Sheshbazzar

But it is entirely possible for what is not a real man to 'come' in 'clouds' that are not real 'clouds', when both that 'man', and the 'clouds' he is to 'come' and 'appear' in are not literal, but being predictions of knowledge and integrity finally triumphing over ignorance and rebellion, which are expressed in metaphorical terms. (Hsa 13:3, Hbr 12:1, 2 Peter 2:17, Ju 11:12, Rev 14:16)
Essentially subtly talking about all of mankind eventually being delivered from our present ignorance and rebelling divisions, with truth at the last ultimately shining forth and revealing all error, being supported by that great 'cloud' of witness's.

Duvduv

What this shows is that despite the apparent different sources concerning the nature of their Christ, somehow they managed a clear consensus about the claim that the Jews and their covenant had been replaced by the arrival of christ. This itself is especially significant if the orthodox church included disparate streams and the christ was not merely the promised Jewish Messiah.

.

Duvduv

So the question needs to be answered : how is it possible that all kinds of separate streams differed on so many essentials about the Christ, but on the view of the replacement theology regarding the Jews they managed such unanimity and consensus as seen in those writings?!

aa5874

We have at least Seven Apologetic sources which claim or imply the Jews Killed or caused Jesus to be killed yet some of the very sources will also ADMIT the Jews did NOT even agree that Christ had come.

Remarkably, up to the mid 3rd century the Jews did NOT accept or claim the Christ had come.

There is ZERO evidence that the Johanine community was Jewish.

1. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho2. Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews 73. Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies4. Origen's Against Celsus 3

Duvduv

And yet, despite all the distinctions in the theologies of various writers on matters of the Christ, there is total unanimity that the promised messiah did come (against Jewish opposition) and that his arrival had ended the role of the ritual and other commandments of the Law, and that the Church and Christ have SUCCEEDED Israel and the Law.

How this total unanimity about the succession of Israel and the Law with the arrival of the Christ (and an eventual implication that the Jews had been rejected by God for this reason) could emerge among all these writers who disparate views of the Christ is still an unanswered question.

Duvduv

How is it that the successionist or replacement theology became so UNIFORM among writers who on these other essential issues allegedly had very different opinions? How did ithis successionist theology become so firmly entrenched among Romans/gentiles if it wasn't even more significant than the particular nature of the Christ as promised messiah, Logos, heavenly priest, etc. etc.??!

Toto

This is about the third time you have repeated this question. Evidently no one else sees a problem or cares to discuss this. Or perhaps you need to learn more about the subject matter and rephrase the question so it makes sense.

In any case, I don't understand your puzzlement. What is called proto-orthodox Christianity defined itself by the beliefs that the Jewish scriptures were part of their canon, but that the Jews were no longer chosen.

In this, they differed from Marcionites, who believed that the Jewish scriptures were valid for Jews, but that there was a larger god than the Jewish god who had sent his son Jesus to redeem gentiles.

So the heresiologists made sure that only literature that agreed with their anti-Marcionite point of view survived.

What is unclear about this?

Duvduv

Thank you, Toto, for the usual "shtekh."

Anyway, it is significant because there had to have been some decisive authority establishing the overall Christ ideology as replacing the Law even BEFORE the debates about the nature of the Christ and his salvation were determined, since it is unlikely that such disparate groups would have come up with the same idea on their own.

The very same orientation of replacement by the Law is found in all these writers. Thus it was a pillar of belief practically before anything else.

As far as Marcion is concerned, we have no evidence of what he actually believed since none of his writings (if they ever existed) survived. I think the Marcion issue is something of a red herring.

Feel free to pop me another shtekh at your earliest convenience.

Toto

These groups were all "Christian" - they had that in common. Why do you call them disparate? Why do you think they needed an authority telling them what to believe? Anyone who didn't believe this would not have been classified as Christian.

Except that Jesus was the savior?

We have evidence that later Christian writers spent a lot of time denouncing him. That's all we need. Maybe he existed, or maybe he was a personification of a movement. Who cares?

Duvduv

There's no use building sand castles about a guy whose ideas are unknown except in the unverifiable claims of officialdom. And the point is that there were enough differences among other writers on essential details about their religion except on this detail of replacement theology for which there was consensus. This overriding dogma could not have emerged from all over the place along with the differing teachings about the Christ.