Try aa5874Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:26 pm If the search engine worked over at the archive look up "aa5874." He was legendary. The Michael Jordan of crazy.
Andrew Criddle
Try aa5874Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:26 pm If the search engine worked over at the archive look up "aa5874." He was legendary. The Michael Jordan of crazy.
The fables of the NT including the Epistle support the teachings of the Church that Jesus was raised from the dead in the flesh .
The resurrection of the dead is the Christian's trust. By it we are believers...…...
For if the resurrection of the flesh be denied, that prime article of the faith is shaken; if it be asserted, that is established...…..
Thus far it has been my object by prefatory remarks to lay a foundation for the defense of all the Scriptures which promise a resurrection of the flesh...….
Surely if killing means taking away life from the flesh, and its opposite, reviving, amounts to restoring life to the flesh, it must needs be that the flesh rise again, to which the life, which has been taken away by killing, has to be restored by vivification.
Here, then, we have a recognition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body, which may be killed: whence we learn that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh...….
By a figure we die in our baptism, but in a reality we rise again in the flesh, even as Christ did...……..
Interesting. Fortunately not only in the "social context" sense, but I even learned something.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:47 amTry aa5874Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:26 pm If the search engine worked over at the archive look up "aa5874." He was legendary. The Michael Jordan of crazy.
Andrew Criddle
It is Acts specifically that is little known not Luke's Gospel. Unlike the Gospels and Epistles it was hardly ever read publicly in church and so people who were not both a/ literate and b/ with access to a NT would not come across it nor know who was its author.Ulan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:01 amInteresting. Fortunately not only in the "social context" sense, but I even learned something.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:47 amTry aa5874Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:26 pm If the search engine worked over at the archive look up "aa5874." He was legendary. The Michael Jordan of crazy.
Andrew Criddle
A quote from the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles by John Chrysostomos:
"To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight."
That was written in the late 4th century, by the archbishop of Constantinople no less, and Acts and Luke are painted as virtually unknown. Probably something for a different thread.
It is clearly stated that little is known of both the book of Acts and the author and they are not aware a book called Acts exist. The existing evidence show that Acts of the Apostles was most likely a very late writing, no earlier than the late 2nd century, which suggest the author was not a contemporary of any 1st century character before or after c 70 CE.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:21 amIt is Acts specifically that is little known not Luke's Gospel. Unlike the Gospels and Epistles it was hardly ever read publicly in church and so people who were not both a/ literate and b/ with access to a NT would not come across it nor know who was its author.Ulan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:01 amInteresting. Fortunately not only in the "social context" sense, but I even learned something.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:47 amTry aa5874Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:26 pm If the search engine worked over at the archive look up "aa5874." He was legendary. The Michael Jordan of crazy.
Andrew Criddle
A quote from the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles by John Chrysostomos:
"To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight."
That was written in the late 4th century, by the archbishop of Constantinople no less, and Acts and Luke are painted as virtually unknown. Probably something for a different thread.
(I agree this is a digression from the thread).
Andrew Criddle
Yet doesn't Celsus know of Christians who seem very much like Marcionites?hakeem wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:17 am It is clearly stated that little is known of both the book of Acts and the author and they are not aware a book called Acts exist. The existing evidence show that Acts of the Apostles was most likely a very late writing, no earlier than the late 2nd century, which suggest the author was not a contemporary of any 1st century character before or after c 70 CE.
The supposed 2nd century writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Celsus show no knowledge of events or stories in Acts and no knowledge of a character called Paul mentioned over a hundred times in Acts.
You may well be right about that. Yet that does not mean that the details relayed could not, in part, be true remembrances. Just cherry-picked remembrances ...It is also interesting to note that it is claimed in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted on a daily basis however there is no record at all in any non-apologetic sources where thousands of Jews or even a single Jew was a Christian or believed the Jesus story as stated in Acts.
It would appear to me that Acts was unknown and was not in existing until sometime after the 2nd century or even later. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated to the 3rd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:28 am ... there are two books that I didn't read prior to writing my book that really support major aspects of the case I make and which go into more detail on those points than my own book. Those are Dykstra's book on GMark & Paul, and Adam Winn's book on GMark and the Elijah & Elisha narrative. Note that Winn is a very devout Christian and does not come to the conclusion that GMark is fictional, but nevertheless, his analysis of the Elijah & Elisha narrative in GMark is excellent.
Winn's study was supervised by Brodie -MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:36 pm
Another book on the Elijah & Elisha narrative is Thomas L Brodie's "The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model of the Gospels" ...
There is one brief Amazon review that says in part, ''not as good as Winn's book on Elijah and Elisha. Interesting insight into the how this narrative [is] included in the gospels. Have read his other book, 'the Birthing of the New Testament,' in which some points are stronger than others."
Brodie has been an academic Dominican priest who has published several books (many about the Gospel of John and it's origins), and his "Birthing of the New Testament" The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings" has been highly regarded as a key scholarly work on 'intertextuality'. He created controversy in orthodox circles in 2012 when he published "Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus".