Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-17-2013, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...(On the substantive question of the origin of the term Christian, I think it originated in Nero's Rome rather than earlier in Antioch as in Acts. The limited usage of the term in the NT is IMHO a problem if the term was in widespread use before 50 CE.)

Andrew Criddle

I have already shown that writings in the 2nd century did NOT mention the term Christian when the author himself was a Christian and it was claimed he had a version of the Christian story of Jesus called the Diatessaron.

See Tatian's "Discourse to the Greeks"--No mention of "Christians"

See Revelation--No mention of Christians.

See gLuke--No mention of Christians

See gMatthew--No mention of Christians.

See the Pastorals--No mention of Christians.

See all the non-Pauline Epistles--No mention of Christians.

In addition there is no mention of "Christians" in Justin Martyr's:

1. Hortatory Address to the Greeks

2. On the Resurrection.

3. Discourse to the Greeks.

4. On the Sole Government of God.

It is clear that the claim that Pauline writings were early because they did not mention "Christians" is flawed.

Writings from those who called themselves Christians in the 2nd century did not mention Christians even though they supposedly lived 100 years after Nero.

I am afraid that you do not know what you are talking about. Here are the statistics of the use of the term in the 1st -3rd century.

Century: A.D. 1
Novum Testamentum: 3
Flavius Josephus Hist.: 1

Clemens Romanus Theol. et : 30
Ignatius Scr. Eccl.: 19
Matches in this century: 53
-----------------------------------------
Century: A.D. 2
Lucianus Soph.: 7
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud: 1
Acta Et Martyrium Apollonii: 6
Acta Joannis: 3
Acta Justini Et Septem Soda: 44
Cassius Dio Hist.: 12
Acta Pauli: 5
Acta Petri: 1
Martyrium Carpi, Papyli Et : 6
Acta Scillitanorum Martyrum: 5
Pseudo-Galenus Med.: 1
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol: 37
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus : 1
Justinus Martyr Apol.: 58
Anonymus Ad Avircium Marcel: 1
Apocalypsis Joannis: 2
Aristides Apol.: 5
Athenagoras Apol.: 6
Celsus Phil.: 57
Didache XII Apostolorum: 1
Epistula Ad Diognetum: 14
Epistula Ecclesiarum Apud L: 10
Hegesippus Scr. Eccl.: 1
Irenaeus Theol.: 5
Marci Aurelii Epistula: 9
Martyrium Polycarpi: 5
Martyrium Ptolemaei Et Luci: 8
Theophilus Apol.: 7
Montanus et Montanistae : 1
Origenes Theol.: 473
Martyrium Ignatii: 9
Matches in this century: 801

Century: A.D. 3
Pseudo-Justinus Martyr: 56
Martyrium Potamiaenae Et Ba: 1
Martyrium Marini: 2
Passio Perpetuae Et Felicit: 3
Porphyrius Phil.: 15
Acta Thomae: 3
Gregorius Thaumaturgus Scr: 2
Hippolytus Scr. Eccl.: 13
Acta Xanthippae Et Polyxena: 2
Petrus Scr. Eccl. et Theol: 2
Zosimus Alchem.: 2
Matches in this century: 101

stephan huller · 04-17-2013, 08:40 AM

mani's argument to Marcellus is "you guys are wrong about Paul, he didn't claim to be the Paraclete, he said the Paraclete was going to be someone else - ie me." he also says "paul admits he only knew in part so don't make a big deal if you find evidence for him saying he was the Paraclete."

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-17-2013, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

mani's argument to Marcellus is "you guys are wrong about Paul, he didn't claim to be the Paraclete, he said the Paraclete was going to be someone else - ie me."

May we have the full text of this discourse in which this argument appears, please.

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 04-17-2013, 09:00 AM

I thought Roger's link has the information. Just read it. Here it is again:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm

It's like asking someone to show the gospel is about a guy named Jesus have fights with Jews. I got to take someone to school but here is one chunk:. the speaker is the bishop Archelaus

Quote:

Wherefore after him, and after those who were with Himself— that is, the disciples— we are not to look for the advent of any other (such), according to the Scriptures; for our Lord Jesus Christ says of this Paraclete, He shall receive of mine. Him therefore He selected as an acceptable vessel; and He sent this Paul to us in the Spirit. Into him the Spirit was poured; and as that Spirit could not abide upon all men, but only on Him who was born of Mary the mother of God, so that Spirit, the Paraclete, could not come into any other, but could only come upon the apostles and the sainted Paul. For he is a chosen vessel, He says, unto me, to bear my name before kings and the Gentiles. The apostle himself, too, states the same thing in his first epistle, where he says: According to the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. And again: For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me by word and deed. I am the last of all the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle. But by the grace of God I am what I am. And it, is his wish to have to deal with those who sought the proof of that Christ who spoke in him, for this reason, that the Paraclete was in him: and as having obtained His gift of grace, and as being enriched with magnificent, honour, he says: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter. In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of another Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, Or do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above. [34]

There are countless more. The text is in corrupt Latin. Jerome says it was written in Syriac and then translated into Greek. Epiphanius has information left out of our text or changed.

aa5874 · 04-17-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I am afraid that you do not know what you are talking about. Here are the statistics of the use of the term in the 1st -3rd century.

Century: A.D. 1
Novum Testamentum: 3
Flavius Josephus Hist.: 1

Clemens Romanus Theol. et : 30
Ignatius Scr. Eccl.: 19
Matches in this century: 53
-----------------------------------------
Century: A.D. 2
Lucianus Soph.: 7
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud: 1
Acta Et Martyrium Apollonii: 6
Acta Joannis: 3
Acta Justini Et Septem Soda: 44
Cassius Dio Hist.: 12
Acta Pauli: 5
Acta Petri: 1
Martyrium Carpi, Papyli Et : 6
Acta Scillitanorum Martyrum: 5
Pseudo-Galenus Med.: 1
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol: 37
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus : 1
Justinus Martyr Apol.: 58
Anonymus Ad Avircium Marcel: 1
Apocalypsis Joannis: 2
Aristides Apol.: 5
Athenagoras Apol.: 6
Celsus Phil.: 57
Didache XII Apostolorum: 1
Epistula Ad Diognetum: 14
Epistula Ecclesiarum Apud L: 10
Hegesippus Scr. Eccl.: 1
Irenaeus Theol.: 5
Marci Aurelii Epistula: 9
Martyrium Polycarpi: 5
Martyrium Ptolemaei Et Luci: 8
Theophilus Apol.: 7
Montanus et Montanistae : 1
Origenes Theol.: 473
Martyrium Ignatii: 9
Matches in this century: 801

Century: A.D. 3
Pseudo-Justinus Martyr: 56
Martyrium Potamiaenae Et Ba: 1
Martyrium Marini: 2
Passio Perpetuae Et Felicit: 3
Porphyrius Phil.: 15
Acta Thomae: 3
Gregorius Thaumaturgus Scr: 2
Hippolytus Scr. Eccl.: 13
Acta Xanthippae Et Polyxena: 2
Petrus Scr. Eccl. et Theol: 2
Zosimus Alchem.: 2
Matches in this century: 101

Your post does not really address the OP or the flawed statement of Andrew that the Pauline writings were early because they do not mention Christians.

Giving a long list of copies of writings that may be in a far worse condition than the very Pauline letters is of very little use in this thread.

Many, many of the writings you listed are considered either internally inconsistent, manipulated, forgeries, questionable or false attribution or Anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.

I no longer accept presumptions as evidence especially when there is no corroboration from antiquity.

It is already known, perhaps universally, that the term Christian was NOT derived from the Jesus cult. It is already known that Paul in the Canon did NOT start the Jesus cult of Christians. It is claimed Paul persecuted the Jesus cult and delivered letters from the Jerusalem to Churches in the Roman Empire. See Acts 7, 8,9,15-28.

And most important, in the Canon, there is no claim that Paul composed the Pauline letters up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea.

Vorkosigan · 04-17-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Novum Testamentum: 3
Flavius Josephus Hist.: 1

Clemens Romanus Theol. et : 30
Ignatius Scr. Eccl.: 19
Matches in this century: 53

LOL. the Josephus passage is a later forgery, Clemens romanus is 2nd century, as is the epistolary novel known as the Ignatia. That leaves three references in texts that are likely second century as well.

All we can do is put things in relative order. Based on their language the Paulines come before the texts that mention the term "Christian". I don't think there is any way to date them to a particular time, except it had to be sometime in the first century or early second prior to the texts that are dependent on them.

Vorkosigan

outhouse · 04-17-2013, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Just go away. No one cares what you have to say.

LOL sorry bud they wont let me rep you again.

PhilosopherJay · 04-17-2013, 10:00 PM

Hi Vorkosigan,

Good point. In science, we generally find the unknown by looking at the better known, as Aristotle pointed out. Here we are finding the unknown by the equally unknown.

Its like saying that we know that that the Zombie Apocalypse is underway because the space aliens have told us and we know that the space aliens are truthful because the vampires have told us. We have the werewolves to vouch for the vampires. With all of this evidence, we can be sure that the Zombie Apocalypse is underway.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Novum Testamentum: 3
Flavius Josephus Hist.: 1

Clemens Romanus Theol. et : 30
Ignatius Scr. Eccl.: 19
Matches in this century: 53

LOL. the Josephus passage is a later forgery, Clemens romanus is 2nd century, as is the epistolary novel known as the Ignatia. That leaves three references in texts that are likely second century as well.

All we can do is put things in relative order. Based on their language the Paulines come before the texts that mention the term "Christian". I don't think there is any way to date them to a particular time, except it had to be sometime in the first century or early second prior to the texts that are dependent on them.

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse · 04-18-2013, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I thought Roger's link has the information. Just read it. Here it is again:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm

It's like asking someone to show the gospel is about a guy named Jesus have fights with Jews. I got to take someone to school but here is one chunk:. the speaker is the bishop Archelaus

Quote:

Wherefore after him, and after those who were with Himself— that is, the disciples— we are not to look for the advent of any other (such), according to the Scriptures; for our Lord Jesus Christ says of this Paraclete, He shall receive of mine. Him therefore He selected as an acceptable vessel; and He sent this Paul to us in the Spirit. Into him the Spirit was poured; and as that Spirit could not abide upon all men, but only on Him who was born of Mary the mother of God, so that Spirit, the Paraclete, could not come into any other, but could only come upon the apostles and the sainted Paul. For he is a chosen vessel, He says, unto me, to bear my name before kings and the Gentiles. The apostle himself, too, states the same thing in his first epistle, where he says: According to the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. And again: For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me by word and deed. I am the last of all the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle. But by the grace of God I am what I am. And it, is his wish to have to deal with those who sought the proof of that Christ who spoke in him, for this reason, that the Paraclete was in him: and as having obtained His gift of grace, and as being enriched with magnificent, honour, he says: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter. In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of another Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, Or do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above. [34]

There are countless more. The text is in corrupt Latin. Jerome says it was written in Syriac and then translated into Greek. Epiphanius has information left out of our text or changed.

Stephan, the difficulty with this passage is that it does not say "Paul is the paraclete" but that the paraclete was in Paul. There is a rather large difference in these positions, surely?

stephan huller · 04-18-2013, 10:56 AM

You really think that is a big distinction when Jerome tells us that the text was effectively translated through three different languages - at least once possibly more times for each? Consider for a moment that heretics transformed something as basic as the names 'the Savior' and 'Jesus' as separate things even though. If there is such confusion about יהושע so much more so for the other terms (i.e. 'Christ' and of course 'Comforter').

Just look how empty all this Christian talk of the comforter is. It derives from a root which means among other things compassion, sorrow, comfort, grief, repentance, and vengeance. Like the messiah, 'the comforter' was one who originally brought vengeance. Look how that term was corrupted by what are now 'normative' Christians. The idea that there were Jews or Aramaic speaking people talking about a Holy Spirit that brought comfort and kindness to everyone is just silly. In Samaritan Aramaic for instance אנחמותה = 'revenge.'

It is amazing to see Christians point to the gnostics 'corrupting' the terms Christ, Paraclete etc but they don't recognize that they did the same thing. Surely how language is used is well established. If Christianity was a historical religion which grew up among Aramaic speakers we know what 'the Comforter' was originally and if someone was so called we know their function, i.e. why they were called that.

The Comforter is rooted in the same concept as the messiah - i.e. one who would bring comfort by exacting vengeance. Whether Archelaus or the author of the original Syriac text still knew this is up for debate. But the original terminology goes back to a very specific concept which is absolutely certain. If there were historical apostles making reference to Paul being the menachem there is only one thing that could be meant by this. If it is something made up by Greek speaking people (= mountainman/mythicist nonsense) then of course anything is possible.

More from Acts of Archelaus:

Quote:

And when the Galatians are minded to turn away from the Gospel, he says to them: I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would turn you away from the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which has been delivered to you, let him be accursed. And again he says: To me, who am the least of all the apostles, is this grace given; and, I fill up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh. And once more, in another place, he declares of himself that he was a minister of Christ more than all others, as though after him none other was to be looked for at all; for he enjoins that not even an angel from heaven is thus to be received. And how, then, shall we credit the professions of this Manes, who comes from Persis, and declares himself to be the Paraclete? By this very thing, indeed, I rather recognise in him one of those men who transform themselves, and of whom the Apostle Paul, that elect vessel, has given us very clear indication

From Origen:

Quote:

The apostle Paul warns against inordinate and irrational love when he says of himself, "I fear that someone might have an opinion of me above what he sees or hears from me, and that the greatness of the revelations might exalt me," and so on. (2 Cor 12:6-7) Paul feared that even he might fall into this error. So he was unwilling to state everything about himself that he knew. He wanted no one to think more of him than he saw or, going beyond the limits of honor, to say what had been said about john, that "he was the Christ." Some people said this even about Dositheus, the heresiarch of the Samaritans; others said it also about judas the Galilean. Finally, some people burst forth into such great audacity of love that they invented new and unheard of exaggerations about Paul. For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of "sitting at the Savior's right and left" (Mk 10:38) applies to Paul and Marcion: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left. Others read the passage, "I shall send you an advocate, the Spirit of Truth," (Jn 14:16) and are unwilling to understand a third person besides the Father and the Son, a divine and exalted nature. They take it to mean the apostle Paul. Do not all of these seem to you to have loved more than is fitting and, while they admired the virtue of each, to have lost moderation in love?" [Origen, Homilies on Luke 23]

From De Recta in Deum Fide:

Quote:

However because he was His forerunner, he inquired whether he was to be that in the abode of the dead also. For he knew that He had stated, "I go away, and I will send the Paraclete"— that is, the Holy Spirit. But there is something truer still to be learnt in the incident: John's disciples were accustomed to reading about two comings of Christ, but they were ignorant that he himself was about to depart from the world.

or, as it is translated in the version of Rufinus

Quote:

he asked if he was also to precede Him to the place of the dead. He knew, for instance, that He had said to His disciples, 'I go away, and I will send another Paraclete to you' — referring to the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this question implies also a further point: the disciples of John were not, ignorant of the two advents of Christ, but they did not know who he might be who should accomplish them both.

Consider also the evidence of the Apocalypse of Paul:

Quote:

Now, while one of the two scriptural bases for the tale (= the Apocalypse of Paul), 2 Cor 12,2-4, does not mention Jesus or Christ, the other one (Gal 1,13-17) says that "God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me." The description of Paul as being "set aside" is twice alluded to in the Apocalypse of Paul (18,16- 17; 23,3-4), but the text is silent on the issue of the revelation of the Son of God.

However, it may be significant that the Greek of Gal 1,15-16 can also be read as meaning "God... was pleased to reveal his Son in me (ἐν ἐμοί), so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles," a reading that is more literally faithful to the Greek of the text. Exegetes have wrestled over Paul's precise meaning in this passage, but our concern here is not with Paul himself, but rather with the author of the Apocalypse of Paul. Now, the Valentinians were well-known for their careful exploitation of nuances and possible alternate meanings of the vocabulary and syntax of the texts they interpreted, and it is possible to read the passage as linking Paul and Christ, implicitly making Christ responsible for Paul's mission, but also explaining His absence: He is not separate from Paul, a figure which Paul could see or meet, but rather is in some sense within Paul, identified with him, and also identified with Paul's future activities. This coheres with Heracleon's belief (which outraged Origen) that pneumatics are essentially of the same nature as God. A similar expression is found in Romans 8,10-11. Here too Christ is said to be within the believer. The passage goes on to speak of the resurrection of the believers "mortal bodies" from the dead. For Ptolemy and Heracleon, this passage cannot be referring to the physical body of the believer. Instead, they argue that "it describes those who are 'dead,' namely, the psychics." Following this interpretation, they argued that the pneumatic elect had a "duty of care" to their psychic brethren: "The elect are sent into this world — together with the Savior — to join themselves to the psychics and thereby to union with the Father. Thus we have a clear precedent within Valentinian thought for the idea of Christ or God dwelling within the pneumatic being linked to the salvation of others, Paul's future goal in the Apocalypse of Paul (23, 13 - 17)

If this hypothesis is accepted, and we assume that the author of the Apocalypse of Paul has what might be called an immanent Christology, in line with other Valentinian thinkers, one could say that Christ's presence within Paul makes possible his career as an apostle. But surely to a believing Christian of whatever sort it would be more accurate to say instead that Paul can be considered to be the means by which Christ's mission is carried out91. This understanding would thus resolve the paradoxes involved in the Apocalypse of Paul's allusion (at 23,13-17) to Eph 4,8. Here Paul is announcing his own intention to undertake in the future an activity (taking captive captivity) that according to Eph 4,8 had already been undertaken by Christ in the past. If, drawing on the alternate interpretation of Gal 1,15-16 discussed above, we regard Paul as in some way containing Christ, and thus being to some degree identified with Him, then the activity of taking captive captivity can be seen as an on-going process that began with Christ's ascension and that will be completed by Paul.

Murdock has also attempted to resolve the question of the relationship between Paul and Christ, albeit in a different manner. He argues that the author of the Apocalypse of Paul understood Paul as being a second Christ, or more precisely the Paraclete, who according to Valentinian beliefs is produced and sent out by the Aeons after Christ rises to the Pleroma and begs for assistance for those still trapped in the lower cosmos. As Murdock points out, Exc. 23 does indicate that some Valentinians identified the Paraclete with Paul, but it should be noted that this text only refers to Paul as being a type of the Paraclete, and not the Paraclete itself [L'apocalypse de Paul: (NH V, 2), Jean-Marc Rosenstiehl, Michael Kaler p. 146 - 148].

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

04-17-2013, 08:40 AM	#62
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	mani's argument to Marcellus is "you guys are wrong about Paul, he didn't claim to be the Paraclete, he said the Paraclete was going to be someone else - ie me." he also says "paul admits he only knew in part so don't make a big deal if you find evidence for him saying he was the Paraclete."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.