Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Acts 19
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.'

How had disciples of John the Baptist never heard of Jesus?

I need to know how you arrived at the premise that the disciples of John the Baptist supposedly never heard of Jesus. The followers of John the Baptist say that they have not heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Do you think it follows that they never heard of Jesus? Maybe you think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same?

So why did 'Paul' explain Jesus to them, when they knew all about him?

ApostateAbe · 07-12-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I need to know how you arrived at the premise that the disciples of John the Baptist supposedly never heard of Jesus. The followers of John the Baptist say that they have not heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Do you think it follows that they never heard of Jesus? Maybe you think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same?

So why did 'Paul' explain Jesus to them, when they knew all about him?

It is a pattern that has continued through the ages--people getting told by religious evangelists about Jesus even though everyone already knows about him. They are often motivated to try to correct bad or incomplete beliefs about Jesus, and that seems a fitting explanation for this particular account. Maybe you can explain why you would expect anything different.

aa5874 · 07-12-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

AA, you completely missed the point...

What point did I miss?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The one coming after him, as in the one that hasn't got here yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The one who "Paul" claimed was betrayed in the night and was raised from the dead did not come yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Did Paul write Acts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Did "Paul" write this?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 -

Quote:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in F38 remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

And did "Paul" write this?

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead....

It would seem that "Paul" found out that Jesus was ALREADY betrayed in the night and was ALREADY raised from the dead by the time he wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

How did people not know about Jesus whose fame was spread beyond Galilee and Judea but heard about John the Baptist and was baptised by John's baptism when Jesus supposedly WAS known to have been RAISED from the dead as he predicted?

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Acts 19
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.'

How had disciples of John the Baptist never heard of Jesus?

These disciples (on the basis of Acts 18) are presumably converts of Apollos who (see 18:25) knows (something) about Jesus but only knows about John's type of baptism. IE the point is that the disciples have apparently come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah but have never heard of being baptized in the name of Jesus. Hence they require baptism in the name of Jesus in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

These disciples (on the basis of Acts 18) are presumably converts of Apollos who (see 18:25) knows (something) about Jesus but only knows about John's type of baptism. IE the point is that the disciples have apparently come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah but have never heard of being baptized in the name of Jesus. Hence they require baptism in the name of Jesus in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Criddle

Hadn't Apollos heard of the Great Commission where people were told to baptise in the name of Jesus?

What actually do Christians mean by baptising 'in the name of Jesus?' Wasn't Jesus a very common name?

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hadn't Apollos heard of the Great Commission where people were told to baptise in the name of Jesus?

If you mean the end of Matthew 28, then it speaks of Baptism in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit. But in whatever form, I can see no necessity for Apollos to have known of such a commamd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

What actually do Christians mean by baptising 'in the name of Jesus?' Wasn't Jesus a very common name?

Acts seems to see Baptism as performed either in the name of the Lord Jesus or in the name of Jesus Christ. Such formulae would remove any ambiguity.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 07-12-2010, 01:47 PM

Roger Parvus identifies this "Apollos" with Apelles, who had been a Marcionite, but broke with Marcion. He seems to have become integrated back into the proto-orthodox church.

From post 7 in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RParvus

In my self-published book “A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings” (or via: amazon.co.uk) I argue that shortly after its appearance (perhaps, around 140 CE), the “Manifestations” of Apelles’ was adopted by the proto-orthodox church of Rome and transformed by them into the Gospel according to John (see * below). And I argue that the Acts of the Apostles was written as a kind of kind of compromise document (as was claimed by F. C. Baur) but that the parties to the compromise were the proto-orthodox Roman church and a group of reuniting Apelleans. It was perhaps written shortly after the visit of Polycarp to Rome around 150 CE for, according to Irenaeus, Polycarp “converted many Valentinians and Marcionites” on that occasion. The proto-orthodox, I suspect, would never stoop to using the word ‘compromise’ for the arrangement. In their eyes the ex-Marcionites (Apelleans) were ‘converted.’ But if, as I contend, the agreement entailed acceptance with suitable modification of the ‘Manifestataions’ of Apelles, it is clear that it was in fact a compromise. Discretion was maintained regarding the agreement , for not all the faithful would have been edified by its particulars. I think Apelles himself was involved in the arrangement for, when Acts was composed, an appropriate first-century prefiguration for him was created: the learned Apollos of Acts 18: 24-28 who comes from Alexandria “fervent in spirit,” and is said to know the way of the Lord accurately, but not accurately enough! He gets a letter of recommendation from the brethren of Ephesus after he receives more accurate instruction from two of them. Some manuscripts of Acts, in fact, have the name ‘Apelles’ instead of ‘Apollos’ in Acts 18. In any case, the word was put out to the faithful to “Welcome Apelles, who is approved in Christ” (Rom. 16:10). This explains why neither Justin nor Irenaeus ever condemn Apelles or his followers by name even though Apelles, according to Tertullian, was one of the three “more prominent and better known corruptors of truth” (the other two being Marcion and Valentinus – see “On the Prescription of Heretics,” 30) and he devoted a special treatise (no longer extant) to refuting Apelles’ errors. Thus the proto-orthodox waited until after Apelles death, around 180 CE, before they started condemning him.

More at that link.

aa5874 · 07-12-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Hadn't Apollos heard of the Great Commission where people were told to baptise in the name of Jesus?

If you mean the end of Matthew 28, then it speaks of Baptism in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit. But in whatever form, I can see no necessity for Apollos to have known of such a commamd.

But, what you say makes very little sense. Even before John the Baptist was dead baptisms were done in the name of Jesus.

In gJohn 4.1-2 It is claimed Jesus baptized MORE disciples than even John.

John 4:1-3 -

Quote:

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

What actually do Christians mean by baptising 'in the name of Jesus?' Wasn't Jesus a very common name?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

Acts seems to see Baptism as performed either in the name of the Lord Jesus or in the name of Jesus Christ. Such formulae would remove any ambiguity.

Andrew Criddle

Again, in gJohn the disciples of Jesus were baptizing in the name of Jesus even while John the Baptist was alive and once John the Baptist actually preached that he was a fore-runner to Jesus and did in fact baptize Jesus then it is extremely difficult to understand why some of John the Baptist followers did not even know that they needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus.

This is what John the Baptist was PREACHING to those he baptized with water.

Mt 3:11 -

Quote:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire...

People who were baptized by John should have known that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire.

Davka · 07-12-2010, 03:35 PM

It does not follow that these disciples had never heard of Jesus. They had simply not heard of the baptism in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. They may well have heard the name of jesus, but now known a whole lot about his teachings.

It does seem rather odd, however, that after John's death, with the whole prison thing where he sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah, to which Jesus pretty much answered "yes," that John's disciples would not have shifted from following John to following Jesus.

Maybe Ephesus was just too far away. The text seems ti indicate that these men were Gentile believers, since they are referred to as "disciples" - There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Believed in YHWH is the implication, since they were clearly not Christian disciples.

Most of Paul's converts were Gentile believers in YHWH - there was a large sect called Godly or Righteous Gentiles, who believed in the Jewish God but had not converted to Judaism (probably the circumcision thing was just too much for them). Paul converted many of these Gentiles to Christianity, which they would have liked better than being a mere hanger-on at the outskirts of Judaism. And no circumcision required!

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

07-12-2010, 03:35 PM	#20
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	It does not follow that these disciples had never heard of Jesus. They had simply not heard of the baptism in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. They may well have heard the name of jesus, but now known a whole lot about his teachings. It does seem rather odd, however, that after John's death, with the whole prison thing where he sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah, to which Jesus pretty much answered "yes," that John's disciples would not have shifted from following John to following Jesus. Maybe Ephesus was just too far away. The text seems ti indicate that these men were Gentile believers, since they are referred to as "disciples" - There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" Believed in YHWH is the implication, since they were clearly not Christian disciples. Most of Paul's converts were Gentile believers in YHWH - there was a large sect called Godly or Righteous Gentiles, who believed in the Jewish God but had not converted to Judaism (probably the circumcision thing was just too much for them). Paul converted many of these Gentiles to Christianity, which they would have liked better than being a mere hanger-on at the outskirts of Judaism. And no circumcision required!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.