spin

So? Just look at the Greek. Then ask him why he left it out.


spin

NOGO

If you stick to word to word comparison then you can walk away as the big winner of this item. Otherwise you will admit that if GJohn tells us that

Word = God

Then he cannot have Jesus take exception to the fact that somebody called him good because only God is good.


No, Tatian distinguished between God and the Logos GJohn does not.

GJohn contradicts itself because it states that the Word is God and has Jesus taking exception at being called good.

You sort of missed something here.
I am also saying that Tatian contradicts GJohn.
GJohn Word = God
Tatian Word not= God

This is a side issue which has nothing to do with Tatian.
I am saying that GJohn also considers the Word as an heavenly entity just like Tatian does.

One of the central tenet of Christianity is that GJohn says that the Word (and Jesus by Christian thinking) is God and Tatian says that they are different entities.

This is based on the items that you have initiated.
When you answer the one above which you so materfully avoided answering then we could have a debate.

NOGO

So this your big hand.

If Jesus started as a heavenly spirit as Tatian has it and the Gospels have him as a man and GJohn tries to have it both ways then a debate on the nature of Jesus is just a matter of time.

All the elements were in place when the Gospels were written.

You seem to be playing a game here, GakuseiDon.
Never mind the debate which took place 100 years later.
Tell me what do you believe the Gospels say about Jesus?

Does the Gospel of John say that
Word = God = Jesus of Nazareth or not?

And does Tatian say the same about the Logos?

GakuseiDon

Well, since I'm saying that Tatian was a HJer, please forgive me if I point out comparisons. There's lots more where that came from (see below). It seems a strange objection to bring.

The point in question isn't whether GJohn contradicts GJohn, but whether what Tatian wrote is against the central tenets of Christianity of the time. How did they understand what GJohn meant? Hint: read Justin Martyr's apologies.

Again, the point isn't whether GJohn contradicts GJohn, but how it was understood. Anyway, even if Tatian doesn't expressly say that the Logos was God, does that mean that he wasn't a HJer? How does that work, then?

So, more comparisons between GJohn and Tatian:

GJohn:
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

Tatian:
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (dia lpgikhs dunameps), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists.

GJohn:
1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Tatian:
And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world... And as the Logos begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter...

GJohn:
1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not *comprehend it.

Tatian:
... And this is the meaning of the saying, "The darkness comprehendeth not the light." For the soul does not preserve the spirit, but is preserved by it, and the light comprehends the darkness. The Logos, in truth, is the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness.[/i]

This is the full context of the passage I quote Tatian from for the first examples:
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (dia lpgikhs dunameps), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech (logos) by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again, and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself.

... And this is the meaning of the saying, "The darkness comprehendeth not the light." For the soul does not preserve the spirit, but is preserved by it, and the light comprehends the darkness. The Logos, in truth, is the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness.

GakuseiDon

Yes. Tatian says "God was born in the form of a man". He just doesn't name the man. Who do you think he was referring to, BTW?

GakuseiDon

An examination of Justin Martyr's writings with Tatian's AttG is revealing.

Remember, Tatian was a pupil of Justin's, and Tatian refers to "the admirable Justin" in AttG.

Many of the same ideas regarding the Logos in Tatian's AttG can be seen in Justin's writings. As Justin is a confirmed HJer, it is interesting to compare his thoughts with those of Tatian's in the AttG:

Tatian:

Justin:

It would be hard from these passages to tell which was Justin and which was Tatian.

Again, NOGO, I remind you that I'm not saying here that "this proves that Tatian was a HJer". I have Irenaeus for that part. But it does prove that that kind of "Logos-speech" was used by HJers as well.

Bernard Muller

Vorkosigan:
Vorkosigan makes a lot of Tatian, Address to the Greeks, "form" word in:
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man."

But a contemporary of Tatian, who combined the gospels Jesus with the mythical one, used the same kind of wording:

Melito of Sardis (160-177), From the Discourse on the Cross:
"On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion,-appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches;"

Melito of Sardis, again:
This is He who took a bodily form in the Virgin, and was hanged upon the tree, and was buried within the earth, and suffered not dissolution; He who rose from the place of the dead, and raised up men from the earth-from the grave below to the height of heaven. This is the Lamb that was slain; this is the Lamb that opened not His mouth.

What about the Diatessaron?
I read it a few times and there is nothing "heretical" about it.
Sure, there are no genealogy but there is no way that the author could have harmonized the two ones from GLuke & GMatthew. The best solution was to drop them.
Regardless, Joseph and Jesus, separately, are said to be from the House of David and also son of David.
The author, who carried the godly conception, avoided to mention Joseph as the father during the conception and nativity stories. But even then, he is the "husband" of Mary; when Jesus is a boy, he is one of the "parent". Finally, Joseph is said to be the "father" of Jesus when the later one is preaching.
There is NO 'from the seed of David' in the Diatessaron, but it is clear that in the virgin birth, only God is the genetic father. Tatian simply may have decided to remove the dual genetic father "problem".

What strikes me, there is nothing Docetic about Jesus in the Diatessaron. Jesus has a true human mother and every reference of Jesus' blood from the canonical gospels are reproduced. Actually, Tatian added up a few items on the humanity of Jesus.
If Tatian composed the Diatessaron, that had to be before his Encratite days.

Best regards, Bernard

NOGO

All this comes from interpreting scriptures.

Can you give me a reference when the logos appeared to Joshua of Nun in human form

No time now but will answer your post next time

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure why it matters, as this is Justin we are talking about. Please remember the topic, which is whether Tatian's AttG could have been written by a HJer. If your point is related to that, well and good. If not, then perhaps start a new thread. (This is why I wanted the passages from Tatian that contradicted central tenets of Christianity clearly laid out next to the central tenet before starting the debate).

I'll look forward to it. I'll be away for a few days, so no hurry.

NOGO

What you say implies that some central tenets of Christianity changed over time. You speak about the debate about the nature of Christ but you never explain why this debate ever took place.

For your "dagger" to work you need to show that Christians all agreed on the idea that the Logos was human. If Christianity started with a human Jesus then how did this talk about the logos without any mention of Jesus ever come about?

This is a fundamental problem with the way to see this. Paul (1 Cor 15) says something like "I am passing on what I have received". When it comes to faith people tend to repeat what they hear. If expressions of faith started with the human Jesus then it is simply not credible that someone would express his faith as Tatian does and not mention Jesus.

Tatian's faith has to do the Logos and that is how he expresses it. Even if the HJ was well established it still had no effect on Tatian and the way he expresses his faith. Today it would be unthinkable for any Christian to write what Tatian writes. You are right Christianity has changed.

You think that the answer is obvious, right?
This is what I call reading into the text.
Perhaps you ought to stop doing this.

Tatian goes on giving as a comparison "Athene... took the form of Deiphobus"
Is this how Tatian deams God was born in the form of a man.
Had he compared it to the birth of Hercules who was the son of Zeus and a human mother the comparison would have been more like what the gospels say. As it stands we must reserve judgement.

Given this statement what does Tatian mean by "God was born in the form of a man"?
You assume that your current faith gives that answer.
But what did Christians believe at the time.

See now I am playing your game by using the words "at the time".
Since you admit that Christianity changed over time then it is a ligitimate question.

The reason I brought up the above quote from Justin is that he claims that Jesus took human form in the past. You will agree I am sure that Justin did not mean that Jesus was born of a virgin in the days of Joshua of Nun. It is more like what Tatian says of Athene.

Tatian
And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father
John 1
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John has no birth story. Above is where the Logos is born.

The idea that God (or even the Logos) was BORN in human form is most certainly not a common belief in early Christianity. Both Mark and John do not have a virgin birth story.
John, in particular, tells a story which is contrary to the idea of a virgin birth.

So what did John mean by "the Word became flesh"
This is an essential element to the understanding of Tatian's point of view.
Simply put there were Christians who believed in the Logos as a heavenly figure not attached to any human.

Let me be clear GJohn does relate the Logos to a human Jesus but the relation may surprize you. The Gospel of John reveals a Christianity which you deny.

In John the Logos speaks through the human but he makes it very clear that the human is not the Logos. In no way can we ever say that GJohn has God born in human form, yet it is clearly inspired by the belief in the Logos as Tatian is.

Note two things here one is about listening to Jesus's words which seens to be a condition for salvation. The other is the fact that Jesus says that he does nothing of his own initiative.

Jesus says that the teachings (words) are not his own, acknowledging the complaint in verse 15 that he was uneducated.
The author thus establish a contrast between the man and the Logos which speaks through him."whether it is of God (Logos/Word of God) or whether I speak from myself (the man)"

So the two things which I have highlighted
1) The Logos speaks through the human Jesus
2) The Word is what saves

These concepts are expressed throughtout the gospel, see the following verses

The following is the key to the Gospel of John.

This is what Jesus states in public.
"I am the bread from heaven that gives life."
"He who eats my flesh has eternal life."

Jesus explains what he means when he is alone with his disciples.

"the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
The words (Logos) are spirit and life and therefore give salvation.

So we need to go back and see what Jesus said in public

verse 50
"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

What this says is that the word of God (the logos) came down from heaven and whoever believes (eats it) will not die.

"I am the bread of life?

"I" is not the man speaking but the word of God which the man speaks.
If you look at Paull you will notice an insistance to witness, ie to speak the word of God out loud. Allowing the Logos to speak.

Some of this can also be found in the Synoptic Gospels.
The last supper has Jesus saying, refering to the bread "eat for this is my body"
The body of Christ is the bread from heaven, ie the Word of God or the Logos.

|

This is interesting because it appears as though the author has Jesus speaking of himself in the third person. Rather it is the human speaking about the Logos.

[quote]
John 1:32
John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

Note the "He remained upon him"
This is where the spirit of God entered the human Jesus.
That is why John has no virgin birth. It is so completely contrary to his thinking.

All this shows that Christianity is not what it appears to be.
The Logos faith was combined with the story of the human Jesus at some point in time and that is why Christians express no surprize at what Tatian writes.