semiopen

When speaking of Gnosticism it is worth keeping it's relation with Kabbalah in mind.

The temple filled some social services / banking role as evidenced by Yoshke and the Moneychangers. This was also mentioned in Maccabees. There was evidently an issue of how much of the widows and orphans fund was actually flowing to the intended recipients. Judaism was fucked up after the temple was destroyed; Christianity didn't have that kind of baggage.

Elijah

I’m not informed on the Hermits so I’m not sure what you are talking about with the “heroic example”.
Yea I’d like to look at the texts that actually address this to see if the way they were trying to take converts in was similar to what the Christians were doing or if the faith issue was unusual.
I see Gnosticism as being a widespread phenomenon that probably popped up in any movement large enough for someone to say that the point of the movement was teaching the teachings because salvation was there somehow. I think as long as they are just waxing philosophy then they aren’t going to be seen as much of a threat. It’s when you start trying to establish a king of king’s or a new kind of kingdom within their kingdoms that the authority is going to get after you.

I do agree that Catholicism is a ‘middle path” or alternate path between Gnostic and Works based movements of the time.

Yep, they are a hybrid of Platonism and Judaism. They are rejecting the religions/movements that sprang from the Poets like Homer that also get called ‘Pagan” which is why I was saying be careful about combining the two concepts without making distinctions about what is actually being barrowed from the Greeks.
I agree with the difficulty in the teachings of Gnosticism being what lead people to an alternative movement that focused on something else. But like I said I need some concrete evidence about them doing something new in the social services area. I’m not sure what scholar is pushing the idea, so I’m not sure what the evidence is but it would have to be pretty strong to make such a sweeping statement about all of society back then not providing for the people until Christians started doing it. Do you know what scholar this is coming from or the evidence they are using is?

Not everyone has to see a martyr for them to be convinced. The people that see the martyr can have in increase in their faith which spreads to their loved ones. The persecution/martyrdom starts early with Jesus convincing the apostles and then moving onto Stephen convincing Paul. It’s not just Roman persecution that helps fuel the movement but the early Jewish.

Why do you think there was a trend at the time towards metaphysics and supernaturalism? Are metaphysics and supernaturalism related to each other or distinct in your opinion?

Kapyong

Gday,

Yup, Luke 'investigated' the OTHER versions that he mentions - nothing to do with being an eye-witness himself.

But , Luke had NO memory himself of that event, as he did not witness it.

Changing the translation to try and make it so is hardly honest.


So?
All sorts of fantasy and myth was put to paper.


K.

Chili

I think the problem of Gnosticism is in the -ism itself if the mind of Christ is the end of religion. I think that Northrup Frye made this very clear in his "Great Code' where he presents the idea that intelligence cannot be purified to attain heaven on earth . . . no matter how close they come and of which Aristotle was a good example regardless of how usefull he can be to substantiate an argument.

show_no_mercy

Neil Godfrey has a few interesting posts about how the "heroic" or "martyr" example fits perfectly in a Greek context but not a Jewish one. So Christians didn't set a heroic example, they followed one.

bacht

re charity:

The Fathers of the Church frequently and unequivocally inculcated the necessity of almsgiving.

To this matter St. Cyprian devoted a complete treatise (De Opere et Eleemosynâ, P.L., IV, 601 sqq.).
- St. Basil recounts how St. Lawrence distributed the treasures of the Church to the poor. Questioned by a pagan governor regarding the treasures which he had promised to transmit, Lawrence pointed to the poor, saying: They are treasures in whom is Christ, in whom is faith.
- Contrary to the envy of the Arians, St. Ambrose lauds the breaking and selling of sacred vessels for the redemption of captives (De Officiis Ministrorum, xxviii, xxx, P.L., XVI, 141 sqq.).
- The more effectively to urge the precept of almsgiving, the Fathers teach that the wealthy are God's stewards and dispensers, so much so that where they refuse to aid the needy they are guilty of theft (St. Basil, Homil. in illud Lucæ, No. 7, P.G., XXXI, 278; St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Pauperibus Amandis, P.G., XLVI, 466; St. Chrysostom, in Ep. I ad Cor., Homil. 10, c. 3, P.G., LXI, 86; St. Ambrose, De Nab. lib. unus, P.L., XIV, 747; St. Augustine, in Ps. cxvii, P.L., XXXVII, 1922).
- Discretion in almsgiving is counseled in the Apostolic Constitutions: "Alms must not be given to the malicious, the intemperate, or the lazy; lest a premium should be set on vice" (Const. Apost., ii, 1-63; iii, 4-6).
- St. Cyprian asserts that adherents of other religions must not be excluded from a share in Catholic charity (De Opere et Eleemosynâ, c. xxv, P.L., IV, 620).
- After the Patristic epoch the teaching of the Church regarding almsgiving did not vary throughout the ages. St. Thomas Aquinas has admirably summarized this teaching during the medieval period (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, QQ. xxx-xxxiii, De Misericordiâ; De Beneficentiâ; De Eleemosynâ). No writer of modern times has so admirably epitomized the position of the Church as Leo XIII (Encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, 15 May, 1891; Graves de Communi, 18 Jan, 1901). In so much as the obligation of almsgiving is coextensive with the obligation of charity, everyone falls under the law. The donor, however, must be entitled to dispose of what he contributes, because almsgiving usually implies that the beneficiary acquires a title to whatever his benefactor gives. Ecclesiastics are bound in a special way to observe the precept of almsgiving, because they are constituted fathers of the poor, and are besides obliged by their example to lead the laity to entertain correct views concerning the importance of this duty.
As a general rule, the indigent of every class, saint or sinner, countrymen or foreigners, friend or foe, have their claims upon the charity of those competent to give alms (Proverbs 25:21; Romans 12:20; Sylvius, Summa, II-II, Q. 32: art. 9; De Conninck, Disp. 27: Dub. 6, No. 70). The conjunction of genuine indigence in the poor and ability to minister relief in the rich, is necessary to concrete the obligation of almsgiving (St. Thomas, op. cit., II-II, QQ. xxxii, art. 5, ad 3am).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01328f.htm

Now this is the teaching of the church, not a record of their actual work. I haven't read much non-Christian lit from the period so I don't know if any non-Christian witnesses corroborate this.

re Gnostics: I think you'll find that these people were mystics rather than philosophers. Their teachings were intended only for the initiated few, not for the general public. They tended to develop esoteric cosmologies. Many were radical dualists, condemning all matter including human bodies.

re martyrs: without testimony from contemporaries it's hard to say how much impact they would have had. Being prepared to die for duty or honour wasn't a new idea. I believe the Stoics taught this kind of idea, suffering for the good.

re supernaturalism: I guess this word is not strictly synonymous with metaphysics, but frankly I don't really care. Neither interests me, but the historical record points to a decline in scientific inquiry and a rise in mysticism and spiritual speculation (eg neo-Pythagoreanism and neo-Platonism, monasticism, gnosticism and various Christian heresies)

Chili

Sorry but if it happened to him it was his own to remember. I am just saying that the word "traced" allows for this to be true while "investigate" does not allow 'his' Gospel a priori to him [by nature].

I am not changing the words used but just agreeing that "traced" is better in its poetic freedom to make it Luke's noetic recollection of his own past.

Perhaps so but the difference between myth and fantasy is that myth is real and fantasy remains fantastic but is not iconic and therefore not real (eidelons from doxa or opinion vs. images from episteme or insight).

Sooo, let Luke's conclusion speak for itself where he goes to heaven instead of back to Galilee to suffer some more defeat.

Chili

Not sure if Hermits died for the Lord or they would not be Hermits. It is the 'vocals' who died for the Lord which in itself is an admission that they are not the Lord and . . . deserve no better? Perhaps just used to get the show on the road, but that is just my guess. In other words, is it not stupid to be willing to die for the Lord if you are the Lord?

bacht

It's true the hermits and anchorites didn't die immediately from their behaviour. I'm assuming that their reputation would spread to non-Christians who might wonder what their inspiration was. The ones who sat on pillars would have been quite public.

Kapyong

Gdauy,

Sure, IF it happened to him, it would have been his own to remember.

But it DIDN'T happen to him.

Does he say it happened to him?
No.

Does he say he was an eye-witness?
No

Does he say he met any eye-witness?
No.

How does he connect himself to eye-witnesses?

He says OTHERS wrote books based on what was handed down from eye-witnesses, then HE wrote his own.

Luke is far far removed from any eye-witnesses.
Can you explain why YOU believe otherwise?


Changing one word does NOT change the meaning of the passage.
Luke makes it clear he is NOT an eye-witness.

Can you explain why you believe otherwise?
Apart from just changing a word and speculating about it.

You are changing one word to try and make the passage say something that it does not.

Does he say it happened to him?
No.

Does he say he was an eye-witness?
No

Does he say he met any eye-witness?
No.


Luke was not an eye-witness.
Word games won't change that.


K.