Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 08-30-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan

I think that the 'him' who was raised from the dead was Paul not Jesus

In the sense of a metaphorical resurrection, as became the common Christian view of being "saved", I would have to agree.

However, I never got the sense that the Marcionites held to a view that Paul met Jesus, other than via revelation, at least from what I have personally read.

Correct me if you believe I am mistaken, but I understand Marciontism as a literal belief in the writings contained within the LXX and a rejection of the described deity due to it's inconsistant nature. A belief that there was a purely perfect being unknown to the Jews, a being that was obviously, based on the contradictions described in their own writings, superior. yet that could be grokked from within the Jewish writings themselves.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 01:34 AM

Tertullian's preservation of a heretical tradition that Paul was baptized by Jesus:

Quote:

Hence arise certain persons' over-precise or even audacious discussions as to how, in view of that standing rule, the apostles can have obtained salvation, when we observe that none of them except Paul were baptized in our Lord: in fact, since Paul is the only one from among them who has put on the baptism of Christ, either we have the case pre-judged (they say) concerning those others' peril who are without Christ's baptism, so that the standing rule may be safe: or else, if salvation is appointed even for these unbaptized, the general rule is repealed. God is my witness that I have heard such <remarks>, that no one may suppose me so low-minded as to invent of my own, by the licence of my pen, thoughts calculated to strike others with doubt. So now I shall answer, as well as I can, those who say the apostles had not been baptized. If they had obtained John's baptism, what need had they of our Lord's? (De Baptismo 12)

dog-on · 08-30-2011, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Tertullian's preservation of a heretical tradition that Paul was baptized by Jesus:

Quote:

Hence arise certain persons' over-precise or even audacious discussions as to how, in view of that standing rule, the apostles can have obtained salvation, when we observe that none of them except Paul were baptized in our Lord: in fact, since Paul is the only one from among them who has put on the baptism of Christ, either we have the case pre-judged (they say) concerning those others' peril who are without Christ's baptism, so that the standing rule may be safe: or else, if salvation is appointed even for these unbaptized, the general rule is repealed. God is my witness that I have heard such <remarks>, that no one may suppose me so low-minded as to invent of my own, by the licence of my pen, thoughts calculated to strike others with doubt. So now I shall answer, as well as I can, those who say the apostles had not been baptized. If they had obtained John's baptism, what need had they of our Lord's? (De Baptismo 12)

I disagree that Tertullian is saying that the heretics meant that Paul was actually baptized "by Jesus", actually he says "in our Lord", a significant difference.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 03:27 AM

Semantics. A question that is never asked - how was Christian baptism established? Most people blur the distinction between John's baptism and that of Jesus. The heretical opinion being cited here is clearly that Paul experienced something different than what John brought. But how did this baptism in our Lord begin? Did it come from Jesus and if so through whom? The only answer is that it was transmitted from Jesus to Paul. It doesn't matter what the author here (or Tertullian the translator) have in mind from citing Acts. I am interested in the heretical tradition being rebuked.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 03:35 AM

And remember also that the Marcionites did not have Acts or any of the nonsense about a conversion on the road to Damascus. The plain reading of the material in the Apostolikon establishes that of all the surviving Christian material the baptism of Paul most closely resembles the narrative in Secret Mark. Paul is baptized into Christ, is united with Jesus from a death like state - literally buried. I am not sure any of this has anything to do with being crucified.

dog-on · 08-30-2011, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Semantics. A question that is never asked - how was Christian baptism established? Most people blur the distinction between John's baptism and that of Jesus. The heretical opinion being cited here is clearly that Paul experienced something different than what John brought. But how did this baptism in our Lord begin? Did it come from Jesus and if so through whom? The only answer is that it was transmitted from Jesus to Paul. It doesn't matter what the author here (or Tertullian the translator) have in mind from citing Acts. I am interested in the heretical tradition being rebuked.

Ritual cleansing via emersion would seem to be a much older concept. I really do not see the issue with the position that Paul merely expanded the metaphor, just like he expanded the metaphor of being raised from the dead to being alive in Christ.

avi · 08-30-2011, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The evidence seems to suggest that to me at least that the Marcionites did not accept Jesus as the Christ BECAUSE they were connected to the knowledge of what Jews expected by that term.

At least one of us, is confused.

a. "the Christ", makes no sense. Cristou means mashiach, means annointed, not messiah.

b. I have no idea what Marcionists believed, and, in my opinion, neither do you, nor anyone else.

All we have, at our disposal, is Tertullian's heretical writings against Marcion, written in 208 CE, AFTER he had become a Montanist, and AFTER he had formulated the absurd notion of three headed divinity--the ridiculous "trinitarianism", today accepted universally by most Christians. Is Marcion's supposed belief in a TWO body divinity any different, conceptually, from a three headed divinity with only one body?

Though Constantine/Nicea insisted upon Tertullian's forumulation, it is unclear to me, at least, that this view was widely accepted among ordinary Christians in the fourth century. I believe that Arius' view was the more widely held (three separate bodies, each with their own head, two of them subordinate to the "father", i.e. YHWH.)

avi

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2011, 07:46 AM

Hi Stephan,

As early as the Gospel of John, we have the distinction that John's baptism is of water, while Jesus' baptism is of fire and Holy Spirit. Even later when Jesus gets baptized in water, there is the tradition of the water turning into fire.
Since there is no indication that I know of that fire was actually used in any Christian ceremonies, we must assume that fire is being used metaphorically.
In this case baptism by Jesus could mean any type of baptism that is the opposite of John's baptism. Since the baptism by John involves only a symbolic death, baptism by Jesus could involve a real death such as crucifixion.
I think you've hit a key here, Stephan. The first distinction between followers of John and Jesus may be that the followers of Jesus believed you really had to die to be reborn.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Neil Parker: Not dead? Are you mad? I saw her die. The doctor signed the certificate. I saw them bury her.
Dr. Bruner: Now wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm not mad. But I've lived in these islands for a good many years. And I've seen things with my eyes that made me think I was crazy. There's superstition in Haiti that the natives brought here from Africa. Some can be traced back as far as ancient Egypt. And beyond that yet in the countries that was old when Egypt was young.
"White Zombie" (Halperin, 1932)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And remember also that the Marcionites did not have Acts or any of the nonsense about a conversion on the road to Damascus. The plain reading of the material in the Apostolikon establishes that of all the surviving Christian material the baptism of Paul most closely resembles the narrative in Secret Mark. Paul is baptized into Christ, is united with Jesus from a death like state - literally buried. I am not sure any of this has anything to do with being crucified.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 04:25 PM

The heretics Simon and Mark were undoubtedly called magi because of their interest in the ritual use of fire in baptism. There are indeed references to Christians who practice literal fire baptism in the Patristic literature. Most notably the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (commonly attributed to Cyril).

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2011, 05:41 PM

Hi Stephan,

From "Anonymous Treatist on Rebaptism"

Quote:

And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be-of Anaxilaus

A brief search on Anaxilaus found this:

"Under the year 28 BC Jerome reports the expulsion from Rome and Italy by Augustus of the Pythagorean and magus, Anaxilaus of Larissa." -- Matthew Dickie, historian, 2003

"What is positively known about the man [Anaxilaus of Larissa] is that he put together a collection of spells of an amusing character such as would entertain those present at a drinking-party. They were like the Tricks of Democritus called by the Greek name of Paignia [Paienia]. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon) in the latter half of the second century AD, accuses the Gnostic heresiarch Marcus of using conjuring-tricks from the Paignia of Anaxilaus to impress his followers." -- Matthew Dickie, historian, 2003

"... by Pliny's time Anaxilaus' collection of what were essentially conjuring-tricks was circulating under the title of Paignia [Tricks]. It is virtually certain that Anaxilaus will have given that title to his work." -- Matthew Dickie, historian, 2003

"He [Anaxilaus of Larissa] will have presented himself as a Pythagorean and will have displayed the outward trappings of membership in the sect, the black cloak and linen garments and shoes. It is frustrating that we know nothing of the philosophy of those Pythagoreans like Anaxilaus with a leaning towards the occult. All that can be said of Anaxilaus is that he represents a version of Pythagoreanism that goes back at least to Bolus of Mendes and almost certainly further. Anaxilaus' expulsion not only from Rome but also from Italy in 28 BC in the year in which the new Augustan dispensation came into place suggests that his activities went rather beyond putting together a collection of conjuring-tricks designed to amuse the guests at a symposium, but what he had been doing is a mystery." -- Matthew Dickie, historian, 2003

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1902): Anaxilaus of Larissa.

Anaxilaus of Larissa, a physician and Pythagorean philosopher, was banished from Rome by Augustus, B.C. 28, on the charge of practicing the magic art. This accusation appears to have originated in his superior skill in natural philosophy, by which he produced effects the ignorant attributed to magic. (Euseb., Chron. ad Olymp. clxxxviii; St Iren. i. 13; Plin. xix. 4, xxviii. 49, xxxii. 52, xxxv. 50.)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Stephan,

Thanks, nice, very nice stuff. From Anonymous Treatise on Baptism :

Quote:

For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; thou hast neither part nor lot in this work; for thy heart is not right with God."(52) And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be-of Anaxilaus-whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.

17. Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to thee, thou wilt assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no; and yet it will behove thee, in whatever way thou canst, to aid even this man if he repent. For of this adulterous, yea, murderous baptism, if there is any other author, it is then certainly a book devised by these same heretics on behalf of this same error, which is inscribed The Preaching of Paul;(53) in which book, contrary to all Scriptures, thou wilt find both Christ confessing His own sin-although He alone did no sin at all-and almost compelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John's baptism. Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly;-all which things thou wilt find gathered together into that book

"The Preaching of Paul" sounds like an interesting book.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The heretics Simon and Mark were undoubtedly called magi because of their interest in the ritual use of fire in baptism. There are indeed references to Christians who practice literal fire baptism in the Patristic literature. Most notably the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (commonly attributed to Cyril).

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

08-30-2011, 03:27 AM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Semantics. A question that is never asked - how was Christian baptism established? Most people blur the distinction between John's baptism and that of Jesus. The heretical opinion being cited here is clearly that Paul experienced something different than what John brought. But how did this baptism in our Lord begin? Did it come from Jesus and if so through whom? The only answer is that it was transmitted from Jesus to Paul. It doesn't matter what the author here (or Tertullian the translator) have in mind from citing Acts. I am interested in the heretical tradition being rebuked.

08-30-2011, 03:35 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And remember also that the Marcionites did not have Acts or any of the nonsense about a conversion on the road to Damascus. The plain reading of the material in the Apostolikon establishes that of all the surviving Christian material the baptism of Paul most closely resembles the narrative in Secret Mark. Paul is baptized into Christ, is united with Jesus from a death like state - literally buried. I am not sure any of this has anything to do with being crucified.

08-30-2011, 04:25 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The heretics Simon and Mark were undoubtedly called magi because of their interest in the ritual use of fire in baptism. There are indeed references to Christians who practice literal fire baptism in the Patristic literature. Most notably the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (commonly attributed to Cyril).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.