NOGO

[quote]
GakuseiDon
So, let's look at two from Vork's list:

"not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone," [if you read Tatian as an Christer, how can god alone be good?]

Ask Jesus. He was the one who said "Why do you call me good? God alone is good."
[quote]

You accuse Doherty of leaving out important information then why did you leave out all the text leading to your quote?

Tatian starts with "For the heavenly Logos, ..."
That's iwho he is talking about. Not Jesus of Nazareth.

I see your point. You are claiming that it does not contradict.
But you must admit that these words are really strange in the mouth of the Gospels Jesus. In the verse you quote Jesus is answered a man who does not know who Jesus is. To the man in question a mere man is all he is addressing.
Obviously that man was not trying to compare a man (Jesus) to God.
So why did Jesus tell him that only God is good?
In the human context iisn't that obvious?

It should be obvious to you that these words have been put in the mouth of the human Jesus but they were originally a concept associate with the Logos as Tatian has it. Only then one understands why the comparison is even made.

So although the words are found in the Gospels they do not make sense in the human context.

Also considering that John says that the Word was God then it makes even less sense. How can the Word say that only God is good if the Word is God.

Yes and Tatian also says that the Logos is a spirit emanating from God.
So they are both spirit and therefore not pervading matter.

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

The Logos was God according to John

Verse 14 "And the Word became flesh"

Put two and two together and you have
The Word is God and became flesh

That contradicts what Tatian is saying "God is a spirit not pervading matter."

No! The way I see it is that Tatian contradicts John as I showed above and that John does not distinguish betwee God and the Word.

John says that the Word created the world.
But if you read Genesis you will notice that Yahweh/Elohim created the world.
No mention of any other being doing the work.
So unless the author of GJohn is dense the Word is God. John is not dense since he says sio explicitly.

GJohn however distinguishes between the Word and Jesus the man.
In GJohn Jesus, the man, is not the Word.
Christians have misread this for centuries.
If you contest this I can show you the evidence in detail.

I appreciate your sense of humour.
Just don't forget that this is just a debate.

spin

Just an aside, God's word did create the world, for God said on each occasion, "Let there be . . .", ie a speech act was the method of the creative activity, so God's word did the creating!? It is this line of reasoning which is developed in the Hebrew wisdom tradition (and which partly parallels the Greek logos thought). It is wisdom which comes from the mouth of God, hence the importance of wisdom and her communion with men, for she comes to the aid of those people who will accept her. It was this wisdom which came forth from the mouth of God which created the world. John's "in the beginning was the word" is straight in the Hebrew wisdom tradition, as is "and the word was with God", but "and god was the word" needs some explanation because it is usually misunderstood. Note that the text doesn't say "and the word was God". I take the Greek to indicate that the characteristics of divinty were in the word, ie the word was divine, and so it was, for it came from the mouth of God.


spin

NOGO

I agree about the Word creating the world was indeed God speaking.
It is like incantations and magical spells.

As for your interpretation of "the Word was God" I do not agree.

It is obvious that the Logos or the Word was a spiritual Entity,

The text does say "and the Word was God".

If the Word is divine and there is only one God then the Word is God or part of God.

spin

The text says: kai Qeos hn o logos, ie "and god was the word", with the grammatical proviso that with this inverted word order, ie the qualifier before the subject, the attributes of the first are applied to the second. This is why I said that the word was divine.

The Hebrew bible often talks of the holy spirit as if it were an independent existence, but only a xian would eke out an entity separate from God, for the bible indicates that the spirit of God belongs to him just as his shadow would.

This is also the case with the word of God, the wisdom of God. It is metaphorised, but that doesn't substantially change the belongingness of the word to God

Your ideas are yours but would you give them separate existence outside yourself? Wisdom is the prerogative of God. While the metaphor can be reified as it is in the wisdom tradition, it is still an extension of God. You need to worry when the text says and the word became flesh. That's where things start to get substantially dicey.


spin

Layman

I am not confused. The citations show that the author(s) believed in a historical Jesus. I have not argued that this proves there was a historical Jesus. But it does indicate that before the close of the first century the Roman Church approved a letter on behalf of that church to another one, which attests to its belief in a historical Jesus.

I plead guilty to using the text to prove what the text means.

Perhaps you have missed the entire point of this thread, but you chimed in to say that we could not be sure that Tatian was not a Jesus Myther when he was a member of the Roman Church because the Roman Church tolerated a lot of heretical types. That is why I have grilled you on the notion that the Roman Church would house both those who believed in a real Jesus and those who believed only in a spiritual Jesus. I find it unreasonable to conclude that this issue was "up in the air" and that both sides worshiped side by side for decades. In fact, it's downright silly.

Like I said, I do not share your arrogance.

[quote]I know. I know. And most Americans were in favour of the Iraqi War (until the body bags, sorry, transport tubes, started to slowly stream home).[quote]

Just pointing out that most of the few scholars who doubted Ignatius' letters had a huge ideological axe to grind.

It's a foundationless argument to make.



Yes, I think it was misleading to quote only a small part of Eusebius that gave the impression that there was no punishment of Christians when you knew that Eusebius explicitly confirms that there were "many" who were martyred during that time--while also ignoring the Roman evidence confirming same.

Ignatius does not claim to have been actively sought out. Nor does he claim he was arrested on anonymous accusations. But yes, I do consider that when "many of the faithful endured martyrdoms of various kinds" that they felt quite persecuted. And Trajan and Pliny are quite clear that there were ongoing trials and executions of Christians. And they are quite clear that when Christians are obvious about their faith, that they are to be punished. So yes, Ignatius' "martyr me" is an indication that he would fall into the category of those who did not believe that discretion is the better of valor when it came to matters of faith.

The evidence is clear. Ignatius situation fits in well with the reign of Trajan, providing accurate context for Eusebius' placing of Ignatius during that time.

I see. You are approving of the killing of these Christians perhaps? Or only when they threaten the government? Or are you simply saying the Inquisition was worse? All of which is quite irrelevant. The point is that Eusebius places Ignatius into the Reign of Trajan and Ignatius' letters match the situation of that time.

GakuseiDon

NOGO, haven't you just kicked an own-goal there? So you are saying that they don't contradict - just that the GJohn quote is really Logos-speak inserted into the mouth of Jesus?

Hey, if you want to argue with Jesus, go right ahead! I got the quote from Jesus in GJohn. Are you saying that if Tatian were really a HJer he would have contradicted Jesus on this point?

By the way, you didn't tell me what central tenet of Christianity was being contradicted here.

So GJohn contradicts itself, according to you? At least Tatian is consistent with one part of the GJohn, isn't he?

Again, please show me what central tenet of Christianity was being contradicted here.

Reread that, slowly, NOGO. "GJohn distinguishes between the Word and Jesus the man". Yes. Tatian doesn't talk about "Jesus the man". He's only interested in the Logos part, which is his philosophical focus.

I hope you can see my point. It is easy to say that "a HJer wouldn't say that! It contradicts the central tenets of Christianity!" But without knowing what is being contradicted, there can be no debate.

I don't think that either you or Vork can actually say what the central tenets of Christianity of that period were, so what we get is "I feel what Tatian says contradicts it" or "would a HJer say that"? That's a debate on what YOU think, not a debate on the evidence. It is the same kind of speculation you can find on Doherty's webpages.

So, either drop this nonsense that Tatian contradicts the central tenets of Christianity, or tell me what the central tenets of Christianity in that period were.

spin

They show only

1. that they know the suffering servant poems, just as the Righteous Teacher did;

2. that they believed in the salvation story.

You plead guilty of not knowing about historical method. A text cannot bear witness to itself.

Pure crap. I complained about GakuseiDon's assumptions about the Roman Church. Go back and read it.

You bitched about my saying that the idea of orthodoxy wasn't so prim and proper as you lavishly tart it up to have been.

Irenaeus continues to have trouble with schismatics in the Roman church in hi time (Eusebius E.H. 5.20), so it wasn't just those I've already mentioned but a number of others. Rome certainly is a breeding ground of non-orthodox opinions.

I'll let people who have to deal with your wayward "style" quote you in the future.

As you have shown no idea of history I don't think you are capable of coming to such a conclusion.

So we step back from "persecution" to "punishment". Where to next?

Pliny was expressly dealing with people in Bythinia. How, besides the Ignatius letters, do you get a persecution in Antioch during Trajan's time?

To reiterate:

1) Polycarp's letter to the Philippians deals with a living Ignatius in Asia;
2) The letter gives opinions of an older, experienced man able to talk about family problems dealing with wives and widows -- this is not a young man;
3) The letter refers to praying to "the kings"; this causes difficulty with most translators so they leave the "the" out, yet it makes clear that the writer isn't making a generic statement about local kings (who were Polycarp's "potentates"), but to the kings, ie Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (which is consistent with an old man who went to Rome during the bishopry of Anicetus, who was still bishop when the two kings began to reign).

Polycarp wrote Philippians later in his life, not as a young man. The reference to "the kings" agrees, dating the text after 161 CE, which is quite in accord with Polycarp being in Rome during the bishopry of Anicetus. With such a date for the writing of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, we have to date Ignatius to that period.

Doh! You can't read in the context of trying to understand what the logic of the times was.

Let's note the mediocre rhetoric. It's better than the content.

No, I was pointing out that the inquisition was a persecution. What happened in Bythinia was not.

And Eusebius should know writing 200 years later? Many of Eusebius's "facts" have been rightly questioned. The earliest attestation of Ignatius was Polycarp. You must deal with his information first.

As you have failed to show orthodoxy in Rome and the evidence is growing for a more accommodating theological status in the church, I think you should abandon it here as personal theology -- for it is the state of the Roman church which drew me into this particular debate and it is that that you have avoided so long.


spin

Layman

They use the suffering servant motiff to describe a man. And speaking of Jesus not being able to have descendents because he was removed from the earth obviously shows he believed in an earthly Jesus.

Given your disdain of scholars, it appears you are the only one who understands the historical method.

The text is clear that it is a response on behalf of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church. Do you now argue that 1 Clement is also spurious?

If you accept it is genuine, there is no need to doubt its preface.

Since his argument was that Tatian believed in a historical Jesus, yes, this is what you were arguing.

Do you just grow steadily more abusive and short to drive off those who would otherwise want to have a civil discussion? Apparently so.

As the center of civilization itself and home to a prominent Christian Church, of course it is. But it is funny that you call it a "breeding ground." While you refuse to admit Martyr's affiliation with the Roman Church -- despite his long residence and martyrdom there -- you are happy to say that Marcion was bred there? Despite the fact he was not born there or converted in that church either?


Since according to you all other scholars appear to be wayward, I'm in good company. Please let Mr. Carrier know as well:

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.

As Vinnie says, just turn this around and that's what I say about you.

I have not stepped back an inch. The question before us is if the situation in Ignatius matchs the situation under Trajan, where Eusebius places him. The answer is that since many Christians were being killed at the time, yes it does.

Trajan was quite clear that known Christians should be persecuted. And that Pliny is aware of other trials of Christians that he had not participated in, there were other persecutions going on elsewhere.

Possibly.

I was married for five years when I was 25. And I was teaching classes on marriage as a matter of fact. And 25 today is not as old as 25 then. In any event, Polycarp was probably around 40 at the time. In any event, this is subjective nonsense. This is your historical method?

Translators do not leave it out, they have a different idea about how it was properly translated. It is not a mere oversight, it is a scholarly, decided preference:

Robert-Donaldson -- "Pray also for kings, and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him."

Lightfoot -- "Pray also for kings and powers and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men, that ye may be perfect in Him."

And you were quite wrong about there not being any client kings in Rome during the second century. There were, including King Carnata, King Coilus I, the king of Edessa, King Parthamaspates. And that's just after a few minutes on google.

More brow beating.

It is you who have raised a completely irrelevant argument. You tried to convicne the readers that Ignatius could not have been martyered during the reign of Trajan because Trajan forbid the persecution of Christians. I have exposed this milseading, selectively parsed quote of yours as erroneous. That it was not the same thing as the inquisition is quite beside the point.

What is quote notable is that you are just ranting here about Christian "persecution" being worse than Roman "persecution."

Hardly. I am skeptical that there is a body-count techincal level for what constitutes a "persecution." But Trajan makes it quite clear that executing confessing Christains is Emperor policy. He just doesn't want the hassle of hunting them all down and basing the trials on anonymous evidence.

The fact remains that Ignatius' letter fits in well with this kind of persecution. Nothing about the "persecution" evidence from Eusebius, Pliny, or Trajan supports your point.

I deal with all of the information. But your offer of references that supposedly support your point, but turn out to say just the opposite of what you argue, as well as grossly misleading parsing of another source is hopefully not what you mean by the proper historical method.

The original point is your challenge to GD's quite reasonable conclusion that the Roman Church did not house both HJ and JM Christians. If you are quite happy to concede that point you can escape your misuse and misrepresentation of the evidence in this thread and leave the point be.


Very true.

spin

It just as well describes a cosmic saviour as well.

The text doesn't say that at all.

You are yet again completely mistaken. I have no disdain for scholars per se. I have disdain for people who substitute the opinions of scholars for argumentation.

The text is not what it appears to be, whether genuine or not. It goes far beyond what it initially claims to do.

Would you trust Dr Suess based solely on internal criteria?

Do not impute intentions you have no ability of knowing.

I'll tart it up for you:

You complained about my saying the idea of orthodoxy wasn't so prim and proper as you lavishly paint it to have been. Happy? Much of your problem has been your a priori commitments.

This is simply leaning on a casual phrase and avoiding the general content.

Don't kid yourself. Apologists aren't scholars -- at least in the field in which they are apologists. You hardly ever touch evidence and are too busy citing other people's opinions. You are in good company in a gossip shop.

Why only possibly, if the text speaks of him in the present tense? Do you have some insight into grammar that's not in the books?

So, you were an expert of wives, widows, families, children, maidens, young men, deacons and presbyters? Normally in ancient societies, it is the elders who were considered sage in such things.

And I do pity your wife.

No, they "do not leave it out", they just leave it out. It's in the original text. An equivalent is not found for it in the English, hence they leave it out. It is all the more evident when there is no article for the other nouns in the list.

When in doubt, Layman cites somebody. When you have to deal with translators you don't maintain the awe of their work. They provide the best they can do under the circumstances -- translation can be a difficult job that ends in unsatisfactory results --, but the result is only a starting position.

If you go back and read the #3 that you are ostensibly responding to you'll notice I said, "it makes clear that the writer isn't making a generic statement about local kings (who were Polycarp's "potentates")".

"The kings" are a clear reference to the readers.

The point was ignored that you are not endeavoring to understand the period, but continue to retroject your ideological position into that past time.

I tried to convince readers that Ignatius wasn't dead in 110 CE, but alive when Polycarp wrote his letter to the Philippians in the 160s. We have no evidence of "persecution" in Antioch and comments about Pliny in Bythinia are irrelevant.

You were making a purile accusation that I personally approved of the killing of these Christians. This you might seek to justify by misrepresenting me, but it neither changes your rhetoric nor your transparent manoeuvre.

A persecution, as I understand the way the term was used in those times was when a group, usually an official organization, actively sought out people who were deemed in some way out of some "accepted" bounds. This was not the case in Bythinia. This was, for example, the case during the reign of Decius.

I guess that would be fine in Bythinia.

That's not your usual modus operandi. You normally poll your accepted writers and synthesize what you understand from them, fondly citing their opinions, so often without letting on the basis of those opinions..

When in fact the story of Ignatius is offered as the sole evidence of a persecution in Antioch and you fail to justify that there was such a persecution and when there is no evidence at all for Ignatius 200 CE other than the letter of Polycarp, there is little evidence on which to make your exuberant claims.

As to "grossly misleading parsing of another source", this seems a silly claim from someone who has no linguistic training. Perhaps, I'm wrong and you can justify it. Please do, I'm sure I'll be enthralled by your philological skills, though you haven't shown any in the time you've been at II.

When you learn to read what is written, you might be able to speak more meaningfully.

What you need is a good lay, man.


spin

Layman

Regarding the translation of Polycarp 12.3:

Professor Michael Holmes has recently updated and revised Lightfoot's translations to take into account the passage of time and our better understanding of the Greek of the time. Nevertheless, he translated 12.3:


Polycarp seems to be alluded to a statement in Q (Matth. 5:44 and Luke 6:27) that Christians should "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", which also suggests its a generalized statement.