IamJoseph

The above is all correct, however I was more inclining to its import, namely that a non-christian gentile is deemed not saveable, while this is not the case with the Hebrew gentile [ger], which operates on equavalent justice to all, based on one's deeds. This differential is crucial, and lends insight where and how humanity went wrong.

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

There are differences between the problems of the interpretational of "theology" and the problems of the interpretation of "ancient history". Which are you referring to?


The theories that I am exploring are theories in the domain of ancient history. I am looking at the canonical corpus of "christian literature" as an object in the field of ancient history, and one which entered the field in an historical sense in an as yet unknown century, early in the "Common Era".

Theological concerns are not the same concerns of profane history. I am therefore interested more in not the internal contents of the package of the canonical christian corpus of literature (as are most BC&H researchers) but in the history of the entire "object" hitting the reality of antiquity. Eusebius aside, the fourth century sees the "object" fully deployed.

Before the fourth century, (in history, perhaps not theology) we are guessing amidst stark demographics. We are aware of many theologies present at that time, which were even then ancient, but how aware are we of the one "christian theology" in a detailed sense, and by what sources, and ancient historical evidence?

In the 4th century ancient history tells us that "christianity" first emerged as a cohesive "nation", "political party", "group", "religion", <INSERT APPROPRIATE TERM> with very distinctive traits. Some of these traits were tax-exemptions, basilica custody, control of the literature, presence in the imperial court, "canonicity", etc.

In a theological sense, (I think that) you are arguing how I would argue if I was arguing theology. But am restricting my arguments to profane history and politics, which IMO at the end of the day, should be sufficient to explain the history of "christianity".

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Fair enough then.

I presume you are arguing that the NT authors had no comprehension of "the christian nation" as distinct from the Jews and the Hellenes. Or that the concept of "christians" as a "nation" is in fact a "late" concept first floated by its distinctive useage by our man Eusebius? Otherwise, can you summarise the nature of the error I have comitted so I can understand it? Thanks.

And best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

I have spent the last few hours in rereading our previous exchanges in other threads. Nothing has significantly changed in either of our positions, and as it has only been a few months, it is not yet due season to put the plow to those same old fields yet again.
I'll only repeat my objection that your present tangent of "interpretation" of text and of "Christian church history" is being pursued in the same flawed fashion as employed by fundamentalists practicing eisegesis, reading into the text, and into history, the foregone conclusions that you want to evidence.
You may thereby persuade yourself, but you will strain to convince others, and sans any knowledge of your "peculiar" readings and interpretations of the texts, and of the facts of history, almost no one else would ever independently arrive at your conclusions.
Your approach is one of a determination to provide the "proofs" that will support your own theory.
No one can prevent you from "interpreting" or distorting historical facts to serve your biased agenda, but it is incumbent upon honest and ethical men to protest when you attempt under the guise of "paraphrasing", to alter the contents and the meanings of ancient documents to accommodate them to the supporting of your theories.
If you are right and justified in so doing, then so are the fundamentalist religionist when they engage in their eisegesis.
I cannot conscionably accept this practice by them, or by you. I object and protest to your imposed interpolations and interpretations.
A multitude of words is not going to alter or remove that objection. You need to work with what the texts actually say, not with what you -want- them to say to fit to your pre-determined theories.

Toto

There is no hint in the NT of a Christian nation. Christianity was intended to be supranational, and include all of humanity. It was only the later Christian writers who saw their church as a separate group that could coexist with other groups in the Roman Empire; this seems to have been Eusebius' point of view.

Even later, of course, Christians took over the government, and every subject of a Christian monarch became Christian.

You seem to be confusing nationality, which is a relatively immutable characteristic, with religious belief, which is subject to change. But you seem to be so totally confused that it is hard to know where to start.

mountainman

To a certain extent, I agree that we all need to work with what the texts actually say, not with what we -want- them to say to fit to our pre-determined theories. Hence my questions regarding "Who were the gentiles in the New Testament", and to what extent were the gentiles the Hellenes"? I must say I have found the results illuminating, and have learnt a few things.

But to a certain extent it is not only just what the texts have to say that is important, rather it is what they have to say in the relative context of their milieu. This implies that we have an idea of who wrote them, why they were written, when and where they were written, and so forth. You must agree that, with respect to the NT corpus we do not know the answer to these further contextual questions, and this makes things difficult.

mountainman

What about the suggestion of a special christian "kingdom"?


But who did the intending? The historical jesus? The historical apostles and/or Paul? Tertullian? Justin Martyr? Papias? Heggesipius? Josephus? Julius Caesar? Celsus? Buddha? Shiva? Or was it god? Or was it simply the unknown scriptores of the NT, or he who commissioned them? And when (which century?) did "they" so intend this? In which century did the intention arise?

Was it?

(Luke 19:27),
Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them,
bring them here, and kill them before me.

Toto

That is God / Jesus ruling over the whole world, not a special nation for Christians among other nations.

Whoever wrote the NT shows this intent, whenever it was written.

Precisely. Those who do not want to be part of the Kingdom of God will be destroyed. There is nowhere else for them to go - no other possible nationality. And anyone can join the nation of Christians by believing.

gentleexit

Um. What about "the Shepherd"? It pre-dates the fourth (nation-building) century, is the epitome of the "Church" building part stage of Christianity. Yes, it says "join before it is too late" but between "too late" and now, there are still other "nations".

What about treatises "against the Hellenes" etc. Again, others nations/group are pitted against what exactly? A Christian "nation" surely? I'm was a Greek. I write against "the Greeks". What am I now?

Read pre-fourth century apology et al and I think you see Church == separate nation/not Greek (not Sophist), not Jew (rabbi Jew) etc, one fighting many.

Toto

Pete's question was about the NT. Christians in the Roman Empire acted like a separate ethnic group at times, but their stated ideology was universal.