Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-23-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The context of the statement in Isaiah is, of course, a human person. Naturally, anything said is going to have an earthly context.

If the suffering servant is, of course, a human person on earth, and Clement thinks that Jesus is the suffering servant, then does Clement think that Jesus is, of course, a human person on earth?

Ben.

He clearly does. Which was the original point: The epistles DO have a reference to Jesus as having lived on earth. Since this epistle also references Jesus as a teacher, we can reasonably conclude that the author believed Jesus had a ministry on earth. That of course doesn't mean that Jesus REALLY DID have a ministry on earth, but an author's belief IS one of the pieces of the puzzle.

Earl rightly points out what is missing: ie Clement saying something about Jesus dying on calvary during the reign of Pilate, for example, such as is overtly described in the gospels. The question is how meaningful such an omission is. Since 1 Clement is familiar with "gospel-like" teachings claimed for Jesus, how is that to be reconciled with the idea that he used Isaiah to refer to the passion events instead of tradition derived from actual history? Did the author not know of this passion tradition? If so, what had he heard about HOW and WHERE and WHEN this teacher Jesus died from the same source from which he got Jesus' commandments that he referenced?

Does it make sense for a guy to accept a tradition of death and resurrection taken EXCLUSIVELY from Isaiah while simultaneously accepting another tradition of specific sayings and teachings from this Jesus when there is NOTHING in the OT from which he can quote such sayings? And, NOTHING from this source providing further detail on his all-important death and resurrection?

ted

Toto · 07-23-2008, 12:09 PM

If Clement describes Jesus by using words from the LXX referring to a suffering servant, is Jesus that suffering servant (perhaps in another dimension or another form) - or a mythological being based on that suffering servant - or someone else?

TedM · 07-23-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Clement describes Jesus by using words from the LXX referring to a suffering servant, is Jesus that suffering servant (perhaps in another dimension or another form) - or a mythological being based on that suffering servant - or someone else?

If you mean "what did Clement believe", it seems most reasonable to me to conclude that Clement believed Jesus had been a teacher on earth, and died on earth, and that he literally sent apostles out into the world.

Note the following SEEMS to say that Jesus personally gave the apostles the gospel, and the resurrection followed this charge:

Lightfoot translation:

Quote:

1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

This verse appears to reflect knowledge of the gospel teachings

Quote:

1 Clem 46:8
Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that
man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that
at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that
a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than
that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

Ben C Smith · 07-23-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Clement describes Jesus by using words from the LXX referring to a suffering servant, is Jesus that suffering servant (perhaps in another dimension or another form) - or a mythological being based on that suffering servant - or someone else?

From 1 Clement 16.2-3:

...according as the holy spirit spoke concerning him [Jesus Christ], for it [the spirit] says: Lord, who believed our report? [The rest of Isaiah 53 follows.]

Ben.

EarlDoherty · 07-23-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Clement describes Jesus by using words from the LXX referring to a suffering servant, is Jesus that suffering servant (perhaps in another dimension or another form) - or a mythological being based on that suffering servant - or someone else?

From 1 Clement 16.2-3:

...according as the holy spirit spoke concerning him [Jesus Christ], for it [the spirit] says: Lord, who believed our report? [The rest of Isaiah 53 follows.]

Ben, if we were to take things as literally as you want to take them, then we would have Clement understanding Isaiah 53 as a specific, literal description of Jesus' experience, the Holy Spirit's biography of him prior to the fact. You have ignored what I said in the rest of that post, as to a different interpretation of how a writer like Clement saw scripture as 'prophesying' Christ. That epistle is full of indicators of exactly how the author regarded scripture as 'telling' of Christ. See my Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers article.

Besides, if he wanted to describe Jesus' passion, even in terms of scripture, why do we not get from him or others like him any use of scripture in the matter of details about the Gospel depiction? Why no gambling for Jesus' clothes at the foot of the cross, no scriptural adumbration of Judas the betrayer, why no Isaian references to scourging, spitting and insult, the Psalmic laments about distress, and so on. All of these 'prophesy' elements of Jesus' passion are presented in the Gospels, yet Isaiah 53 contains only elements which could apply to representing Jesus' experiences in a spiritual setting. (The one Gospel detail present in the Suffering Servant Song is 53:7's "he did not open his mouth" which probably produced the story line about Jesus' silence before his judges.)

Would "Clement" (let's say writing in the 90s) have had no knowledge of the Gospel account? No access to a written Gospel, three of which according to standard scholarly dating had already been written? Why did he have to go to Isaiah at all? (Compare 1 Peter 2:22 which does the same thing.) This makes it dubious that he is relying on a Gospel to extract "teachings" of Jesus, and could be speaking of such "words" in the same way as Paul in 1 Corinthians: "words of the Lord" which are the product of Christian prophets relying on revelation from the heavenly Christ for these teachings. (This is a common scholarly interpretation.) Since Clement's 'teachings' are so commonplace, it is likely that those commonplace ethics, in circulation during the early period, were simply accorded to the heavenly Christ in the same way. Just as Christ "taught" through Paul's "words of the Lord," he teaches through other Christians--until the Gospels came along. Certainly, there is nothing in what Clement says about those "words of the Lord Jesus when teaching" (in ch. 13) which specifies a source in tradition about an earthly man's career. And in the very next chapter (14:4) he seems particularly ignorant about any teachings of Jesus in regard to the Proverbs quote about "the kind-hearted will inhabit the earth." (But we've been over this before, Ben, a few years ago.)

Nor do we ever get from Clement a comparison of scripture with history. No 'as scripture prophesies...thus was it fulfilled on earth in such-and-such a detail.' For him, the scriptural event IS the embodiment of the Jesus event, which is otherwise unknown. All of this restrictive usage of scripture throughout the epistles (and I've called attention to it repeatedly) is ignored by those who simplistically make the claims that you and Ted have made.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 07-23-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

Does the author seem desparate when he mentions the following?

*He taught others forbearance and long-suffering 13:1
*He taught "Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy...." 13:2
*He was a holy teacher, giving commandments 13:3, 49:1
*He had apostles whom he charged to spread his message 42:3
*He taught about those that cause others to lose faith "Woe unto that man..." 46:8
*He lived in the flesh 49:6
*He shed his blood 49:6
*He was resurrected 42:3
*His resurrection assured his apostles that the kingdom of God would come 42:3
*His apostles went out and spread the good news following the resurrection 42:4

Earl, I think your overall thesis would be strengthened by clearly identifying exactly which or which parts of the "early" epistles you believe pre-dated belief in an earthly Jesus, and which passages you believe were added later. (From what I recall in your writings you have done this to some extent with your writings on 1 John and more vaguely on the Didache). Without such identifications you'll continue to have people like me finding passages which most reasonably indicate belief in an earthly Jesus in the very epistles you are claiming support your case.

As I have continually pointed out, nothing in the above list is incompatible with a spiritual Christ. A spiritual Christ can "teach" through revelation; he can "send out apostles" through directives imagined by those apostles. He can die and be resurrected in a spiritual form.

And there is not an early document, from Paul to the Didache to the Shepherd to Barnabas, that I have not clearly analysed to show what entails a belief in an earthly Jesus and what does not. I admit that this is a huge amount of material, but it is there, in both book and website.

And because you keep bringing it up, and I keep answering it to no avail and with no acknowledgement from you, I will yet again post the section of my article on 1 Clement (see link in previous post) which answers your contention surrounding chapter 42.

Quote:

A Chain of Apostolic Authority

But there is one important passage in 1 Clement which allegedly supports the case for the writer’s belief in an historical Jesus. It comprises an appeal to the idea of apostolic tradition, a chain of authority that began at the onset of the movement and now culminates in those leaders whom the rebels in Corinth have challenged. Clement uses this apostolic chain to argue for the illegitimacy of the rebels’ actions. Yet even in this passage there are anomalies and silences which are almost universally overlooked.

Here is the first part of chapter 42, as translated by Kirsopp Lake:

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God’s will. Having therefore received their commands, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with faith confirmed by the word of God, they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming.”

1 Clement 42 is probably the earliest example in Christian correspondence of the idea of tracing authority and/or doctrine back to earlier periods in an authoritative chain. This is something that even Ignatius lacks, as do the Johannine epistles. But what is it that the writer is tracing back to?

It would be instructive to compare this passage with Revelation 1:1-3:

“This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he [Christ] sent it through his angel to his servant John who, telling everything he saw, has borne witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” [Conflating parts of the NIV and the NEB]

God makes a revelation to Jesus, who in turn communicates it through an angel to the prophet John. John, in setting it all down in writing, is passing on Christ’s revelation to him. The figure of Christ communicates entirely through spiritual, revelatory channels. For John, Christ is an exclusively heavenly figure, a portrayal consistent throughout Revelation. (See Article No. 11: Revelation: The Gospel According to the Prophet John.)

If John is an apostle of the Christ, he would claim to have derived his preaching authority and message from Christ—through an angel—while Christ in his turn has received his message from God, both spiritual channels. I suggest that this is precisely the pattern we see in 1 Clement (a work, by the way, probably close in time to the writing of Revelation, which is most often dated in the 90s.)

Verse 42:1 says that Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The root verb “sent” is used many times throughout Christian epistles in contexts which imply a spiritual sending. It is the same verb used—including by Clement—to talk of the sending of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in this epistle which says that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God while on earth. In fact, it is notably lacking. Verse 1 says that the apostles received their gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ in a chain clearly stated: the message passed from God to Christ, then from Christ to the apostles. The apostles go out preaching the good news as though they are the first to carry the message. There is a notable silence on any idea that such a message had previously been preached by Christ himself, to a much wider audience than the apostles themselves. God tells Christ, Christ tells the apostles, the apostles tell the world. It is the same narrow sequence as in Revelation.

And in Paul. In Galatians 1:12 Paul speaks of receiving his gospel—the gospel of God, as he and other epistle writers style it—through a revelation of Jesus Christ (which could mean “from” or “about” Christ). The Son has been revealed ‘in and through’ himself (Gal. 1:16), and he is passing it on through his preaching message. Nothing prevents us from interpreting Clement’s meaning in the same revelatory way, especially as at the beginning of the next chapter he proceeds to eradicate any sense of a physical commissioning of the apostles by Jesus in his ministry: “And what wonder is it if those who were in Christ, and were entrusted by God with such a duty, established those who have been mentioned?”

First of all, the phrase “in Christ” is suspiciously like the Pauline motif “in/through Christ” which (regardless of whether one believes he knew an historical Jesus or not) meant the spiritual presence of the heavenly Christ within people or situations. It is very suggestive of the mystical cult atmosphere found in Paul, which I maintain is devoid of an historical Jesus. More importantly, if the writer of 1 Clement just had in mind Jesus’ commissioning of the apostles, either during his ministry or following the resurrection in flesh, it is hardly likely he would have reverted to saying that the apostles were “entrusted by God” with their mission. If, however, Christ were simply a spiritual force acting as God’s channel, and not the object of human memory, expressing things this way would be understandable.

Christ’s Resurrection

Before pursuing Clement’s chain of authority argument further, let’s go back to the idea of the resurrection, as alluded to in 42:3. Most translations, of course, assume the Gospel background and imply that the apostles went out to preach full of encouragement having just witnessed Jesus’ return from the grave. But is this overlooking a more natural meaning in the text itself? The verb for “fully assured” (plêrophoreô) implies “filled with confidence, faith, determination, etc.” (colloquially, “pumped up”), but it is followed by the preposition “dia” which means “on account of, by reason of”). This is general enough to make possible the meaning that the apostles were filled with confidence at the thought of the resurrection, in the sense of an article of faith. In fact, this is the sense in which Ignatius uses this verb and idea in the opening of his epistle to the Philadelphians, where he says that his readers “have sure and certain conviction in the resurrection of our Lord”; and it is used in the same sense in the enumeration of Jesus’ biographical elements in Magnesians 11.

But there is more to support the meaning of ‘convinced by faith.’ Following on the statement that the apostles are “fully assured by/on account of the resurrection,” the writer adds that they are “filled with faith in the word of God.” What is it that they feel an assured belief in, if not the resurrection just referred to? That such a thing is designated “the word of God” would indicate that this is in fact an article of faith, the product of revelation, and not something known through eyewitness. (This second phrase has been curiously dropped from Staniforth’s Penguin translation.)

Paul, too, confesses his and others’ conviction of Jesus’ resurrection in terms suggesting faith, not historical eyewitness, as in Romans 10:9 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14. And in 1 Corinthians 15:12-15, in urging the assurance of resurrection on his readers, Paul declares that if there is no general resurrection, then Christ himself cannot have been raised, and he and other apostles have been lying about what God has said. This implies that the source of what Paul preaches about the resurrection of Jesus has come from God, not from history and tradition. In other words, it is an article of faith, revealed from divine sources.

The whole passage in 1 Clement 42:1-3 seems to be saying this: the apostles, having received the gospel, by (spiritual) revelation from God through Christ, and pumped up by the thought of the resurrection of Christ and fully believing God’s word (through revelation or scripture) that it was true, set out to preach to the world (which hears it for the first time) the coming Kingdom of God.

Appointment of Apostles

After saying that the apostles had gone out, having been “entrusted by God” to preach the Kingdom, Clement goes on to provide further evidence that he intended no picture of Christ commissioning apostles during an earthly ministry. The main purpose of Clement’s letter is to impress upon the rebel Corinthians that they must accept the authority of their appointed elders, and he marshals all manner of evidence, mostly drawn from scripture, to support the principle of this authority. While there may be some distinction of roles between appointed apostles and appointed bishops and deacons, this passage (chapters 42-44) is one in which Clement is addressing the concept of delegation—from God through Christ to the apostles. The flow of thought, right up to 44:3, indicates that the God-Christ-apostles chain is being extended through the apostles’ appointment of bishops and deacons in the communities they converted. Clement goes on to search for a sacred foundation for the legitimacy of these appointments. He finds a foundation and precedent in the books of Moses and the prophets, where those figures under divine guidance set down instructions for such proceedings. For proof that appointment of church ministers is inviolable, Clement has recourse to Moses’ appointment of Aaron and a prophecy in Isaiah.

But a missing precedent should be evident: the record of Jesus’ personal appointment of the Twelve (or however many) and their authority to do everything in his name. Where are the words he would have spoken on such an occasion—even if developed in later church imagination? Where is Matthew’s directive to Peter himself—supposedly the first bishop of Clement’s own community, which would have seized on any such tradition—that here was the rock upon which the church was to be built, giving Peter powers to bind and loose? If the Roman community possessed no tradition of the dramatic appointment of Peter (because it was an invention of the Matthean evangelist and his community somewhere in Syria, and perhaps at this time not yet set down on paper), I have argued earlier that the Roman church should not have failed to preserve or develop specific traditions concerning Jesus’ teachings and directives, and this would include an appointment of apostles. The very occurrence of situations which this epistle addresses would guarantee such a thing.

Even given the technical distinctions between apostles and community leaders, one would think that such precedents as these, such foundations of authority, would have struck Clement as pertinent and would have accompanied his scriptural arguments. The bare reference in chapter 42 will not do, as we have already seen; further, because there are none of the particulars we would expect if this represented a tradition of appointment on earth by Jesus. Look at the details Clement supplies in the matter of Moses in the next chapter.

Finally, Clement rounds off his discussion here (chapter 44) with this statement: “Our apostles also knew, through (dia) our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop.” This would be an odd way of expressing the idea that Jesus during his ministry or resurrection appearances had given the apostles this forecast, but perfectly natural if the meaning is of a revelation gained from the spiritual Christ. As Lightfoot points out (The Apostolic Fathers, vol.1, p.398), “dia” is frequently used by Clement to denote the mediatorial channel which Christ in heaven represents; “dia toutou” (through him) occurs five times in chapter 36 alone with precisely this meaning. The plain sense of the statement quoted above in 44:1 is one of communication from the heavenly Jesus. If so, since it ties itself (through the word kai) to what has come previously, this casts the same meaning back upon the entire discussion about the apostles and their commission from God through Christ. We may say that given such a meaning, no thought of an historical Jesus can be present in the writer’s mind, for the first apostles of Christ were not likely to have been characterized as being appointed in any other way than by the earthly Jesus himself.

Earl Doherty

TedM · 07-23-2008, 02:37 PM

Earl, I will ask you again: Why did you extract "since the creation of the world" from your first silence. I found it to be highly misleading on your part. So much that it made dismissing that silence as being out of context a very easy task. That, along with your habit of taking bits and pieces from different translations to make your interpretations seem more valid, strike me as less than upfront.

TedM · 07-23-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

Does the author seem desparate when he mentions the following?

*He taught others forbearance and long-suffering 13:1
*He taught "Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy...." 13:2
*He was a holy teacher, giving commandments 13:3, 49:1
*He had apostles whom he charged to spread his message 42:3
*He taught about those that cause others to lose faith "Woe unto that man..." 46:8
*He lived in the flesh 49:6
*He shed his blood 49:6
*He was resurrected 42:3
*His resurrection assured his apostles that the kingdom of God would come 42:3
*His apostles went out and spread the good news following the resurrection 42:4

Earl, I think your overall thesis would be strengthened by clearly identifying exactly which or which parts of the "early" epistles you believe pre-dated belief in an earthly Jesus, and which passages you believe were added later. (From what I recall in your writings you have done this to some extent with your writings on 1 John and more vaguely on the Didache). Without such identifications you'll continue to have people like me finding passages which most reasonably indicate belief in an earthly Jesus in the very epistles you are claiming support your case.

As I have continually pointed out, nothing in the above list is incompatible with a spiritual Christ. A spiritual Christ can "teach" through revelation; he can "send out apostles" through directives imagined by those apostles. He can die and be resurrected in a spiritual form.

With that kind of reasoning you can claim ANYTHING about where and when Jesus lived, can't you? How do you do that though even after a passage describing Jesus says he lived on "earth"? Here's what you DID say:

Quote:

And just because Clement says in verse 2 that the Isaiah passage is the Holy Spirit speaking of Jesus, does not mean that he envisions everything in it to be a literal description of a man on earth.

All Clement had to so was explain that he really didnt' think Jesus had lived on earth, and that the passage REALLY meant whatever it is you want to think he meant. Why wouldn't you have expected him to do that?

I have long maintained that your position would be MUCH stronger if you admitted that certain authors DID BELIEVE Jesus had been on earth, but the evidence suggests that he really had not. Instead you continue to use arguments that always sound strained--"man" doesn't really mean man, "flesh" doesn't mean human flesh, race doesn't really mean physical race, the author really doesn't believe Jesus had been on earth even though he uses a verse to describe Jesus that says he had been, etc...

With regard to your comments about the "Chain of Apostolic Authority", I'll simply point out the following:

1. Revelations mentions an angel as the messenger. 1 Clement does not. It mentions no messenger, and the implication is that Jesus himself was the messenger. IF we are to take the author seriously, God sent Jesus, and he sent him to earth (since that's what he says later).

2. Jesus had a gospel to give to the apostles. The gospel included commands which match those in our 4 gospels, as the author spells out elsewhere. In light of the other passages, if Jesus had been on earth, an earthly ministry is implied by the passage, and there is no need to have mentioned it.

3. Jesus gave the gospel to the apostles. If Jesus had done this directly on earth then there is no need to have mentioned the location.

4. The apostles therefore had a message that ultimately was entrusted to them from God (since the gospel was from Jesus and Jesus was from God). This isn't a strange mention since the author had ALREADY said that the message to the apostles was given to them from Christ.

5. The only silences that really don't make any sense taking the whole of 1 Clement are the ones that apply to your theory: Why didn't the author explain that Jesus really wasn't sent to earth? Why didn't the author explain that the gospel was given to the apostles via "revelation"? The two pillars of your theory have NO support.

6. "In Christ" need not be interpreted as any more mystical than for its common use today.

7. Your argument regarding confidence/faith in the resurrection vs knowledge through witness, is irrelevant to the idea of Jesus having been on earth prior to his alleged resurrection.

ted

Ben C Smith · 07-23-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Ben, if we were to take things as literally as you want to take them....

All of this restrictive usage of scripture throughout the epistles (and I've called attention to it repeatedly) is ignored by those who simplistically make the claims that you and Ted have made.

I made no claims (except implicitly in reply to Toto); I offered you the text I thought Ted was referring you, and then later I asked you a question.

Quote:

You have ignored what I said in the rest of that post, as to a different interpretation of how a writer like Clement saw scripture as 'prophesying' Christ.

The rest of that post contained the usual non sequitur that I have pointed out to you before, to wit, the leap from their only source for event X was scripture to event X must have been envisioned in a spiritual realm. I feel safe in ignoring it.

Quote:

Besides, if he wanted to describe Jesus' passion, even in terms of scripture, why do we not get from him or others like him any use of scripture in the matter of details about the Gospel depiction? Why no gambling for Jesus' clothes at the foot of the cross, no scriptural adumbration of Judas the betrayer, why no Isaian references to scourging, spitting and insult, the Psalmic laments about distress, and so on.

You appear to be arguing against views that are not my own in this section.

Quote:

Would "Clement" (let's say writing in the 90s) have had no knowledge of the Gospel account? No access to a written Gospel, three of which according to standard scholarly dating had already been written? Why did he have to go to Isaiah at all?

I do not think Clement was using any gospel text.

Ben.

EarlDoherty · 07-23-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

I do not think Clement was using any gospel text.

He didn't have to be. If the Gospel account were even remotely representative of history, something which is locatable on earth, there should have been elements familiar to a writer like 'Clement' which would have their alleged correspondence to perceived prophecies in scripture. Clement gives us none. As I've said, he doesn't even make a comparison between prophesy and history in regard to anything. Why couldn't we expect him to be like the Gospel writers who are constantly saying to the effect: "And this prophesy was indeed fulfilled in the action of Jesus..." Once we get to the 2nd century apologists (well, some of them

), that sort of thing is all over the place. They make a comparison with scriptural prophecy and its fulfillment in history. Why don't the early epistle writers, canonical and otherwise, do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

The rest of that post contained the usual non sequitur that I have pointed out to you before, to wit, the leap from their only source for event X was scripture to event X must have been envisioned in a spiritual realm. I feel safe in ignoring it.

Well, you do that at your peril. And it is not a non-sequitur. It is an interpretation. The fact of the only source for event X was scripture is indeed something that should be unexpected (its bizarre, in fact) and needs explaining. My relating it to the event being envisioned in a spiritual realm is an argued explanation, backed up by all sorts of things in my case as a whole. As far as I recall, no one, including yourself, has ever attempted a different explanation. Scholarship traditionally has a blanket plea of, well, early Christians were focused on the scriptures. But is that an 'explanation'? It raises more questions than it resolves. And it doesn't engage with the mythicist position that it is not an explanation, any more than the old saw that Paul isn't interested in Jesus' earthly life is an explanation for his silence or engages with mythicist arguments that this lack of interest is inconceivable.

Earl Doherty

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

07-23-2008, 12:09 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If Clement describes Jesus by using words from the LXX referring to a suffering servant, is Jesus that suffering servant (perhaps in another dimension or another form) - or a mythological being based on that suffering servant - or someone else?

07-23-2008, 02:37 PM	#17
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Earl, I will ask you again: Why did you extract "since the creation of the world" from your first silence. I found it to be highly misleading on your part. So much that it made dismissing that silence as being out of context a very easy task. That, along with your habit of taking bits and pieces from different translations to make your interpretations seem more valid, strike me as less than upfront.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.