Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 11-11-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paul, the author of Acts and the HOLY Ghost operated with in a vacuum since no other Church writer wrote about personally receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost was a Church writer personally receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost ? :huh:

I didn't know that.

Jiri

No Robots · 11-11-2009, 11:19 AM

Is it possible that Eusebius avoided discussion of Pentacost because so much had been made of it by the Montanists, the notorious evangelical sect that had so poisoned relations between the Church and the State?

andrewcriddle · 11-11-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Is it possible that Eusebius avoided discussion of Pentacost because so much had been made of it by the Montanists, the notorious evangelical sect that had so poisoned relations between the Church and the State?

I doubt if anti-Montanism is the reason, but for whatever cause Eusebius, throughout his works, shows unusually little interest in the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 11-11-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Is it possible that Eusebius avoided discussion of Pentacost because so much had been made of it by the Montanists, the notorious evangelical sect that had so poisoned relations between the Church and the State?

But, the personal experiences of Eusebius or any Church writer with receiving the Holy Ghost, talking in tongues, and performing miracles has no bearing on any poisoned relations between the Church and State.

And by the way, the author of John has a different recollection of how the disciples received the Holy Ghost. It may not have happened on the day of Pentecost, based on gJohn, they received the Holy Ghost from Jesus the very day he resurrected when he breathed on them.

John 20:19-23 -

Quote:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you................

[b] 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

It may be that it was Eusebius whose veracity was poisoned. It would appear that John's Jesus did not know about the day of Pentecost.

Clivedurdle · 11-11-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Eusebius, throughout his works, shows unusually little interest in the Holy Spirit.

But might that not lead to accusations of heresy by Trinitarians?

And what records are there of pentecostal type experiences in the early Church?

Is modern pentecostalism, despite their continual claims to be returning to the original church, a completely unrelated modernist phenomenon?

aa5874 · 11-11-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Eusebius, throughout his works, shows unusually little interest in the Holy Spirit.

But might that not lead to accusations of heresy by Trinitarians?

And what records are there of pentecostal type experiences in the early Church?

Is modern pentecostalism, despite their continual claims to be returning to the original church, a completely unrelated modernist phenomenon?

Eusebius in Church History talked about the author of Acts of the Apostles, the writer who wrote about the day of Pentecost when the disciple received the Holy Ghost.

Church History 3.4.7

Quote:

7. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them.

One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first.

The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.

But Chrysostom, even after Eusebius, painted a totally different and disturbing picture of the author and Acts.

The author and Acts are virtually unheard of, not known to exist, up to the end of the 4th century.

Homilies on Acts by Chrysostom.

Quote:

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.

When was Acts of the Apostles written, when was it known that there was a day of Pentecost when the disciples received the Holy Ghost?

The trail goes cold.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others wrote nothing about any personal experiences with talking in tongues, or any close associates who talked in tongues.

Chrysostom may indeed be right. They were not even aware that such an event, the day of Pentecost, ever happened.

Solo · 11-11-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Is it possible that Eusebius avoided discussion of Pentacost because so much had been made of it by the Montanists, the notorious evangelical sect that had so poisoned relations between the Church and the State?

I doubt if anti-Montanism is the reason, but for whatever cause Eusebius, throughout his works, shows unusually little interest in the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Criddle

Perhaps, this might help: Paul Tillich believed the orthodox church lost in four areas by excluding Montanism :

"1) the canon was victorious against the possibility of new revelations...,
2) the traditional hierarchy was confirmed against the prophetic spirit...
3) eschatology became less significant than it had been in the apostolic age. The ecclesiastical establishment became much more important...
4) The strict discipline of the Montanists was lost , giving way to growing laxity in the church... "

(Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, N.Y., 1968 p.41)

The first three points I think would explain something of the Eusebius diminished interest in the Spirit. No ?

Jiri

No Robots · 11-11-2009, 10:47 PM

The Romans were wisely repelled by Pentacostalism with its emotional excess; and current attempts to harness it to politics in the United States are profoundly misguided. The Americans do not, however, have an alternative Church establishment with which to form an alliance. The only real alternative to Pentacostalism now is an informed Christ-centered democracy. Of course, some still see the destruction of Christianity as the solution to this political conundrum; but this is rather a vain hope.

show_no_mercy · 11-12-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When was Acts of the Apostles written, when was it known that there was a day of Pentecost when the disciples received the Holy Ghost?

The trail goes cold.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others wrote nothing about any personal experiences with talking in tongues, or any close associates who talked in tongues.

Chrysostom may indeed be right. They were not even aware that such an event, the day of Pentecost, ever happened.

This is an interesting point. Who is the first Christian witness to Acts of the Apostles? Do we have a terminus ad quem for this book? Is there any reason that Acts of the Apostles was written in the first century (according to tradition) but would sit invisible in Christian polemics until the 4th century?

Toto · 11-12-2009, 09:13 AM

The terminus ad quem for Acts is usually listed at 150 CE, presumably because a few phrases in Justin Martyr appear to know Acts. Irenaeus certainly knew about Acts and is our source for identifying the author as Luke, even if he himself had no experience with the Holy Spirit. (Unless, of course, you think that Eusebius wrote Irenaeus. . . )

e-catena from Peter Kirby's site

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

11-11-2009, 11:19 AM	#12
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Is it possible that Eusebius avoided discussion of Pentacost because so much had been made of it by the Montanists, the notorious evangelical sect that had so poisoned relations between the Church and the State?

11-11-2009, 10:47 PM	#18
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	The Romans were wisely repelled by Pentacostalism with its emotional excess; and current attempts to harness it to politics in the United States are profoundly misguided. The Americans do not, however, have an alternative Church establishment with which to form an alliance. The only real alternative to Pentacostalism now is an informed Christ-centered democracy. Of course, some still see the destruction of Christianity as the solution to this political conundrum; but this is rather a vain hope.

11-12-2009, 09:13 AM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The terminus ad quem for Acts is usually listed at 150 CE, presumably because a few phrases in Justin Martyr appear to know Acts. Irenaeus certainly knew about Acts and is our source for identifying the author as Luke, even if he himself had no experience with the Holy Spirit. (Unless, of course, you think that Eusebius wrote Irenaeus. . . ) e-catena from Peter Kirby's site

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.