Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 04-08-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Sorry for the sloppiness of my earlier message. Need to get those meds on a tighter schedule....

No problem: "Sbagliando s'impara!"

And if you look in the gospels (just go to a site like blueletterbible.org) and look at the instances where grafh is used, you see that it's used without any "sacred" or "holy" (and I noticed that your list of words for sacred didn't include agios, which I think is the most common one) when refering to the Old Testament.

Is this reference to meds a joke or not? (even with the smilie, I'm not sure)

stephan huller · 04-08-2011, 04:56 PM

I should actually correct myself before someone else does. If the Stromateis was written 193 - 195 CE and the chronological ordering of Clement's writings are 1) Exhortation 2) Instructor 3) Stromateis then we'd have to up the dating of Clement's knowledge to the Commodian period before of two references to Acts in Book Two of the Instructor:

Quote:

Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, and vegetables, without flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the extreme, “ate locusts and wild honey.” Peter abstained from swine; “but a trance fell on him,” as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, “and he saw heaven opened, and a vessel let down on the earth by the four corners, and all the four-looted beasts and creeping things of the earth and the fowls of heaven in it; and there came a voice to him, Rise, and slay, and eat. And Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten what is common or unclean. And the voice came again to him the second time, What God has cleansed, call not common.” Acts 10:10-15 [Paed 2.1]

The twelve, having called together the multitude of the disciples, said, “It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve tables.” Acts 6:2 If they avoided this, much more did they shun gluttony. [ibid 2.7]

I have heard it argued that Clement accepted Acts but didn't hold it on the same level as the gospel or apostolikon. It is hard to reconcile the first citation of Acts with Clement's own preference for the traditional ascetic model. One might argue that he accepted Acts because it was part of the package of new ecumenicism but that it wasn't especially dear to his heart. Just for thought

aa5874 · 04-08-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The key dates for the use of Acts are:

1) Irenaeus is familiar with it (c. 185 CE)
2) Clement of Alexandria attests to it (c. 193 CE)

I would argue that Irenaeus's witness of the rejection of John Mark and Paul's preference for Luke was an addition developed by Irenaeus himself (so too the 'we' section). In other words, there was a pre-Irenaean copy of Acts which is lost, probably developed in Antioch or an Antiochene interest.

I think Theophilus was Theophilus of Antioch and I suspect the original author was Polycarp.

Well, well, well. But why do you believe Irenaeus is actually writing about Acts in c.185 CE?

These are your own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

...All of which begs the question - why do we, don't believe in the Catholic understanding of history, continue to perpetuate the notion 'Paul' exactly as described by these false historical documents? Why do we say he was formerly called Saul for instance? Or that he was a Jewish bounty hunter or a tentmaker or any of this bullshit? Once you throw Acts out of the window along with the pseudo-epistles the apostle of the Marcionites could be anyone....

"Against Heresies" is BULLSHIT since it contains BOGUS information about the authorship, dating, chronology and even contents of , the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the PAULINE writings.

Irenaeus did NOT even know the governor of Judea under Claudius.

Why do you believe the BULLSHIT from Irenaeus about Acts?

stephan huller · 04-08-2011, 06:24 PM

It's amazing how far I have come in terms of not taking the whack jobs here too seriously.

There are basically three choices for any student of early Christian history:

1) take all the evidence at face value with little or no critical analysis.
2) assume everything is a complete lie/massive conspiracy (go 'full retard' like some at this board)
3) assume that there was a 'final editor' (to use Trobisch's terminology) in the late second century adapting existing material for some ecumenical purpose

I pick (3) and assume that Irenaeus was the final editor in part because he is the first to promote the general shape of orthodoxy which eventually took its now familiar form. Irenaeus is the first to mention most of the (a) texts (b) traditions (c) personalities of the Church.

In the end I think only (1) and (3) are the only viable options and (3) is more likely than (1). Where I go further than others is that Christianity was governed like any other religious cultus in the Empire which meant (i) it couldn't do what it wanted and (ii) Alexandria came under periodic persecutions because it hadn't fully relinquished authority to the new church headquartered in Rome. It was a crypto-tradition and the so-called distinction between 'heads of the catechetical school' and Pope was illusory. Demetrius was a foreigner who imposed the will of Rome from without. I don't even believe he ever left the city of Alexandria proper.

Indeed the question for me is which is older - the Roman or Alexandrian tradition? I think the Alexandria was the place Christianity originated. As such when it was forced to accept the authority of the church at Rome its property was subject to the same authority and so we end up with the historical situation reported in AH 4.30.1,2. The tradition in question is clearly the Alexandrian Church; look at the context of the reference.

aa5874 · 04-08-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It's amazing how far I have come in terms of not taking the whack jobs here too seriously.

There are basically three choices for any student of early Christian history:

1) take all the evidence at face value with little or no critical analysis.
2) assume everything is a complete lie/massive conspiracy (go 'full retard' like some at this board)
3) assume that there was a 'final editor' (to use Trobisch's terminology) in the late second century adapting existing material for some ecumenical purpose

I pick (3) and assume that Irenaeus was the final editor in part because he is the first to promote the general shape of orthodoxy which eventually took its now familiar form. Irenaeus is the first to mention most of the (a) texts (b) traditions (c) personalities of the Church....

Once you ASSUME that it was ACTUALLY Irenaeus who really FIRST mentioned the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings then you are taking the evidence at face value with NO critical analysis.

A proper analysis of "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus will show that it is BULLSHIT historically.

The information about the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the age of Jesus when he suffered, and the governor under Claudius, provided by Irenaeus has BEEN REJECTED.

dog-on · 04-11-2011, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I put Acts, along with Luke, between 160 and 180. I do think that the mentioned Theophilus was, in fact, Theophilus of Antioch.

How can that be when Theophilus of Antioch did NOT even mention Jesus or that he believed in Jesus in his 3 books called "To Autolycus"?

Theophilus of Antioch show NO AWARENESS of the Jesus stories and did NOT acknowledge Jesus as his LORD and Savior in "To Autolycus".

This is Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" 1.12

Quote:

...And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying.

First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible........... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Theophilus was a Christian who had nothing to do with Jesus.

It is NOT likely that "Theophilus" in Acts was Theophilus of Antioch.

Acts of the Apostles may have been written at the end of the 3rd century.

This is John Chrysostom on Acts of the Apostles writing in the 4th century.

Homilies 1

Quote:

..To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.....

Acts of the Apostles should have been the most significant book for the Jesus cult since it contains the MOST IMPORTANT day for the START of the Jesus cult, "the DAY of Pentecost".

No early Christian writer REMEMBERED the significance of the Day of Pentecost or claimed to have the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and TALKED in TONGUES except "Paul".

Acts of the Apostles, wholly or in part, appears to be a Fiction-based LATE invention with the Pauline writings in an attempt to provide a BOGUS history of the Roman Church.

Well AA, just why the fuck do you think that "Luke" wrote this for Theophilus in the first place...

aa5874 · 04-12-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...Well AA, just why the fuck do you think that "Luke" wrote this for Theophilus in the first place...

I don't even know when gLuke was actually written, and who "Luke" and "Theophilus" were.

All I see is that "Theophilus of Antioch" did NOT write one single thing about Jesus, Christ and Jesus Christ in the 3 books of "To Autolycus

All I see is that Justin Martyr did NOT mention any author called "Luke".

Do you think that there was only ONE person called "Theophilus" in any century?

jakejonesiv · 04-13-2011, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I put Acts, along with Luke, between 160 and 180. I do think that the mentioned Theophilus was, in fact, Theophilus of Antioch.

I agree. Theophilus of Antioch was a Christian who seemed to have little or no knowledge of the gospels. He would be the perfect candidate to receive an "orderly account" of Gospel Jesus seen through proto-orthodox eyes.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874 · 04-13-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I put Acts, along with Luke, between 160 and 180. I do think that the mentioned Theophilus was, in fact, Theophilus of Antioch.

I agree. Theophilus of Antioch was a Christian who seemed to have little or no knowledge of the gospels. He would be the perfect candidate to receive an "orderly account" of Gospel Jesus seen through proto-orthodox eyes.

Jake Jones IV

In gLuke "Theophilus" was ALREADY taught the Jesus story, the author of gLuke investigated the matter to confirm the teachings given to "Theophilus"

Examine Luke 1

Quote:

3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

"Theophilus of Antioch" showed NO sign of being TAUGHT anything about Jesus or needed to know anything about Jesus in his three books on "To Autolycus"

We have what was TAUGHT by "Theophilus of Antioch" and it has NOTHING about Jesus.

"To Autolycus" 12

Quote:

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible.........Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God...

"Theophilus of Antioch" TAUGHT that people were called CHRISTIANS because they were anointed with the oil of God.

I think you have the wrong "Theophilus".

How about Theophilus of Caesarea? What was he TAUGHT before the author of gLuke did his investigation?

dog-on · 04-14-2011, 12:32 AM

AA, I'll spell out the punch line.

Theo had it wrong, so Luke schooled him.

Get it!!!???...

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

04-08-2011, 06:24 PM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's amazing how far I have come in terms of not taking the whack jobs here too seriously. There are basically three choices for any student of early Christian history: 1) take all the evidence at face value with little or no critical analysis. 2) assume everything is a complete lie/massive conspiracy (go 'full retard' like some at this board) 3) assume that there was a 'final editor' (to use Trobisch's terminology) in the late second century adapting existing material for some ecumenical purpose I pick (3) and assume that Irenaeus was the final editor in part because he is the first to promote the general shape of orthodoxy which eventually took its now familiar form. Irenaeus is the first to mention most of the (a) texts (b) traditions (c) personalities of the Church. In the end I think only (1) and (3) are the only viable options and (3) is more likely than (1). Where I go further than others is that Christianity was governed like any other religious cultus in the Empire which meant (i) it couldn't do what it wanted and (ii) Alexandria came under periodic persecutions because it hadn't fully relinquished authority to the new church headquartered in Rome. It was a crypto-tradition and the so-called distinction between 'heads of the catechetical school' and Pope was illusory. Demetrius was a foreigner who imposed the will of Rome from without. I don't even believe he ever left the city of Alexandria proper. Indeed the question for me is which is older - the Roman or Alexandrian tradition? I think the Alexandria was the place Christianity originated. As such when it was forced to accept the authority of the church at Rome its property was subject to the same authority and so we end up with the historical situation reported in AH 4.30.1,2. The tradition in question is clearly the Alexandrian Church; look at the context of the reference.

04-14-2011, 12:32 AM	#30
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	AA, I'll spell out the punch line. Theo had it wrong, so Luke schooled him. Get it!!!???...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.