.........

Again, your claim is completely erroneous.

I did NOT speculate. I showed you ACTS 2.14.36.

And now I show you ACTS 10.34-43

Quote:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly,

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It is just totally erroneous that Acts of the Apostles do NOT contain anything aboutthe supposed Jesus called Christ.

You seem NOT prepared to Examine Acts of the Apostles but SPECULATE about what is inside.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 01:31 PM

Well, the quotes are interesting from Acts only because verses 42 and 43 reflect the claims of the Constantinople Creed of 381 (!!) but tell us absolutely nothing about the life of the supposed earthly Jesus that the author(s) believed in.

And that little bit is supposed to be in lieu of a whole book, whereby previously unknown "apostles" get so many pages and he only gets a few lines? COME ON, aa5874!! You are pushing me to believe that Acts was written in the middle or latter part of the 4th century before or after 381!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But what you are offering isn't even inferences, it's just pure speculation. You're telling me that the writer from this sect provided information somewhere preventing any book about the SAVIOR (who is not just any Joe) to be written, and then proceeds to write about fictitious new followers with hardly a passing mention of anything about the Christ, his story, his sayings, his aphorisms, nothing.........

Again, your claim is completely erroneous.

I did NOT speculate. I showed you ACTS 2.14.36.

And now I show you ACTS 10.34-43

Quote:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly,

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It is just totally erroneous that Acts of the Apostles do NOT contain anything aboutthe supposed Jesus called Christ.

You seem NOT prepared to Examine Acts of the Apostles but SPECULATE about what is inside.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 01:35 PM

And again I notice in verse 39 that Jesus was hanged on a tree, which is what happened to Yeshu ben Pandera after being stoned on the eve of Passover.........referred to in 1 Peter 2:24 as in Acts:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

aa5874 · 01-02-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, the quotes are interesting from Acts only because verses 42 and 43 reflect the claims of the Constantinople Creed of 381 (!!) but tell us absolutely nothing about the life of the supposed earthly Jesus that the author(s) believed in.

And that little bit is supposed to be in lieu of a whole book, whereby previously unknown "apostles" get so many pages and he only gets a few lines? COME ON, aa5874!! You are pushing me to believe that Acts was written in the middle or latter part of the 4th century before or after 381!...

Again, you seem NOT prepared to read Acts of the Apostles but to just make unsubstantiated remarks.

Do you not understand that it is claimed that the very author of the GOSPEL called gLuke was the author of Acts?

Do you NOT understand that the author of Acts made references to the GOSPEL called gLuke?

Do you NOT understand that the GOSPEL called Luke is considered the LAST written gospel of the Synoptics?

Examine Acts of the Apostles 1.1-5

Quote:

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

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence....

The author of ACTS is claiming he KNEW and WROTE a GOSPEL.

This is found in gLuke 1.1-4

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 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,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed....

You MUST read Acts of the Apostles for yourself for it seems you are relying on FLAWED "expert opinion". Many of them don't know what they are talking about and will LEAD you astray.

"Expert opinion" has led me astray at one time so now I FUNDAMENTALLY deal with sources, texts, and EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The author of Acts is TELLING Theophilus that he is the AUTHOR of a JESUS STORY referred to as gLuke.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:18 PM

So basically what you are saying is that you assume the little introduction linking to Luke is the "gospel truth"thanks to Eusebius and no lying and forgery is involved here.
Based on your previous understanding that Acts preceded the epistles and gospels it would then appear that you place Luke between Acts and the epistles.
In any case the similarity of verses to the Constantinople Creed is very interesting.

Toto · 01-02-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So basically what you are saying is that you assume the little introduction linking to Luke is the "gospel truth"thanks to Eusebius and no lying and forgery is involved here.

There are more reasons to link gLuke and Acts that the introduction, and the introduction may have been added by a later editor (probably before Eusebius.) But it is entirely possible that all of the gospels and Acts and the epistles were continually being revised an edited during the second and third centuries. We just don't have the data to be sure.

Quote:

Based on your previous understanding that Acts preceded the epistles and gospels it would then appear that you place Luke between Acts and the epistles.

That is not my understanding :huh:

Quote:

In any case the similarity of verses to the Constantinople Creed is very interesting.

Really?

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 07:31 PM

Sorry I confused you with aa5874 in the last reply.The similarity to the Constantinople Creed is s interesting because it was in 381 and Acts was earlier but the expression in the verses wasn't used earlier.

aa5874 · 01-02-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So basically what you are saying is that you assume the little introduction linking to Luke is the "gospel truth"thanks to Eusebius and no lying and forgery is involved here.
Based on your previous understanding that Acts preceded the epistles and gospels it would then appear that you place Luke between Acts and the epistles.
In any case the similarity of verses to the Constantinople Creed is very interesting.

You are the one who make unsubstantiated remarks without any sources of antiquity.

The author of Acts is claiming that he KNEW of and WROTE a Jesus story and is now writing about the ACTS of the APOSTLES.

The author of Acts of the Apostles is claiming to KNOW of the ACTIVITIES of the Apostles AFTER Jesus disappeared in a cloud and writes his story about the Apostles and Saul/Paul.

The author of Acts also claimed he traveled, Preached and Prayed with Saul/Paul all over the Roman Empire.

Now, Paul also KNOWS the Gospel written by the author of Acts of the Apostles based on Apologetic Sources such as Origen in Commentary on Matthew 1, "Church History" 6.25 attributed to Eusebius, and De Viris Illustribus 7 attributed to Jerome.

Again, based on the author of Acts and Apologetic sources both the author of Acts and the Pauline writer were AWARE of the Jesus story.

Now, once the author of Acts and the Pauline writer KNEW of gLuke then they BOTH were ALIVE AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE.

Duvduv · 01-02-2012, 10:03 PM

I don't understand why you keep referring to the name Paul and calling him a liar when you don't believe he even existed ....

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

01-02-2012, 12:01 PM	#161
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	But what you are offering isn't even inferences, it's just pure speculation. You're telling me that the writer from this sect provided information somewhere preventing any book about the SAVIOR (who is not just any Joe) to be written, and then proceeds to write about fictitious new followers with hardly a passing mention of anything about the Christ, his story, his sayings, his aphorisms, nothing......... This makes no sense at all. Nothing significant written about the life of the earthly Savior and a whole book about two guys that no one ever heard of before.......!!

01-02-2012, 01:35 PM	#164
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And again I notice in verse 39 that Jesus was hanged on a tree, which is what happened to Yeshu ben Pandera after being stoned on the eve of Passover.........referred to in 1 Peter 2:24 as in Acts: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

01-02-2012, 07:18 PM	#166
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	So basically what you are saying is that you assume the little introduction linking to Luke is the "gospel truth"thanks to Eusebius and no lying and forgery is involved here. Based on your previous understanding that Acts preceded the epistles and gospels it would then appear that you place Luke between Acts and the epistles. In any case the similarity of verses to the Constantinople Creed is very interesting.

01-02-2012, 07:31 PM	#168
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sorry I confused you with aa5874 in the last reply.The similarity to the Constantinople Creed is s interesting because it was in 381 and Acts was earlier but the expression in the verses wasn't used earlier.

01-02-2012, 10:03 PM	#170
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't understand why you keep referring to the name Paul and calling him a liar when you don't believe he even existed ....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.