Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 02:45 PM

Actually its on 112

To them you shall not kill but to you You shall not be angry
To them you shall not commit adultery to you You shall not have evil desires

EarlDoherty · 01-01-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But I don't understand that we assume that if it is Clement writing in 180 CE the understanding he has can only be as old as the ink drying on the page. He is referencing countless witnesses (Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Prodicus, etc) who reinforce the Paul wrote the gospel paradigm. He too seems to at least acknowledge that Paul had a gospel text in his possession. The critical piece of evidence from all I have cited:

"You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

This a variant of what is quoted as the Marcionite Question of the Rich Man:

Quote:

'One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.' Marcion added, 'the Father,' and instead of, 'Thou knowest the commandments,' says, 'I know the commandments. [Epiphanius Scholion 50]

"Thou knowest," says He, "the commandments." ... "Sell all that thou hast ... And come," says He, "follow me." [Tertullian Against Marcion 4.36.7]

"And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery.'" [Aphraates Demonstrates 20]

For if when he said 'Do not commit adultery' they did go on committing adultery, how much more if he had commanded them to commit adultery ! [Ephrem Against Mani p. 192 Mitchell]

You have heard it said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whoever looks and lusts after has committed adultery [Ephrem Commentary on the Diatessaron p. 113]

Notice the Syriac Diatessaron lacks the 'woman' reference. It is a related development to Clement's text.

What is it in this that indicates Paul possessed a gospel, particularly one that he wrote? You are leaving a lot of your argument unsaid--if indeed there is anything unsaid to say. I really don't follow this.

And you also remain unclear as to what sort of "gospel" you think this was. Narrative? A collection of sayings, perhaps like Q or Thomas?

Earl Doherty

MrMacSon · 01-01-2013, 03:35 PM

Earl, do you think there really was a Paul?

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 04:01 PM

I don't think one can over-estimate the significance of this. The reading found in Ephrem is different than the received text of Matthew 5:22 as well and shows up in countless authors including Basil:

Quote:

“That the Lord both in the Old and New Testament hath the same end in his commands, even to meet with the effects of sin, and to out wickedness off in the very first beginning. For as the old law said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but the Lord Christ, Thou shalt not covet; and that, Thou shalt not steal [kill]; but he, commanding perfecter things, Thou shalt not be angry; so here, the law is content with swearing aright, but he cutteth off the very occasion of perjury.” So that the same law is not only now in force that it was before, but that also in a stricter sense; and therefore he saith elsewhere, “That Christ came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them, and to add more perfect things to them.”

I bet I can find 'thou shalt not be angry' in Clement (it's cited in Against Marcion Book Five multiple times). I bet it appears in the Book of Romans or Ephesians and is once again a gospel reference by Paul (changed ultimately in gospel and apostolikon by the orthodox)

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 04:31 PM

I still can't find 'do not be angry' in Greek anywhere. But Clement's version of Colossians 3:5 assumes something like this in the Apostolikon. Look:

Quote:

νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν, δι' ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργή

"So mortify your earthly members – fornication, filthiness, passion, lust; through these the visitation of anger is on its way." [Strom 3.43.5]

cmp received text:

Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πορνείαν ἀκαθαρσίαν πάθος ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρία, δι’ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας,

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth fornication uncleanness inordinate affection evil concupiscence and covetousness which is idolatry For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience

Two different citations. One is speaking assuming 'thou shalt not be angry' as a commandment from Jesus to his followers (because Jesus is without passion). The other assumes anger is part of the godhead.

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 04:38 PM

Consider also the use of ὀργήσας a little later:

Quote:

If birth is an evil, then the blasphemers must place the Lord who went through birth and the virgin who gave him birth in the category of evil. Abominable people! In attacking birth they are maligning the will of God and the mystery of creation. This is the basis of Cassian’s docetism, Marcion’s too, yes, and Valentinus’ "semi-spiritual body." It leads them to say, "Humanity became like cattle in coming to sexual intercourse." But it is when a man, swollen with lust (κοίτῃ ὀργήσας), really and truly wants to go to bed with a woman not his own, that that sort of man actually becomes a wild beast. [Strom 3.102.3 - 5]

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 04:46 PM

And again in Book Four:

But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." The assertion, then, may be hazarded, that it has been shown that death is the fellowship of the soul in a state of sin with the body; and life the separation from sin. And many are the stakes and ditches of lust which impede us, and the pits of wrath and anger which must be overleaped (καὶ τάφροι τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τά τε ὀργῆς καὶ θυμοῦ βάραθρα), and all the machinations we must avoid of those who plot against us, -- who would no longer see the knowledge of God "through a glass." [Strom 4.12.2]

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 05:07 PM

Further, manliness is to be assumed in order to produce confidence and forbearance, so as "to him that strikes on the one cheek, to give to him the other; and to him that takes away the cloak, to yield to him the coat also," strongly, restraining anger. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable. [ibid 4.8]

But God is impassible, free of anger, destitute of desire. And He is not free of fear, in the sense of avoiding what is terrible; or temperate, in the sense of having command of desires. For neither can the nature of God fall in with anything terrible, nor does God flee fear; just as He will not feel desire, so as to rule over desires. Accordingly that Pythagorean saying was mystically uttered respecting us, "that man ought to become one;" for the high priest himself is one, God being one in the immutable state of the perpetual flow or good things. Now the Saviour has taken away wrath in and with lust, wrath being lust of vengeance. For universally liability to feeling belongs to every kind of desire; and man, when deified purely into a passionless state, becomes a unit. As, then, those, who at sea are held by an anchor, pull at the anchor, but do not drag it to them, but drag themselves to the anchor; so those who, according to the gnostic life, draw God towards them, imperceptibly bring themselves to God: for he who reverences God, reverences himself. In the contemplative life, then, one in worshipping God attends to himself, and through his own spotless purification beholds the holy God holily; for self-control, being present, surveying and contemplating itself uninterruptedly, is as far as possible assimilated to God.[ibid 4.23]

Chili · 01-01-2013, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The point then is that claiming that Paul never understood Jesus to have set foot on the earth runs into a brick wall with respect to the heresies no less than the Church Fathers.

Mythicism, or at least not I, does not deny Jesus on earth at that time, but only was the personified directional force in the mind of Joseph the Jew, who was an upright ego server in Matthew and not a Jew-through-and-through by tradition, as from the house of David, it says in Luke.

So at the onset we are dealing with two different Joseph's here, wherefore then the Joseph of Matthew came out of Egypt ("out of Egypt I have called my son"), and made only a pitstop in Nazareth so he "Shall be called a Nazorean," but was actually not.

To direct your train of thought let me now say that we are dealing with metamorphosis here, where so now the entire Gospel takes place in the mind of the man they call Joseph, and he was a Jew. Accordingly the rest of the Gospel takes place inside the mind of this Jew, who was real, and it is he who was the worthy sinner to stand convicted against his own will and decided to spin his cocoon. From there metanoia followed and Jesus took charge as the second Adam now. The infancy of Matthew and Luke clearly define the essential components to make this either a comedy or tragedy instead.

And note here that Adam was created by conjecture only in the mind of 'the man' to give form to the plan, like and architect would. So here again, no history in Gen. 1, 2 and 3, as man would not take a serpent to be his wife since it was the woman who stayed.

Quote:

The heretics understood Paul to have had a gospel and that gospel necessarily portrayed Jesus engaging disciples on earth. Once this beachhead is established (and I see you providing no evidence against this proposition) it is clear that Marcion and many other heretics viewed themselves as 'the Paraclete' a figure not only prophesied by Jesus while he was on the earth but also - most importantly - part of a narrative framework where a supernatural Jesus came to establish humanity 'in his image' through an elect individual, the same elect individual called 'Paul' by the Catholic sources.

Only an evangelist would call himself the paraclete, and say 'he got it from God,' or from Gabriel maybe, to say that he does not know, and got it from the angel of light instead, that we call lucifer because it keeps dying on him.

And you use the word humanity wrong since the -ity denotes a condition of being that is other than man. The image of Jesus was insurrectionist and for that one must be a Nazorean first, and that is confirmed in both infancies, and not just be an imposter either, as per Matthew 27:64.

So from here it is easy to see that Marcion was a heretic, and is why Paul was not a peacher, but only set out the rules of the game to played. To this end please notice that 'the great commission' was only part of Matthew and Mark, as that is a sure sign of fire burning out of control.

stephan huller · 01-01-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

For he (Pythagoras) intimated that it was necessary not only to efface the mark, but not to leave even a trace of anger; and that on its ceasing to boil, it was to be composed, and all memory of injury to be wiped out. "And let the sun upon your wrath (ἥλιος δὲ ὑμῖν τῇ ὀργῇ,)," says the Scripture, "go down (μὴ ἐπιδυέτω)." And he that said, "Thou shall not lust (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις)," took away all memory of wrong; for wrath (θυμὸς) is found to be the impulse of lust (ἐπιθυμίας) in a mild soul, especially seeking irrational revenge. In the same way "the bed is ordered to be shaken up," so that there may be no recollection of effusion in sleep, or sleep in the day-time; nor, besides, of pleasure during the night. And he intimated that the vision of the dark ought to be dissipated speedily by the light of truth. "Be angry, and sin not (ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε)," says David, teaching us that we ought not to assent to the impression, and not to follow it up by action, and so confirm wrath (τὴν ὀργὴν χρῆναι διδάσκων). [Strom 5.5.28]

It can't be coincidence that Clement always understands 'do not lust' to be connected with the extirpation of 'wrath' especially when we know what the Diatessaron said.

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

01-01-2013, 02:45 PM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually its on 112 To them you shall not kill but to you You shall not be angry To them you shall not commit adultery to you You shall not have evil desires

01-01-2013, 03:35 PM	#53
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	Earl, do you think there really was a Paul?

01-01-2013, 04:46 PM	#57
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And again in Book Four: But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." The assertion, then, may be hazarded, that it has been shown that death is the fellowship of the soul in a state of sin with the body; and life the separation from sin. And many are the stakes and ditches of lust which impede us, and the pits of wrath and anger which must be overleaped (καὶ τάφροι τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τά τε ὀργῆς καὶ θυμοῦ βάραθρα), and all the machinations we must avoid of those who plot against us, -- who would no longer see the knowledge of God "through a glass." [Strom 4.12.2]

01-01-2013, 05:07 PM	#58
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Further, manliness is to be assumed in order to produce confidence and forbearance, so as "to him that strikes on the one cheek, to give to him the other; and to him that takes away the cloak, to yield to him the coat also," strongly, restraining anger. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceable. [ibid 4.8] But God is impassible, free of anger, destitute of desire. And He is not free of fear, in the sense of avoiding what is terrible; or temperate, in the sense of having command of desires. For neither can the nature of God fall in with anything terrible, nor does God flee fear; just as He will not feel desire, so as to rule over desires. Accordingly that Pythagorean saying was mystically uttered respecting us, "that man ought to become one;" for the high priest himself is one, God being one in the immutable state of the perpetual flow or good things. Now the Saviour has taken away wrath in and with lust, wrath being lust of vengeance. For universally liability to feeling belongs to every kind of desire; and man, when deified purely into a passionless state, becomes a unit. As, then, those, who at sea are held by an anchor, pull at the anchor, but do not drag it to them, but drag themselves to the anchor; so those who, according to the gnostic life, draw God towards them, imperceptibly bring themselves to God: for he who reverences God, reverences himself. In the contemplative life, then, one in worshipping God attends to himself, and through his own spotless purification beholds the holy God holily; for self-control, being present, surveying and contemplating itself uninterruptedly, is as far as possible assimilated to God.[ibid 4.23]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.