Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-15-2011, 04:34 PM

It is commonly asserted that Clement didn't have a good working knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. This may or may not be true but his tradition certainly did. Look at this quote:

Quote:

There is, too, another beauty of men—love. “And love,” according to the apostle, “suffers long, and is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.” For the decking of one’s self out—carrying, as it does, the look of superfluity and uselessness—is vaunting one’s self. Wherefore he adds, “doth not behave itself unseemly:” for a figure which is not one’s own, and is against nature, is unseemly; but what is artificial is not one’s own, as is clearly explained: “seeketh not,” it is said, “what is not her own.” For truth calls that its own which belongs to it; but the love of finery seeks what is not its own, being apart from God, and the Word, from love.

And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Esaias: “And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men.” Yet who was more admirable than the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye, but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in the former is beneficence; in the latter—that is, the flesh—immortality.(Clement Instructor 2.1)

There is nothing in the Greek of this text to suggest something unseemly but in the Hebrew interestingly we read:

Quote:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. [= hamad]

This is the actual literal meaning of the root behind the name Muhammad in Jewish Aramaic. In other words, in Arabic hamad means 'praise' but in Jewish Aramaic the same root means 'desire' and can also mean 'hot' (i.e. the underlying sense is the same = 'hot' with 'desire'). But hamad is commonly used as sexual desire also. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zkl...desire&f=false

As such if you really look what Clement is saying here, it really isn't that far removed from the question about 'naked man with naked man' in the disputed Letter to Theodore. I think people who concentrate too much on the Greek text of Clement miss the idea that he is clearly connected to a tradition which understood or had access to the Hebrew meaning behind the scripture they cited. In other words, Clement is already hinting that the 'love' the initiates had for Jesus could be misinterpreted in a sexual manner.

Again, I haven't taken a look at the original Greek of Clement. Yet as I was sitting here assembling all the references to 1 Corinthians in Clement I noticed this passage and being aware of the appearance of hamad in Isaiah 53 was struck by its use in Clement.

DCHindley · 10-16-2011, 10:50 AM

Putting on my Stephen C Carlson hat, I'll have to say that the word "gay" (as we mean it now, not 90 years ago) has no corollary in the first few centuries CE.

This surely means that the words of Clement of Alexandria were probably written in a Morton Salt mine in Fairport Harbor, Ohio, where the inhabitants demonstrate no love of finery when the gruff and tumble bikers and tattooed ladies descend upon their mardi gras, except when their stoves explode, and the gas company has to replace them.

DCH (It isn't supposed to make any sense ...)

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 10:59 AM

It is all so stupid. At the core of Christianity is a sublimated desire for Christ which manifests itself in all sorts of readily recognized sexual metaphors culminating in the “bridal chamber.” In the very monastery where to Theodore was found they have an order of monks called “brotherly love” which has been argued to practice a sublimated form of gay marriage between its members. Where is the controversy?

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 12:17 PM

Got to run but there is an order within the Mar Saba monastery and to which apparently many Patriarchs belonged called ἀδελφοποίησις

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

I also found an Orthodox discussion board where the topic of ἀδελφοποίησις is raised and it is acknowledged that some monks in Albania apparently still practice the rite

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/...?topic=32118.0

and an official explanation of the concept in a recent Orthodox youth conference by the office of the Patriarch of Constantinople:

Quote:

On the one hand there was υἱοθεσία (hyiothesia), the adoption of children, and on the other there was ἀδελφοποίησις (adephopoiesis). Adelphopoieia was the adoption of a brother or sister that was also constituted by an ecclesiastical blessing. If you have the chance, I encourage you to find and study the prayers of the rite of matrimony, hyiothesia, and adephopoiesis. You will be astonished at what they have to teach us about the Christian understanding of the family. The main point of all three rites is that the family need not remain trapped within the terminal framework of biological reproduction.

http://www.ec-patr.org/youth/nassis.htm

and here is an attempt to refute of Boswell's thesis by an English speaking member Orthodox clergy:

Quote:

It is beyond dispute that there are rites for adelphopoiesis contained in Byzantine manuscripts dating from the ninth to the 15th century. The ceremony was conducted by a priest for two males in church, and contained symbols common to Byzantine marriage rites including holding candles, joining hands, receiving Communion, and processing three times around a table used in the celebration. Prayers used for the sacerdotal blessing referred to God establishing "spiritual broth*ers" (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most no*tably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friend*ship. The order of the service var*ied, but appeared to possess a simple structure, usually includ*ing petitions followed by the cen*tral prayer(s) of benediction and a dismissal.

In order to evaluate whether this service was equivalent to a marriage ceremony, it is necessary to understand how marital unions were formed in late Byzantium, and then to compare the rites. Our concern in this analysis will not be to examine the content of the prayers involved in the rites, as has already been accomplished in sev*eral reviews of Boswell's work, but to focus on the context in which the rites were used and described in late Byzantine society.

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/revie...d=1294-viscuso

Of course the fact that Boswell is a homosexual makes him an easy target for those who want to deny the idea that others in history saw this rite as homosexual. Yet I see many people in history thought the whole 'spiritual brother' thing sounded rather gay too:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EbS...riarch&f=false

Just look how strange this stuff sounds to most of our ears:

The family of Heraclius probably received much earlier additional intelligence about North Africa, albeit with a particular perspective, from traditions handed down within the family by the Alexandrian Patriarch John the Almsgiver, who had a ritual brotherhood relationship (adelphopoiesis) with Nicetas, the first cousin of Heraclius.

or from the Russian Orthodox tradition:

Quote:

There once existed the ancient rite of adelphopoiesis ("brother-making"), which sanctified personal friendship. About this rite, see Fr. K. Nikol'sky, On Offices in the Russian Church Which Were Found in Early Printed Liturgical Books (St Petersburg 1885). The Rite of Adelphopoiesis, with appendices, pp. 371-89. This rite characterizes the love brothers as the "love in Christ" as "spiritual love." These characterizations, of course, have a capital dogmatic significance for understanding the religious value of personal eros between friends. This idea can also be applied to relations between men and women which do not have the character of conjugal love but rather the character of friendship

http://books.google.com/books?id=zex...riarch&f=false

also http://books.google.com/books?id=yWp...rother&f=false

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 01:58 PM

And notice that Boswell was both a homosexual AND a devout Catholic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

Quote:

Boswell was a devout Roman Catholic, having converted from the Episcopal Church of his upbringing at age 16. He remained a daily mass Catholic up until his death, despite his differences with the church over sexual issues. Although he was orthodox in most of his beliefs, he strongly disagreed with his church's stated opposition to homosexual behavior and relationships. To a certain degree much of the work and research Boswell did regarding the Christian church's historical relationship with homosexuality can be seen as an attempt to reconcile his sexual orientation with his faith.

If Boswell had found the Mar Saba document there would be absolutely 'no doubt' that he forged the text. Yet how do people get around the fact that even Orthodox officials thought the rite 'seemed gay'? So there's this weird 'spiritual marriage ceremony' between guys in the Orthodox tradition which we can date to the fall of the Roman Empire (see Heraclius reference). Surely this goes back much further and notice the reference to Alexandria here. How far back? The implications of Clement's attack against the Carpocratians and their 'love feast' (= bridal chamber) I'd say to the late second century at least.

So if the fact that Boswell is a homosexual essentially allows us to ignore his work understanding this homosexual sounding rite in the early Greek Church, why isn't the same thing true about 'regular' scholars who project modern sensibilities onto the ancient Church? You know that Jesus was a historical 'Jew,' a rabbi who preached a 'sensible' doctrine of respect and social harmony - why aren't these beliefs discounted because they represent nothing more than 'projection' on the part of those who promote their own values? It's so stupid. It probably did take having a gay scholar to uncover that there was this gay sounding ritual, but so what?

I was watching an interview with George Martin the producer of the Beatles who likened the self-interest of each of the four Beatles in this way - when you pass around a class photo to adults they naturally look for themselves in the picture. No one looks for their friends first. In other words, just as capitalism is developed through self-interest we shouldn't expect scholarship to completely free of self-interest either. It's just a part of human nature.

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 02:09 PM

Apparently the earliest use of the term comes from the fifth century Life of Rabbula (http://www.bsana.net/conference/arch...ts_2003.html):

Quote:

To what extent do these idealized narratives represent monastic realities? The normative force of some texts reveals episcopal and abbatial oversight. This monastic form received endorsement in the fifth-century Life of Rabbula. In that text, the bishop of Edessa calls upon those living in "the chaste covenant of men" to be celibate and to live apart from the company of women. While Rabbula charges them to live apart from their nieces, mothers, and sisters, and to live without female servants or slaves, he encourages them to dwell "with a companion, as befits Christian love". "He coaxed them with affectionate words to love one another. He advised them that, if possible, each might dwell with his companion."

Upon Symeon's and John's conversion to Christian monasticism, the abbot of the Monastery of Gerasimus performs a rite of "the making of brothers (adelphopoiesis)" over them. The connection between this early Byzantine example of the "making of brothers" and expectations of same-sex monastic cohabitation remains unclear. This is the earliest recorded use of the word "adelphopoiesis". Nevertheless, in this case, the narrative progression toward long term domestic stability includes both the ritual consecration of their fictive kinship and the shedding of other kinship obligations.

The phenomenon of monastics living in pairs was widely known, relatively widely practiced, and received some level of institutional sanction and support in the Early Byzantine period.

Notice at once that Edessa is at once the very place Bauer says had Marcionitism as its official 'orthodoxy' in the second, third and possibly fourth centuries.

It was Rabbula who seems to have been responsible for the replacement of the Diatessaron with the Peshitta text of the gospels:

Quote:

The literary legacy of Rabbula is small in bulk, and is mostly to be found in Overbeck. Perhaps his primary importance to the historian of Syriac literature lies in the zeal with which he strove to replace the Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony of Tatian with the four canonical Gospels, ordering that a copy of the latter should be placed in every church.[3]
The version survives in a British Museum manuscript.[4] According to his biographer [5] he himself produced a version (or revision) of the New Testament in Syriac, known as the Peshitta. Rabbula's involvement may have been,[6] a first step in the direction of the Philoxenian version. FC Burkitt went further and advanced the hypothesis that Rabbula, at least as regards the Gospels, actively helped in the translation of the current Peshitta text, using the Greek text as read in Antioch about 400. However, since then Arthur Vöörbus has furnished evidence that the Peshitta predated Rabbula.[7]

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 02:17 PM

I found a PDF version of an article which sheds some more light on some of the things referenced in the above mentioned abstract:

http://www.uncg.edu/rel/contacts/fac...0Sexuality.pdf

Quote:

After seven days at the monastery, Symeon and John determined to leave the monastery to pursue ascetic life together alone in the desert. They did so with the abbot’s extensive blessing, which may or may not be read as a ritual of consecration. At the end of his prayer, “amazed at the affection [στοργή] which [Symeon] held for his brother” and “astounded by the love [ἀγάπη] both had for each other,” Nikon made the sign of the cross “upon their
breast and the whole of their body” before the two made their way out of the monastery and into the desert.

However, their companionship could only be stabilized after the death of Symeon’s mother and John’s fiancée, their other primary human attachments. The connection between early
Byzantine rites for the “making of brothers” and expectations of same-sex monastic cohabitation remains unclear. Nevertheless, in this case the narrative progression toward long-term domestic stability included both the ritual consecration of a fictive kinship and the shedding of other kinship obligations. The two engaged in the shared monastic life with their abbot’s blessing. Finally, early in their life together the same abbot appeared to Symeon in a
dream and sprinkled holy water below his navel, thus eradicating his sexual desire, constructing ideal monastic cohabitation as the antithesis of sexuality, the highly desiring and desired opposite of sex.

As the emotionally intense scene of their parting, described above, made clear, John longed for and expected the endurance of their shared celibacy. An excerpt from the early sixth-century correspondence of Severos of Antioch, preserved in Syriac, describes a less successful transition from the cenobitic life to a life of paired monasticism. In a letter to Severos, John Scholastikos of Bostra had written: “A rishdaira [head of a monastery, abbot]
clothed two men with a habit, and either together or in different times through his mediation made them deacons. Afterwards they cleaved [ethnaqaf] to one another and departed from the monastery.” After they departed the abbot complained that “their joining together [kenishoutha¯] with one another was in a mutually blameworthy manner, and he sent the anathema through a man to them that they should not be together [nethkanshoun] at all and
not speak with one another and drink wine. But they despised the sentence and on the same day they were together [ethkanash],” eating and drinking.

Severos was concerned with the legal ramifications of the case, that is, whether the two men fell under the jurisdiction of the abbot or the local bishop after they left the monastery. The ruling hangs on whether the men were already misbehaving before they left the monastery. If they were, and the abbot had already reprimanded them before they left, then his subsequent anathema was also valid.

John of Bostra’s description of the couple is enigmatic. What does it mean to cleave to one another? The word ethnaqaf means to be “conjoined” or “united,” but it can also have marital or sexual overtones. The simple form of the verb neqef appears in the Syriac version of genesis 2:24, where the “man cleaves to his wife.” More likely, however, the cleaving of monks to each other was sufficiently commonplace, and the text conveys that within
the monastery they became inseparable.

Even so, one wonders whether these monks were doing more than carousing and drinking wine together, especially once they were on their own together and behaving in a “mutually blameworthy manner.” Severos reminded John that “it is lawful for everyone who wishes to depart from the monastery” to do so, but did these men leave the monastery with the abbot’s approval or even his ritual blessing? Indeed, unless these monks were already reprimanded before they left the monastery, Severos ruled, their penance and absolution became the responsibility of the bishop, not the abbot. In the end, neither the Life of
Symeon the Fool nor the correspondence of Severos gives clear evidence of abbatial oversight of monastic companions after they leave a monastery.

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 04:16 PM

I don't see any reference to this term in Clement but it might well be disguised as 'brotherly love' or some other reference. Let's see what happens when we look for ποιέω in the Instructor. What do we come up with. Here's the first reference in Instructor 1.3 which is entitled 'the love of God for man' - Ὅτι φιλάνθρωπος ὁ παιδαγωγός:

Quote:

The Lord ministers all good and all help, both as man and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; and as man, training us not to sin. Man is therefore justly dear to God, since he is His workmanship.

Πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς θεός, τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήματα ὡς θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δὲ τὸ μὴ ἐξαμαρτάνειν παραπαιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Εἰκότως ἄρα φίλος ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ θεῷ, ἐπεὶ καὶ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ ἐστιν

The other works of creation He made by the word of command alone, but man He framed by Himself, by His own hand, and breathed into him what was peculiar to Himself.

Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κελεύων μόνον πεποίηκεν, τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον δι' αὑτοῦ ἐχειρούργησεν καί τι αὐτῷ ἴδιον ἐνεφύσησεν

What, then, was fashioned by Him, and after He likeness, either was created by God Himself as being desirable on its own account, or was formed as being desirable on account of something else.

Τὸ οὖν ὑπ'αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπεικονισμένον ἢ ὡς δι' αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν τῷ θεῷ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ
δεδημιούργηται τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ὡς ἕνεκεν ἄλλου αἱρετὸν διαπέπλασται

'If, then, man is an object desirable for itself, then He who is good loved what is good, and the love-charm is within even in man, and is that very thing which is called the inspiration [or breath] of God;

Εἰ μὲν οὖν δι' αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἀγαθὸν ἠγάπησεν, καὶ τὸ φίλτρον ἔνδον ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, τοῦθ' ὅπερ ἐμφύσημα εἴρηται θεοῦ

but if man was a desirable object on account of something else, God had no other reason for making him, than that unless he came into being, it was not possible for God to be a good Creator, or for man to arrive at the knowledge of God.

εἰ δὲ ἕνεκεν τῶν ἄλλων ὁ ἄνθρωπος αἱρετὸν γέγονεν, οὐκ ἄλλην αἰτίαν ἔσχεν τοῦ ποιεῖν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἄνευ αὐτοῦ οἵου τε ὄντος τὸν μὲν γενέσθαι δημιουργὸν ἀγαθόν, τὸν δὲ εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικέσθαι θεοῦ

For God would not have accomplished that on account of which man was created otherwise than by the creation of man; and what hidden power in willing God possessed, He carried fully out by the forth-putting of His might externally in the act of creating, receiving from man what He made man; and whom He had He saw, and what He wished that came to pass.

οὐ γὰρ ἄλλως ἂν τὸ οὗ ἕνεκεν ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, εἰ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει, καὶ ἣν εἶχεν ἐναποκεκρυμμένην ἰσχύν, τὸ βούλεσθαι, ὁ θεὸς διὰ τῆς ἔξωθεν τοῦ πεποιηκέναι προσανεπλήρωσεν δυνάμεως, λαβὼν παρὰ ἀνθρώπου ὃ πεποίηκεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ὃ εἶχεν εἶδεν καὶ γέγονεν ὃ ἠθέλησεν

and there is nothing which God cannot do.

οὐδὲν δὲ ὃ μὴ δύναται θεός

Man, then, whom God made, is desirable for himself, and that which is desirable on his account is allied to him to whom it is desirable on his account; and this, too, is acceptable and liked

Ὁ ἄνθρω πος ἄρα ὃν πεποίηκεν ὁ θεός, δι' αὑτὸ αἱρετόν ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ δι' αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν οἰκεῖόν ἐστιν ὅτῳπερ ἂν ᾖ δι' αὑτὸ αἱρετόν, τούτῳ δὲ καὶ ἀσμενιστὸν καὶ φιλητόν

There is nothing overtly sexual about the discussion. One can argue that it is just a retread of the traditional Jewish notion of Israel being beloved by God. But given the fact that we have the letter to Theodore from the 2nd or early 3rd century on the one hand and this other concept of adelphopoiesis first manifesting itself in 5th century literature, is it too much to suggest that Clement is only superficially referencing the Jewish account of creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2? In other words, Clement is secretly alluding to the idea that Jesus came to recreate man according to a better man (= the Father who had been previously unknown to humanity and indeed himself).

This is the secret purpose of Alexandrian baptism. And it also explains the name 'Paul' as a development of the traditional Samaritan interpretation of the Great Song (= Deut 32) and the line in particular:

Quote:

הַצּוּר תָּמִים פָּעֳלוֹ
the rock, his perfect work

Marqe interprets צור‎ in Aramaic rather than Hebrew so to read 'image' rather than 'rock.' In other words, man will ultimately be perfected after the image (= tsurah) of God's glory at the end times:

Quote:

At the beginning He mentioned Creation and also at the end He magnified man's FORM (tsurah = Aram). He blessed the whole with the two words TAMIM PO'OLO (His work is perfect). Greatness belongs to our Lord. He has made known in His wisdom that which He made manifest, for our Lord in His great power made everything a form, then created and fashioned and made creatures exceedingly grand. Everything was made by Him. Everything is from Him. Everything was drawn into being by His command "Come"; it was governed by His power, made strong by His good (favour) and magnified by His glory (Mimar Marqe 4.2)

Marqe also notes:

Quote:

From the Form (tsurah) and the mind was the body perfected and set up (in a manner) quite apart from any other created thing. (ibid)

You will have to read Book Four yourselves to understand how Pauline this concept really is. In any event, I would argue that under this scenario the figure of פָּעֳלוֹ (paulo) is the prophesied one made after the divine image.

In any event getting back to the discussion here I wonder whether Clement's idea (shared by Marqe) that God himself came to refashion man after a greater glory came replaced with the idea that two men were refashioned as 'brothers.' Remember baptism is being adopted by the Father into his son. Now we see the concept of 'brother' being introduced. It seems to be distancing itself from the original concept of God being directly involved in the process.

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 05:48 PM

Here is the next reference:

Quote:

ἓν γὰρ ἄμφω, ὁ θεός, ὅτι εἶπεν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Εἰ δὲ οὐ μισεῖ τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γενομένων οὐδέν, λείπεται φιλεῖν αὐτό.

For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God." If then He hates none of the things which He has made, it follows that He loves them.

Πολὺ δὴ πλέον τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαπήσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, εἰκότως, τὸ κάλλιστον τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ δημιουργηθέντων καὶ φιλόθεον ζῷον.

Much more than the rest, and with reason, will He love man, the noblest of all objects created by Him, and a God-loving being.

Φιλάνθρωπος ἄρα ὁ θεός, φιλάνθρωπος ἄρα ὁ λόγος.

Therefore God is loving; consequently the Word is loving.

Ὁ δὲ φιλῶν τι ὠφελεῖν αὐτὸ βούλεται, τὸ δὲ ὠφελοῦν τοῦ μὴ ὠφελοῦντος πάντως ἄν που κρεῖττον εἴη, τοῦ δὲ ἀγαθοῦ κρεῖττον οὐδὲ ἕν, ὠφελεῖ ἄρα τὸ ἀγαθόν·

But he who loves anything wishes to do it good. And that which does good must be every way better than that which does not good. But nothing is better than the Good. The Good, then, does good.

ἀγαθὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς ὁμολο γεῖται, ὠφελεῖ ἄρα ὁ θεός.

And God is admitted to be good. God therefore does good.

Τὸ δὲ ἀγαθόν, ᾗ ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ποιεῖ ἢ ὅτι ὠφελεῖ· πάντα ἄρα ὠφελεῖ ὁ θεός.

And the Good, in virtue of its being good, does nothing else than make good. Consequently God does all good.

Καὶ οὐ δήπου ὠφελεῖ μέν τι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ κήδεται αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ κήδεται μέν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπιμελεῖται αὐτοῦ. Κρεῖττον μὲν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ γνώμην ὠφελοῦν τοῦ μὴ ὠφελοῦντος κατὰ γνώμην, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ κρεῖττον οὐδέν.

And He does no good to man without caring for him, and He does not care far him without taking care of him. For that which does good purposely, is better than what does not good purposely. But nothing is better than God

Καὶ οὐκ ἄλλο τί ἐστι τὸ κατὰ γνώμην ὠφελεῖν, ὅτι μὴ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·

And to do good purposely, is nothing else than to take care of man.

κήδεται ἄρα καὶ ἐπιμελεῖται τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ θεός

God therefore cares for man, and takes care of him. (Instructor 1.8)

Is this a subtle reference to the Marcionite recreation myth - i.e. that the Good God is now recreating the man originally made in Paradise according to the glory?

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 07:25 PM

The next interesting reference in the Instructor appears at the beginning of Book Two which - like Stromata 3 - is an admonishment of heretical 'love feast' gatherings which seem to have (or have been reported to outsiders as having) an unseemingly (= erotic) component. It is interesting what his citation of 1 Cor 10:31:

Quote:

Καὶ εἴτε ἐσθίετε, φησίν, εἴτε πίνετε, πάντα εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ ποιεῖτε, στοχαζόμενοι τῆς ἀληθοῦς εὐτελείας, ἥν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ὁ κύριος αἰνίξασθαι τοὺς ἄρτους εὐλογήσας καὶ τοὺς ἰχθύας τοὺς ὀπτούς, οἷς κατευώχησε τοὺς μαθητάς, τῆς ἀπεριέργου τροφῆς καλὸν εἰσηγούμενος ὑπόδειγμα.

And "whether ye eat or drink, make all to the glory of God," aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when He blessed the loaves and the cooked fishes with which He feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food.

Of course we moderns just read this and think 'Clement is talking about simple food.' I would argue the sense here is that he is really talking again about being nourished - or even manufactured - according to the Good (God).

10-16-2011, 10:50 AM	#2
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Christian Love Sounded Gay to Outsiders Putting on my Stephen C Carlson hat, I'll have to say that the word "gay" (as we mean it now, not 90 years ago) has no corollary in the first few centuries CE. This surely means that the words of Clement of Alexandria were probably written in a Morton Salt mine in Fairport Harbor, Ohio, where the inhabitants demonstrate no love of finery when the gruff and tumble bikers and tattooed ladies descend upon their mardi gras, except when their stoves explode, and the gas company has to replace them. DCH (It isn't *supposed* to make any sense ...)

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

10-16-2011, 10:59 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is all so stupid. At the core of Christianity is a sublimated desire for Christ which manifests itself in all sorts of readily recognized sexual metaphors culminating in the “bridal chamber.” In the very monastery where to Theodore was found they have an order of monks called “brotherly love” which has been argued to practice a sublimated form of gay marriage between its members. Where is the controversy?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.