Sheshbazzar

What may have been the political/religious climate "at end of the FOURTH CENTURY", does not logically lead to the conclusion presented in your final sentence above.

The NT writings, while likely not first century, nonetheless certainly well pre-date late FOURTH CENTURY interpretations.
In other words, while the NT writings may have influenced the late fourth century views and interpretations, the reverse, that fourth century interpretations influenced the original politics and writings of the NT texts is, (-I search for appropriate words here-) hardly sustainable.

And yet again, we come up against the -fact- that the -"interpretive reading"- that you are attempting to impose upon Col. 3:11 is not at all supported by any actual text, or any actual translation of that text.
You are "reading INTO the text", both information and details that simply do not exist within that text. (and never have)
This practice is objectionable when it is practiced by the Fundamentalist's, Young Earthers, and by the Creationists, and is none the less objectionable when resorted to by Atheists.
If we open ourselves to such improvisations upon actual textual contents, that would tend to support your pet theories, then there would remain no basis on which we might object to any such textual improvisations when resorted to by the religionists in the support of their pet theories.

You need to learn to work within the parameters of what these texts actually say, or can reasonably be -translated- as saying, -without adding in any more- than what the MSS indicates;
Your personal -interpretations- should not be -read into- texts as though they were the "corrected" readings of texts.
While you have a right to your own opinions and theories, and to your own interpretation of what any text might mean, that right however does not extend a right to
-revise- or -add to- any of the ancient texts actual contents, to make them to appear to better support your own theories.
Even if you were thoroughly proficient in these languages (which you obviously are not) you still would have no right to do as you are here attempting.
Certainly any who possess the skills, could produce a Greek, Latin, or Hebrew (or any other known language) version of Col 3:11 that would contain the appropriate languages rendition of "Christian Nation", that however, would be, and -always will be-, a blatant interpolation upon the actual ancient text.
Thus, even if your theories were valid, these texts as they were written simply do NOT support them.
You will need to find different and authentic ancient texts to support your position.
I am not your opponent or adversary here, if any such different and authenticated ancient texts should ever be brought to light, then I would as willingly consider and receive them as being evidence.

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

In defining late fourth century "sects" or "heresies" Epiphanius cites Col 3:11 (not I) in the following context ....

"For it was about these four sects ("heresies")
that the apostle clearly said in reproof,
"In Christ Jesus there is neither Barbarian, Scythian,
Hellene nor Jew, but a new creation" [5] (Col 3:11)

He then goes on to list that barbarism is heretical to "christianity".
That Scythianism is heretical to "christianity".
That Hellenism is heretical to "christianity".
That Judaism is heretical to "christianity".
That (76 other sects) are heretical to "christianity".

What's happening here?
Is Bishop Epiphanius a literalist?

I see Epiphanius as some sort of fundamentalist.
It is his list of 80 heresies, of which the first four
are specifically mentioned in Col.

Here is what the Catholic Encylco (1911) says:
My point Shesh is simply this: Whoever wrote the above cannot bring themselves to understand the situation at that time in the fourth century actually included the condition that these three generic names (which we in this thread have been discussing as (christian) "gentiles") were in fact considered to be heresies, that is why Epiphanius lists them.

Let's add a reality check at this point. Do you agree (or does anyone disagree) that Hellenism was deemed to be heretical to the security of the "christian state" at the time in question c.372 CE?

I appreciate the leeway and the dialogue Shesh. I am not sure if you understand that Epiphanius himself cites the above Col ref in his introduction to the four major heresies: "Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism" which was written c.374 CE.

My perspective is this. We have here some sort of new testament fundamental literalist Bishop here listing what is considered to be, by the bishops and the christian emperor (Theodosius I et al) "heretical". Such conditions were not permitted under the christian emperors ever since Constantine legislated c.326 CE that Religious privileges are reserved for Christians. .

How then were "christians" defined in the fourth century if it was not by their "status of bishops or part of the flock" and their pledge of allegiance to the christian emperor (and the new testament)? At the time Epiphanius was writing it was heretical to be Hellenistic, and such was considered to be "punishable" by edict. (See the Theodosian codex on the laws of Theodosian I and other late fourth century "christian" emperors.)

At the root of all the politics of the fourth century is the new testament, and the political and legal decisions and laws of the "christian emperors". It may be quite by happenstance that the New Testament got involved with such a deplorable state of humanity as existed as the "christian state" of the fourth century, but it is also possible that it was specifically commissioned in order to create a new world order which did not recognise the religious privileges of the "christian gentiles" -- that is, the Barbarians, the Scythians, the Hellenism, Judaism and a host of other "religious privileges".

The answer to the above question depends on how the new testament was introduced to the ROman empire, by whom, and when. We do not know the precise answers to these dependent questions.

If you assume that the new testament was authored and embraced by historically existent people prior to the fourth century, such as is assumed by most people, then you will classify the above as a non sequitur based on the the assumption that the commissioning of the writing of the new testament (in the 3rd, or the 2nd, or the 1st century) had nothing to do with subsequent political and social events later in the fourth century.

If you assume that the new testament was authored and embraced by historically existent people during the fourth century, such as is not assumed by most people, then you will not classify the above as a non sequitur based on the the assumption that the commissioning of the writing of the new testament (in the 4th century) had alot to do with subsequent political and social events later in the fourth century.

The answer to the above question depends on how you assume that the new testament was introduced to the ROman empire, by whom, and when. We do not know the precise answers to these dependent questions. We do not have evidence to decide which century the new testament was first authored and published and "shared". Some people assume we know the answers to these question.


Best wishes,


Pete

IamJoseph

First, define 'HEATHEN'. :constern01:

mountainman

According to useage in the new testament by its authors the word "heathen" aka "(christian) gentile" or aka (later) "pagan" -- all these share a common working definition of describing a people (or nation) who were regarded as --- non christian. Using modern socio-political terminology we could associate these terms as those which externally define the "Christian "Other"

IamJoseph

But the term is not christian derived. What did it mean before, as with the Hebrew - bearing in mind that the Hebrew laws did not give any immunity or preference to the Hebrews?

Sheshbazzar

Mountainman,
What Epiphanius may have thought, or how he, or even the entire Christian church, may have came to interpret Col 3:11 by 372-377 CE is irrelevant to what the original writer(s) opinions or intents may have been. Epiphanius' late FOURTH CENTURY opinions and views had no impact on the original writers.
His writings only evidence how these writings were interpreted by him in the late FOURTH CENTURY.
His FOURTH CENTURY opinions and writings cannot be simply retrojected upon previous centuries religious compositions as being the intents of those original
compositor(s).
Moreover, If it -were- the thought, or the interpretation of Epiphanius & Co. that the joining of the NT faith was to extinguish national distinctions into one universal "Christian nation" of believers, exclusive of "gentiles" such a opinion or teaching would be contradicted by many of the Bibles other statements regarding the gentiles and nations, such as;
Which firmly present the continued existence of distinct gentile "nations" even in the ultimate Kingdom to come.
Any FOURTH CENTURY and latter "Christian" degeneracy not withstanding.

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Agreed. But it appears obvious that the original "writers" had a great impact upon not only Epiphanius, but everyone else in the empire. How far can we trace back these "original writers"?

I have always split out the "Hebrew Bible" (OT) from the "New Testament" and am only interested in the history of the NT. Granted this, we would very much like to know which century the new testament hit the streets. For most people in the empire, it seems reasonable that the first time they heard of christainity was after the council of Nicaea at which time the new testament was raised as the "Holy Writ" and canon of the official Roman centralised state monotheistic religion.

If we look at the aspect of the political implementation of christianity which occurred in the same century that Epiphanius wrote, we will see that the trees of the Hellenism heresy (for example) were prototyped as seeds in the actions of Constantine destroying the temples and cults of Hellenistic traditional cultural religions c.324/325.


I have removed the cites below from all but the NT ....

Noticeably these all are derived from Revelations (which was a late arrival to the canon????).

From my perspective and research there was little appreciable change in the extremely low level of "christian degeneracy" which was exhibited in the actions of Constantine c.324 CE and the political situation which is revealed by this list of c.374 CE "anti-christian heresies".

For the sake of argument we can certainly assume that Constantine did not commission the new testament, and for a variety of reasons, we can assume it was authored by unknown and innocent authors of an earlier century. We can examine the innocence of these authors in the absence of C14 and monumental corrpoborating archaeological evidence.

However, also for the sake of argument we can assume that Constantine did commission the new testament in his early rule in order to create a new religious state which he would implement when he got supreme control of the military class in the entire Roman empire. Under this assumption the NT becomes a fourth century political manifesto which was followed down the century and centuries, and is commensurate with the chaos which followed, and totally commensurate with the sick proscriptions of Bishop Epiphanius.

There are always multiple pathways to be explored. I am not convinced that one is right and the other is wrong. I believe in examining all the evidence that we have, and not just the documentary, but the archaeological. And I believe that the documentary record has been purposefully corrupted and obscured by the fourth century christian rulers of the Roman empire, so that the histories which survive (from Eusebius and his continuators in the fifth century, etc) need to be treated with extreme caution.

We have a "christian history" and no contrasting "pagan/gentile" history (yet).

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The authors of the new testament had their own agenda with the word (as I have tried to elicit above).
The original useage (with the authors of the LXX) was to denote the "Jewish "Other".

In the OT the "gentile" is the non-Jew - the other nations other than the Hebrew nation.
In the NT the "gentile" (and the "Jew") is the non-Christian - the other nations other than the Christian nation.

This may very simply and crudely expressed
but is this a fair and reasonable summary? (Shesh?)

Sheshbazzar

That you "have always" done something does not make your practice a standard to which all other scholars must conform. Given how often the "OT" is quoted, and is employed to provide the tropes, and narrative situations employed in The NT, such an attempted "split out" is a quite questionable practice.
There would not, and could not even be a NT without the "OT" to provide the literary context upon which it was built.
Neither the oral, nor the written form of a New Testement exist as entities independent of The TaNaKa.

Did I not say "such as;" Yes????
I could have provided many other verses from The Gospels and Epistles.

You are avoiding the point however, that even by the record of the "Christian" New Testement, "the gentiles" and "the nations" although subdued, will continue to retain their distinctive "gentile" and "national" identities even into The Kingdom to come.

Many, many more texts could be cited from both the "Old" (sic) and the "New" Testements that support that position.

If Epiphanius & Co. did not recognise that fact, then that was their problem.
If you do not recognise that fact, then that is your problem.

Your attemps to substitute or to "paraphrase" "Christian nation" into Col 3:11 is NOT justified, and is not justified in any of the other of the verses where you have attempted such substitutions, because the the theories you are attempting to impose upon the actual texts is contradicted by the very contents of those texts.

Sheshbazzar

I disagree, it is worse than "crudely expressed" it is by the indicators of the actual texts, wrong.