Duvduv

I still think the reference to Gerizim in the PAST TENSE in John 4 is a slip of the pen indicating a reference to the 4th century when Samaritans were prohibited from praying or sacrificing there.

Beyond that, it is worth noting that the place names most frequently mentioned in all four gospels are JERUSALEM (14 times in John, 28 times in Luke, 13 in Matthew and 11 in Mark) and and GALILEE 13 in Mark and Luke, 15 in Matthew, and 14 times in John. The other towns most frequently mentioned are NAZARETH and then CAPERNAUM. Nazareth gets mentioned 8 times in Luke (5 in John and Matthew but only once in Mark) and Capernaum 5 times in John (3 times in Mark and Matthew, and 4 times in Luke).

stephan huller

That's a silly argument on both counts. The Samaritan temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus before the Common Era and seems never to have been rebuilt. Samaritanism was viewed as heretical by the early Fathers. Don't have time for this silly line of reasoning.

Duvduv

So you mean to say that the Christian empire did not prohibit worship at Gerizim because the Samaritans had not worshiped there since the time of John Hyrcanus?

Chili

Jews expect a second coming while they deny the first?

I thought only protestants were looking for the second coming while Catholics claim he moved to Rome and for them par-ousia is the arrival of wisdom. i.e. mind of Christ for individuals.

Duvduv

Stephan, since you know a Samaritan, what do they claim about the history of their worship at Gerizim? If they stopped at the time of Hyrcanus or Shimon the Righteous, when did they start again?
Did they never worship there at all from the time of Hyrcanus through Byzantine times? In fact, wasn't there some kind of structure there in the second century C.E.?

Chili

Jesus himself destroyed his temple and is that not what salvation is all about?
. . . and Christendom is not an Empire or Pilate would have been a Jew.

Does that make sense to you, or do you ppl ride wooden horses there still?

Par-ouisia is when logos is seen telically and that is when hyletic vision is shattered wherein also the temple is destroyed.

Duvduv

Excuse me Chili, but my question was to Stephan or anyone else who knows the answer to that question. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, your reply does not address the substance of the posting to which you are replying.

andrewcriddle

The differences from the standard text of Luke 3:23 in Clement have some manuscript support. ἦν δὲ is found in the Western text and ἐρχόμενος in the Caesarean. The combination of non-standard readings does appear to be distinctive of Clement.

Andrew Criddle

Chili

Caphernaum stands for tradition that puts food in the manger during early infancy. It equals intuition that is fed from [deep] within by the memetic pathways carved into the soul, that can be called a village in conformity that paints a beautiful Eden-like village in the mind of the believer, as child here I suppose. For example, it is what piety in children is all about.

It's absence allows reason to interfere and kill the newborn child within, that they call Herod who's delegate was Pilate who was not a Jew to make known that reason must prevail.

Just look at Luke how JohnB was introduced with the elaborate functions of Zechariah and his later Canticle to praise . . . "and the child grew up and matured in spirit" just after that.

Compare this with camelhair coat John in Mark for whom wild honey and hoppers gave him intuit direction who so did not have a clue what was down the road for him.

And if the New Jerusalem is the old Jerusalem renewed Caphernaum better be like positive memories to warrant intuit determination to succeed instead of fly-by-night fairy tales remembered with no base of truth in them.

Opposite this should Beth-le-hem not be a village even, or a village with no room at the local Inn and so a stable is from where the son of the [naked animal] man is born = first cause from God instead of human persuasion like in Evangelistic rally tents.

stephan huller

Thank you Andrew

Let's look at the quote again and compare it to the section in question:

And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true (Ὅτι δὲ τοῦτ´ ἀληθές ἐστιν), it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel.(Stromata 1:21)

It would seem to me that a lot of material was missing in Clement's text of this gospel when compared to our Luke. Notice the omission of any mention of Pilate at the beginning. It is also worth noting that if the Marcionite gospel begins with Capernaum when does Jesus make this announcement that he was sent by the Father to proclaim the year of favor?