GakuseiDon

I agree that Paul is a different case. This missile is targeted on Doherty's use of the 2nd C apologists. Though IMO some of the fallout will impact on Paul, my line of argument can't be used with Paul's writings.

I agree with (1) and (2). For (3), I used Irenaeus (who was virtually on the spot) and Tatian. I'm not using the Harmony, though it shows a continuity with Irenaeus.

rlogan

Yes, I did see the tactical value of the 2nd C land mine. But I suspected the strategic interest was at the Doherty core.
I understand. Others have addressed this point so no sense in repeating.

In response to your address to NOGO, Tatian allegedly wrote a "Book of Problems" concerning itself with "difficulties" in scripture. But I don't know more than that...

NOGO

[quote]
GakuseiDon
It's part of it, but there was more to it than that, I think. The part you quoted was in response to Vork's claim that Tatian's writing on AttG contradicted the central tenets of the Christianity of the time. I pointed out that not only did no HJer notice (in a time where heresy was noted), but AttG was actually widely used and praised as one of his best works.
[quote]

Are you saying that the Christianity back then was different that it is now?
Thus what Tatian says is contrary to today's Christianity but not the Christianity of the second century.

That would be an interesting statement for you to make.
I would like to see that.

How do you explain that Christianity has changed so much?

If Christinity was evolving then how can you claim that the idea of an HJ was there from the start?

You seem to want to reserve the right to stop the debate from going into any area which will totally demolishes your argument.

Great debating tactics. Have you been taking lessons from Layman?

No I am saying that Christians have falsified documents, have tried to explain away contradictions etc. but none of these are important enough to ever shake their beliefs.

If you admit that Christianity changed over time then something which was once acceptable could become unacceptable.

So what exactly is your point?
That second century Christians realized that Paul believed in a totally mythic Jesus and so thay changed it to make it less obvious?

The evidence is what Tatian himself actually says which you do not wish to debate. As for me I will keep on reminding you of just that as well of the fact that you have not addressed any of the issues which I raised about Paul.

The statemnet you made in the other thread about the fact that you are not concerned about theological issues but historical ones just does not make it.

Roman 1
1 ... set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Verse 1-2 Theological
Verse 3 Theological for me, Historical for you.
Verse 4 Theological

You want historical evidence from Paul and Tatian?
They have none!

Just because verse 3 seems to agree with the Gospels and second century Christianity does not make historical.

I raised the point that verse 4 is clearly theological to Paul but historic to the Gospel writers. Why should it be any different for verse 3?

GakuseiDon

[QUOTE=NOGO]NOGO, imagine that someone said to you, "Look, this contradicts A! How do you explain that???"

Wouldn't you want to know what "A" is before replying?

It's not that I won't answer, it's that I don't know which tenet of Christianity of the period is actually being contradicted. If Vork says some of Tatian's statements contradict the central tenets of Christianity, but he can't actually say what those tenets are, how can I answer?

Is it so unreasonable to ask someone who says "This contradicts A!" to clarify what "A" is?

So, in the absence of Vork producing the central tenet in question, I used the argument that there is positive evidence that Tatian's AttG was well received, and in fact praised, by the HJers of the time. Does this prove that Tatian was a HJer? No. But it does prove that there is no reason to assume that he had contradicted the central tenets of the Christianity of those times in the AttG.

I tell you what. Against my better judgement, I will discuss two of Vork's points. In return, if you want to disagree with those points, or discuss any other of Vork's points, would you mind telling me what central tenet of Christianity of that period is being contradicting first? Is that fair?

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."


It is difficult to square his comment.... "God is a Spirit, not pervading matter," with any HJ.

Ask Jesus. He said "God is spirit" in John 4.24.

If you read both Tatian and GJohn, you can see that they both distinguished between the "Word" and "God". Both mention them in separate contexts. So GJohn saying that "No-one has seen God at any time" (John 1:18) does not contradict "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). If Vork sees these as contradicting the beliefs about Christ as God, then he is anticipating debates about the nature of Christ that wouldn't occur until the next century and after.

But NOGO, your comments about Paul actually contradict the central tenets of Doherty's thesis! How do you explain that?

rlogan

I actually read his 2nd century apologists more carefully now. What a moron. (me) My goodness. What Spin was saying is just obvious. The smoking howitzer is Minucius Felix:

"Moreover (nam), when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. 3Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death . . . ."

This is an apology!

Doherty mentioned that "Christian" does not even appear in Tatian's apology. But I read it in at least one section title IIRC. I don't know what to say about that.

GakuseiDon

The section titles are usually (but not always) additions by later editors. So we can't assume that Tatian himself included the word "Christian" in the titles, at least not without evidence.

Layman

Of course 1 Clement attests to a historical Jesus. Examples:

And yes, the letter makes it clear that it is a response on behalf of the Roman Church to a request from the Corinthian Church.

"The church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth.... Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us, brothers, we acknowledge that we have been somewhat slow in giving attention to the matters in dispute among you, dear friends."

In any event, the widespread adoption of the letter by later Christians counts against your argument that the Church in Rome was somehow anathama to other Christians because of the heretics it supposedly harbored.

Whose official line? I quoted an extended argument from a bona fide scholar. Whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of scholars. In any event, much of the past criticism has been by Protestant scholars who thought that Ignatius was much too early and Catholic for their tastes. The "official line" is widely accepted today.

You think Eusebius is wrong when placing Iraneuas during the reign of Trajan by correct about the practices of Trajan at the time? In any event, you seem to be suggesting that since there was no persecution of Christians at the time, Ignatius could not have been arrested and transported to Rome during the reign of Trajan. But you have mislead our readers as to what Trajan's actually policy was:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.33.

So Eusebius tells us that there were persecutions of Christians under Trajan and that many Christians were martyred during this period.

The Roman evidence is similar. Pliny the Younger's letter is clear that there were ongoing trials of Christians in other parts of the empire ("I have never participated in the trials of Christians."). He is clear that he was punishing known Christians ("I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed."). So Pliny knows of other trials and was executing Christians himself. And Trajan blesses this practice. ("You observed the proper procedure, my dear Pliny.... [I]f they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished...."). Far from proving your point that there was no persecution of Christians under Trajan, we have Trajan's own pen such a policy for outspoken Christians.

It appears the letter was written, at the earliest, shortly after Ignatius' death, though Polycarp may not have heard of it at the time. But there is no reason to suppose that by "kings" Polycarp meant there were two Emperors. He does not use the title for Emperor, and there were other kings around in client kingdoms--if indeed he's just not listing generic titles to refer to governmental authorities. This is a very weak basis upon which to date Polycarp's letter.

As for his age, this seems another very weak basis for a late dating. Polycarp wrote in response to a request for the letters of Ignatius. He received that request because he was Bishop of Smyrna and had received the letters (or collected them there). In any event, he was not that young at the time--even if we give this an early date. Polycarp died around 155 AD at around the age of 86. He was thus born around 69 AD, making him around 40 or so when he wrote that letter (at the earliest--if his letter is to be dated to shortly after Ignatius' death?). If some time elapsed between Ignatius' letter to him and his response to the Philippian's church's letter, he was even older.

Dating his martyrdom so late has been "almost universally abandoned, as according to the letter to the church of Smyrna, Polycarp's martyrdom was on Saturday, Xanthicus 2, that is Feb. 23, in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus." http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...arp-intro.html. In any event, even if the abandoned later date was accepted, Polycarp was still around 30 or older when he wrote his letter. Hardly a spring chicken.

Not being as arrogant as you, I deal with primary and secondary sources. But this was a nice way of ignoring all of the arguments presented by my source--such as the focus on the end times and the threat of Judaizing Christianity.

How is this a response to my question?

How so? He moved to Rome shortly after becoming a Christian. He founded a Christian school there. He died a martyr in Rome. The only reason for saying he was not representative of the Roman Church is because you find it inconvenient for your ad hoc theories.

As for 3.3.4, nothing here supports your contention that Marcion was a member in good standing of the Roman Church. Just the opposite in fact. Polycarp lead many of Marcion's followers--described as a distinct group, not as the Church of Rome--back to the "the Church of God." Marcion was in Rome--which his hardly surprising given that Christians hardly had the authority to kick him out of that city.

As for 3.4.3, do you mean this: You are missing the point. The examples of Luther and Russell show that even in an orthodox church heresy can take time to develop or be revealed. You argument is that because those who became heretics survived in the Roman Church for some unspecified period of time, then those churches must have been open to the heretical teachings for which they were excommunicated.

So you do not think that the Roman Church tolerated the teachings of the docetists or not?

The only references you have provided support my position. The Roman Church allowed Cerdon, for example, after he made "public confession" to the church creed, but when caught in "secret teaching" had to again make "public confession,", "but at last having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated."

The fact that they were thrown out or had to leave shows that their ultimate ideas were unacceptable. Did the church just wake up one day and find such views interolerable after so many years of toleration? Of course not. The more reasonable attitude, and our evidence indicates, that their ideas became more heretical with time. That's why Tatian goes from writing a harmony of the Gospels to a form of Marcionism. That's why Marcion was tolerated, but eventually grew so heretical that he was forced out and his large monetary gift returned.

The "one day" bit continues to be a strawman.

It is highly relevant because it shows that heresy can grow within an orthodox church for some time before it is challenged or chooses to leave. That was the case with Luther, and Russell.

It is the case for Orthodox Churches with homegrown heresies, as my examples have shown.

On the contrary, the evidence shows that they were tolearted so long as they played along with the orthodox position. Once they could not, they were forced to renounce and accept the church creed. Failing that, they were forced to leave. This does not mean they were not allowed in Rome as the church had no control over who stayed in Rome.

And I have shown that 1 Clement was widely accepted by the rest of the orthodox Church. And that Martyr spent most of his Christian life as a member of the Roman Church. Thus your point about "no church fathers" -- whatever it is -- is erroneous.

rlogan

Sounds like a pretty good paraphrase of Isaiah 53 now, doesn't it?


The church forgery mill was working overtime with this "Clement". We have a dozen known forgeries and no real history of the life and death of this murky pseudo-figure. So I'd say 1 Clement is an anchor made of noodle.

Layman

Of course he is citing to Isah. 53. Quite explicitly so. That doesn't make him a forger, it makes him a Christian who believed that Isah. 53 foretold Jesus Christ.

spin

Don't confuse literary tropes with historical indications. (Remember, I don't advocate mythical jesuses. I'm interested in history.)

This is what brought this from you: (But "official response"? This is simply taking the text as though it was a witness for itself and that has no value at all.) You are simply doing what I said.

I made no claims of anything like anathema for the Roman church. You do not understand what I am talking about here. When was the battle over Jesus being god rather than being god-like take place? and why didn't it take place earlier? It was because the theological distinction had no meaning to the church until that time. When something that has not been considered important before becomes necessary to deal with then it is dealt with and such dealings are defining actions. We believe this and we don't believe that; therefore *iss off.

There are no bona fide scholars there is only evidence.

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).

I was suggesting principally from Polycarp that Ignatius was alive at least till the dual reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.

Misled, according to you. Perhaps you define "persecution" differently to most people. Xians were not to actively be sought out under the reign of Trajan. You can have no doubt of that, as it comes from Trajan. No-one was to be arrested on anonymous accusations. And don't confuse the notion of Ignatius ostensibly saying "martyr me" as a sign of persecution either.

What does a government do when someone actively speaks out against the state religion by public advocating other religions? Xians gave such "dissidents" the inquisition... well, the inquisition was more like persecution than the policy of Trajan. It actively sought out "dissidents".

On Polycarp's letter to the Philippians:

Baseless conjecture.

Not "kings", "the kings", and at the time (2nd c. CE) there were no other kings in the Roman empire.

Uh-huh, bishop at twenty-um-five?

Polycarp made a visit to Rome during the reign of Anicetus, so he was still active and free after 155 BCE, so you can forget about the erroneous dating of Polycarp's martyrdom. It is only an attempt to rationalise late references.

Yup that's what the Martyrdom of Polycarp says. Go the extra distance.

Gosh, that will please a lot of people here.

I think you are sometimes an opinion peddler.

If you have any arguments you'd like to state, all I want is for you to present the evidence, not a resume of someone's potted opinions.

Just as Valentinus "came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus", according to Irenaeus, and Valentinus left Rome and the church, Marcion "flourished under Anicetus". Heresies 3.4.3

The Acts of the Martyrdom of Justin and his Companions disagrees with you.

As Irenaeus said, Marcion flourished under Anicetus, just as Valentinus did under his predecessor.

Sure did. Read the next sentence which came after what you cited. (Incidentally, "Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession" refers to Cerdon.)

Definitely not. The point is that you are assuming something you first need to demonstrate, ie the orthodoxy of the church and you cannot do it by anachronously talking about bloody Luther or Russell. Cheezus, use your brain a bit.

I don't know and neither do you. A lot of our information about the Roman church comes from proponents of a universal orthodoxy after the initial emergence of doketism into our understanding of the historical events.

That may be your perception.

Irenaeus is a proponent of universal orthodoxy as he understood orthodoxy. He retrojects this on Rome, as you do.

Of course, they did. This sort of thing happened time and time again with this group or that which was nominally accepted by the majority of religionists until they had reason not to.

Your apologists claim. There is nothing reasonable about you taking this position other than it reflects your faith.

There is no logical follow on.

Well, for you one day they were considered "orthodox" and another they weren't. Perhaps, one day they were teaching in secret and were discovered. At some stage they were perceived outside acceptable bounds to the powers that were. What I have been proposing to you was the development of consciousness of certain theological matters

You should stop the blunder of retrojecting your opinions of the similarities of Luther's or Russell's period with the beginnings of xianity. The circumstances of a religion with over a thousand years of apologetic history, as against one with less than 100, are extremely diverse.

Also as I have pointed out a number of times now, people like Luther and Russell who were thrown out of the church were born into it. Most people in Justin's time were converts, as he was. There backgrounds are just so different from each other and brought them with them when they entered the religion.

You missed the significance of your own words: "It took a while for his heresy ... become a point of contention."

That is precisely it, "to become a contention."

Jeez, this is a gullible church, isn't it? It let's these fellows in and eventually it dawns on it that they ain't kosher, so they gotta kick'em out. You leave me credulous that you believe that they did it over and over again. One can understand why Valentinus didn't stay around with such dolts.

You have no evidence for any of this. Father Layman.

Proof? You have none. Get hold of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Justin and his Companions.

If you'll note in my original post, I conceded Clement as perhaps an example of a church father, but you seem to have forgotten.

All you have done is reaffirm your a priori opinion that orthodoxy was the original state of the religion. Even Paul tells you that there were many gospels. His was merely one, the one which Marcion seemed to favour.

You need to demonstrate orthodoxy rather than assert it.


spin