aa5874

It is irrelevant whether the author of Acts actually wrote gLuke.

Since it is claimed he wrote a Treatise on all the things Jesus said and did up to the Ascension and that he did mentioned events and characters found in the Canonised Gospels then it can be reasonably deduced that he was AWARE of the Canonised Jesus story.

It is virtually impossible to show that the author of Acts did NOT know of a Canonised Gospel.

It can be reasonably argued that Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras of Anthens did NOT know of a Canonised Jesus story since they did NOT mention any character called Jesus or any event with Jesus.

And, in fact, Acts of the Apostles contains the most information on the Jesus story outside of the Canonised Gospels. Not even the Canonised Epistles of so-called disciples, Peter, James and John contain as much details of the Jesus story as Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

You say "reasonably deduced" as an inference, but WHY??

Why isn't it possible that some of the information brought in the mouth of Peter came from a different unwritten source (oral tradition), that found its way into the canonical gospels later as well together with additional material? After all, there isn't all that much in Acts.

Athenagoras lived until the late 2nd century and did not mention a Jesus. So you infer that he didn't know of a canonical gospel story. Same for Theophilus of Antioch. Of course this is important because they lived after Justin and the claimed dates of heresiologists.

HOWEVER, the elements of the canonical gospel stories that do NOT appear in Acts mean it can be "reasonably deduced" that the author of Acts did not know about those elements.

Again, it doesn't make sense to say "Well, since the author had already written Luke, his readers didn't need to know anything about the gospel story." This is based on clinging to a single sentence at the beginning of Acts that may have been a very convenient interpolation to link the Paul story to the gospel story because of the fact that the body of Acts ignores the maxims, events and stories of the gospel even in passing.and sounds exactly like those who say "Well of course the epistles don't need to repeat information from the gospel stories because the recipients of the epistles already knew what wasn't written in the epistles."

Is it believable that a preacher or pastor or priest giving a sermon who doesn't remind his audience of the aphorisms and stories of his SAVIOR although the church members already know all about it?!

aa5874

Your claim about Acts is totally erroneous as I have pointed out to you several times.

The author of Acts is AWARE of all the fundamental elements of the Jesus story.

Why do you keep on repeating the same errors?

Please Examine Acts of the Apostles and you will see that the author was AWARE of a story where:

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]

Please understand that Acts of the Apostles can be examined and it will be EASILY shown that your claims are erroneous.

Now, it can be shown that the author of Acts was UNAWARE of the Pauline Epistles because he does NOT mention them anywhere or even claimed he read them.

Duvduv

Yes, I am aware of these from the speeches of Peter. I would suppose that the authors of the original "Nicene Creed" knew about them too, and did not mention them.

Notice in Acts 1:22 that the author refers to the baptism (whose?) and then JESUS being taken up. Just a side note.
Acts 4:27 - HEROD and Pilate and Jesus was "anointed" by the Jews(?)
Acts 2:23 - The Jews (Israelites), but in Mark 11:18 only the leaders.

So things are not the same as the in the gospels through the mouth of Peter. And you describe these as the "fundamentals" of the Jesus story, but we weren't arguing about that. We were discussing whether Acts knew about the (later to be canonized) gospel stories.

aa5874

Again, please at least read Acts 1.21, the preceding verse, to get the full understanding of Acts 1.22.

The ministry of the supposed Jesus with his disciples is the BEGINNING of the Baptism of John to the day he ASCENDED.

gMark's Jesus is introduced with the Baptism of John and in gLuke he Ascends in a cloud.

Mark 1:9 KJV
Acts 1.21-22 The author of Acts was AWARE of a story that the ministry of Jesus and his disciples BEGAN when Jesus was Baptized of John up to the day he Ascended in a cloud.

Now, you have not yet shown that the author of Acts did NOT know of the Jesus story.

It is virtually impossible for you to do so.

Duvduv

I don't think you read my last posting carefully enough, but it's worth noting that the GMark mentioned Mary without indicating she was a virgin, whereas the gospel claimed in the first sentence of Acts (Luke) does know her as a virgin. The best that can be said here is that the source for the bits of information about this Jesus are not from a "canonized" gospel but from some other source. Please reread what I wrote before.

I still wonder whether Acts may have been a composite, telling a story about a guy named Saul and then another named Paul, and involving one guy, Peter, whose tradition spoke of a historical Jesus, and another guy Paul whose tradition never spoke about a historical Jesus. But I guess we have talked this subject to death.

aa5874

Again, the author of Acts did NOT claim that Mary was a virgin which is similar to gMark.

Mark 6:3 KJV
Acts 1:14 KJV I really cannot understand at all how a rather simple Myth Fable has you so confused.

Duvduv

The point here is that the author of LUKE (who supposedly wrote Acts) does not mention that Mary is a VIRGIN although this is the case in the gospel of Luke!

aa5874

I have already told you that it is NOT necessary for the author of Acts to have written gLuke once he claimed that he wrote a treatise of ALL the Jesus said and did until Jesus ascended and that he did write the following:

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]

The author of Canonised Acts of the Apostles is indeed AWARE of the Canonised Jesus story.

You are yet to show that the author of Canonised Acts did NOT know the Jesus story of the Canon.

Duvduv

Mary, the mother, just like in GMark but not like in GLuke. And of course the readers of the epistles also knew everything about the historical Jesus, so "Paul" didn't have to talk about it.
OK, I give up. No use going in circles anymore. We'll just agree to disagree.