Duvduv

This goes around in circles. You know there are no independent ancient sources confirming or denying the hypothesis that Marcion was a docetist or gnostic. All you can do is make INFERENCES. There are no ancient sources confirming that the author of Mark believed Jesus was a phantom. All you can do is make logical INFERENCES. There is no independent ancient source affirming that apologist works were forged. All you have are INFERENCES. So why do you negate the right of others to make INFERENCES?
I have asked you about the inferences emerging from the idea that the book of Acts appeared with biography information about Paul out of the blue before the epistles , and you reject my question.

aa5874

There is a difference between inferences and speculation. One MUST have evidence or sources of antiquity to make inferences.

There are sources, texts, written evidence of antiquity that show within reason that the Pauline writer was a LIAR and that the Pauline writings are NOT credible.

There are sources, texts, written statements of antiquity that show within reason that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to the mid 2nd century or AFTER writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides and the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22.

There are Apologetic sources that STATE the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke so it can reasonably inferred that Paul was ALIVE after the Fall of the Jewish Temple. See "Church History 6.25, 3.4.8 and Commentary on Matthew .

There is an Apologetic source that even claimed the Pauline writings are AFTER Revelation by John. See the Muratorion Canon.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus and were written sometime AFTER the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

But you were not asking about logical inferences. You were asking for ancient sources!
If you stick with inferences then you know that those authors logically inferred that the pauline writer did not know of a historical Christ figure and must have had in mind a non physical Christ.
In my latest inquiry I was trying to understand WHY. the author of Acts would introduce a story of a guy named Paul.
This is a worthwhile line of inquiry given the fact that the Paul figure of Acts does not appear to know about the historical Jesus gospel stories or the epistles.
Back to you.

aa5874

I think I have identified your problem.

You want to know WHY things supposedly happened BEFORE you provide the evidence that they actually did.

Duvduv

No that's incorrect. If I believe a scenario makes sense I simply want to extend the implications of the logic to understand the scenario further.
In this case, why would writers introduce the personality of a fictitious Paul out of the blue in Acts and not the Jesus figure? What can be inferred from that?

aa5874

Well, you just did the very same thing.

I have already showed that Acts of the Apostles did introduce the Jesus figure.

See Acts 2.14-36.

Duvduv

How can it be that there is no explanation why the earliest text is a book introducing a fictitious character yet the same author devotes only a few lines to the central character of the entire religion???

I find this argument you make unsatisfactory. I still see the Paul figure of Acts different from the Paul of the epistles and believe the author of Acts did not know the epistles or gospels, but don't find your argument explaining anything as to why the forgers would have introduced Paul AND Peter for that matter, rather than the Savior as the subject of an entire first text.

aa5874

Well, based on your posts this would indicate that you yourself have NO satisfactoty explanation for Acts of the Apostles. You have your OWN Problems.

The TITLE of the book is ACTS OF THE APOSTLES which is in itself SELF-EXPLANATORY.

What would you expect in a book called the the Acts of the Apostles?

The ACTS of Jesus or the ACTS of Peter and the other disciples AFTER the supposed Jesus disappeared in a cloud?

Acts of the Apostles do contain the supposed Acts of Peter and other disciples.

Duvduv

Bingo!! So you tell me WHY the authors would have produced FIRST a book about apostles that touches on NONE of their feelings or knowledge about their SAVIOR rather than a book that discusses their SAVIOR followed by something else about the apostles. And tell me why of all possible characters such authors would have decided to focus on a fictitious person who was never discussed anywhere before ("Paul").......

aa5874

Again," WHY" is the LAST question.

The FIRST QUESTION to be resolved is "WHAT" happened.

We have the book called ACTS of the APOSTLES and we can read the Contents of the Apologetic Written Statements about supposed events after Jesus supposedly disappeared in a cloud.

"WHAT" happened in Acts of the Apostles appear to be Fiction or LIES

"WHY" do people lie or invent fiction stories?

If you can answer that question you will resolve your problem with Acts of the Apostles.