Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-11-2012, 04:35 PM

But it sounds as though becoming the Seed of David occurred only AFTER his body became bread and blood became wine, etc. etc. which means AFTER the crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Take a look at this quote from the Epistle to Romans ascribed to Ignatius, where Jesus only became the Seed of David AFTER the crucifixion:

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Thus this author either understood the reference in the epistle in a novel way, or both were expressing an idea about the non-physical Jesus derived from elsewhere.

Ignatius, I think, means that Christ was the Son of God from the beginning of the world (or earlier), but became the descendant of David and Abraham at the Incarnation.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 02-11-2012, 04:36 PM

Speaking of Ignatius, why did the Byzantine church not adopt the Ignatian epistles into the canon the same way they adopted the Paulines? Certainly they could have made the Ignatians of importance equal to the Paulines from the first century.

Duvduv · 02-11-2012, 06:52 PM

If GMark followed the epistles, then in this particular issue GMark denies that his Jesus is a physical descendant of David (IF that is what the epistle writer actually meant), and Matthew and Luke seem to say the same thing:
Mark 12.35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 12.36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 12.37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

I guess this creates a problem with GMatt and GLuke who has his Christ born in Bethlehem as a descendant of David.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Take a look at this quote from the Epistle to Romans ascribed to Ignatius, where Jesus only became the Seed of David AFTER the crucifixion:

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Thus this author either understood the reference in the epistle in a novel way, or both were expressing an idea about the non-physical Jesus derived from elsewhere.

Ignatius, I think, means that Christ was the Son of God from the beginning of the world (or earlier), but became the descendant of David and Abraham at the Incarnation.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 02-13-2012, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But it sounds as though becoming the Seed of David occurred only AFTER his body became bread and blood became wine, etc. etc. which means AFTER the crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Take a look at this quote from the Epistle to Romans ascribed to Ignatius, where Jesus only became the Seed of David AFTER the crucifixion:

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Thus this author either understood the reference in the epistle in a novel way, or both were expressing an idea about the non-physical Jesus derived from elsewhere.

Ignatius, I think, means that Christ was the Son of God from the beginning of the world (or earlier), but became the descendant of David and Abraham at the Incarnation.

Andrew Criddle

I think you are getting confused by dependent clauses. Ignatius I think means: I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, [who is] the Son of God, [and] who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 02:36 AM

I don't know what you mean. The word "afterwards" apparently refers to the time after the Christ made known something. Not merely after the physical incarnation, which is already obvious from the fact of the gospel nativity. Ignatius is thus not revealing anything that is not already known unless it is not obvious.

andrewcriddle · 02-13-2012, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't know what you mean. The word "afterwards" apparently refers to the time after the Christ made known something. Not merely after the physical incarnation, which is already obvious from the fact of the gospel nativity. Ignatius is thus not revealing anything that is not already known unless it is not obvious.

An alternative translation is

Quote:

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was born in the latter time of the seed of David and Abraham.

See epistles of st clement...

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 07:31 AM

Thanks. I tried searching for "David" in that file but didn't find it. I also don't see what the connection would be between the bread and wine and being of the seed of David or Abraham. But such a statement from Ignatius would be unnecessary since Christians already know from the Epistle to Romans that their Christ was of the seed of David.
Is it possible the Ignatians were not included in the canon with the Paulines because they were written after the choice of the canon texts was already made, regardless of their attribution to the early 2nd century (and which could have easily been backdated into the end of the 1st century)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't know what you mean. The word "afterwards" apparently refers to the time after the Christ made known something. Not merely after the physical incarnation, which is already obvious from the fact of the gospel nativity. Ignatius is thus not revealing anything that is not already known unless it is not obvious.

An alternative translation is

Quote:

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was born in the latter time of the seed of David and Abraham.

See epistles of st clement...

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2012, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I also don't see what the connection would be between the bread and wine and being of the seed of David or Abraham

Just that the old party hack Ignatious liked to turn out flowery high-sounding religious prose, but was neither a very good logician or writer.
He doesn't even believe in the clap-trap that he produces, but it works well enough for his religious cronies purposes, and the yokels suck it up without objection, and that's enough for him.

sotto voce · 02-13-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Thanks. I tried searching for "David" in that file but didn't find it. I also don't see what the connection would be between the bread and wine and being of the seed of David or Abraham. But such a statement from Ignatius would be unnecessary since Christians already know from the Epistle to Romans that their Christ was of the seed of David.

Quite so. It's the 'methinks the lady doth protest too much' syndrome on the part of a political entryist posing as an insider; as is obvious from all of the letters attributed to Ignatius.

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 11:44 AM

What would have made "Paul" more "kosher" then than "Ignatius" for purposes of inclusion in the canon by the fifth century?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I also don't see what the connection would be between the bread and wine and being of the seed of David or Abraham

Just that the old party hack Ignatious liked to turn out flowery high-sounding religious prose, but was neither a very good logician or writer.
He doesn't even believe in the clap-trap that he produces, but it works well enough for his religious cronies purposes, and the yokels suck it up without objection, and that's enough for him.

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

02-11-2012, 04:36 PM	#52
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Speaking of Ignatius, why did the Byzantine church not adopt the Ignatian epistles into the canon the same way they adopted the Paulines? Certainly they could have made the Ignatians of importance equal to the Paulines from the first century.

02-13-2012, 02:36 AM	#55
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't know what you mean. The word "afterwards" apparently refers to the time after the Christ made known something. Not merely after the physical incarnation, which is already obvious from the fact of the gospel nativity. Ignatius is thus not revealing anything that is not already known unless it is not obvious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.