aa5874

You mistake SPECULATION for inference. You need to provide the evidence or source for your claims.

Romulus and Remus founded the city of Rome based on Plutarch so must we assume they were not alone??? Something was going on in Rome???

la70119

duvduv, where in the Talmud did you get that info? I never heard of it before.

Duvduv

Some of the Talmudic references were censored out of the Babylonian Talmud several hundred years ago by Church censors. There are several books in English that discuss the subject aside from the direct Talmudic references. One is by Frank Zindler called The Jesus Jews Never Knew. Another is Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer.
There are a couple of sites that have parts of the Talmud translated into English. Here are a few references:

Tractate Shabbat, pages 104b and 116a
Tractate Avodah Zarah pages 16b, 17a
Tractate Sanhedrin pages 67a and 103a (43a doesn't appear in most standard Talmuds) and 107b.
Tractate Sotah 47a
Zindler's book lists more sources from the Tosefta collection after the Mishnas.

Duvduv

Speculation is done all the time from all directions. But you haven't answered my question as to why Acts didn't come before the gospels according to your view of expanding texts, etc. etc.

aa5874

Where does Acts of the Apostles begin???? Does it not BEGIN with the Ascension???

The Gospels END with the resurrection or ascension.

Acts BEGINS where the Gospels End.

Duvduv

AA, you and I both know that the author of Acts knew of a Jesus story, but this does not mean he knew of it from the gospels. He does not mention a single aphorism from the gospels, and his Paul shows not the slightest interest in visiting any sites visited by his Jesus, and that despite the timeline indicating that his conversion occurred a year or two after the crucifixion. Does he mention wanting to visit Bethlehem? Nazareth? Capernaum? Does he mention wanting to see the place of the crucifixion?

Plus we both know that John Chrysostom said that Acts was not really known, and no other writer either denies this or endorses this. But we know that his was the first commentary on Acts.

So how can you be so confident that the author of Acts knew the canonical gospels?!

aa5874

You keep asking the same questions over and over when I have already SHOWN you ACTS chapter 1.

Don't you see that the author of Acts named the very same Apostles that are found in the Canonical Gospels???

Do you NOT understand that I develop THEORIES based on the AVAILABLE evidence??

People are charged with crimes based on EVIDENCE NOT on IMAGINATION.

I have DEVELOPED the THEORY that the author of Acts was aware of the Canonical Gospels exactly the same way it can be theorize that the author of gMatthew was aware of gMark.

Duvduv

So what?? If Acts wasn't even really known until late in the 4th century, who knows what it looked like earlier if it existed earlier? For all you and I know it may have even be interpolated by Chrysostom himself.

aa5874

Please, I don't know that Chrysostom interpolated Acts.

I SHOWED you that Chrysostom claimed many persons did NOT know such a book was in existence so I have deduced that Acts of Apostles was NOT Canonized.

Duvduv

But why can other works be interpolated and changed and redacted but not Acts, or at least the Paul portions of Acts were combined with writings earlier in the text? In any event, the portions dealing with PAUL show that he doesn't mention a SINGLE aphorism of his Christ, shows no interest in visiting any places the gospel Jesus was, and doesn't invoke a single story from the gospels.