maryhelena

“.....a literary explanation for the function of the cross and its Occupant”. ? The crucifixion is part and parcel of the gospel storyline re Jesus, mother Mary, father Joseph, occupation carpenter. Before even attempting an explanation that is in any sense worthwhile and has some relevance to the early origins of Christianity - the ‘Occupant’ of that cross has first to be established to be a historical figure. If that is not done all the rest is simply blowing in the wind - however fanciful the literary explanation of the gospel storyline. Interpretation is anyone’s game - as is a literary explanation. The author, or authors, did not leave us their notes behind - we don’t know their intent. We can guess this way or that - or multiple guesses for whatever context we choose to fit the storyline into. That’s the name of this game. No one size fits all. The only way we can try for a sure footing is to seek out the real history from which that storyline arose.


A rejection of past ways? Just because one does not do what one did at one time - eating meat for example, does not mean that one rejects meat eating as not being good, that meat eating in and off itself is rejected when one decides to become a vegetarian. Place and time are relevant. When the animal sacrifices were being offered - then, at that time, that method of worship was ‘good’. That spiritual developments led to abandoning animal sacrifices did not make those previous animal sacrifices ‘bad’. It simply means one has moved on – in this case spiritually rather than dietary. When I was a child I did as a child, sort of thing. I still think 'rejection' is too strong a word - developing spirituality contains a forward movement while keeping in place the respect, the 'good', of the old ways....

Yes, the blood issue is interesting - but only in so far as to how the NT blood issue is to be interpreted. A straightforward equation, parallel - no blood, now blood, somehow, seems to me, to be a rather simplistic approach to an issue, that were it to be ‘true’ would indeed be an outright rejection of what was a previous law. Perhaps the issue is far deeper than that. I don’t have the answer - but I doubt very much that a simplistic approach does the matter justice.

On the contrary, its the only way forward. We can sit here all day debating a multitude of different interpretations of the gospel Jesus story - and end up no further than when we started. What we can gather from the gospels is not its Jesus crucified story - that story has to be put on the shelve - but the historical time frame in which that storyline is set. A salvation storyline that runs from the time of Herod the Great, the siege of Jerusalem and its slaughter of innocents, to sometime soon after the 15th year of Tiberius. A 70 year period - which is a red flag as regards prophetic interpretations and salvation history.
It could well be that any Herodian mention in the NT is nothing more than marketing hype..... - the throw-away wrapping, the foil, the pseudo-history....

The NT is not recording the early history of Christianity. It is recording an origin story, an interpretative story, a pseudo-history. These writings cannot be used to re-construct early christian origins. For example - consider this quote re the book of Acts:


Russell, you and I are coming at this from two entirely different perspectives. I am trying to get behind the NT storyline in an endeavour to search for the historical origins of early Christianity. You are endeavouring to use the NT storyline as a historical source, to run your theories from that source. I want to do the opposite. To run historical events into that NT framework. Two completely different approaches. To try and communicate from these two different perspectives is going to be frustrating for both of us. I have no interest in going over old ground. Old ground in the sense that I don’t use your approach and don’t have any inclination to want to return to it. I’ve been a mythicist as regards the historicity of the gospel crucified Jesus for many years - my purpose is to run with that position - and not to get side-tracked or waylaid with going over stuff that does not contribute to my purpose. But perhaps others here will take an interest in your theories re the NT storyline.

avi

There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with writing:
"appears to be false".

The English is very clear: Evidence to judge one way or the other is insufficient to make an absolute declaration.

What is the evidence regarding Ignatius of Antioch, aka "theophorus"?

My shallow investigation suggests that Eusebius has played a role in elaborating the history of this guy. The fact that Ignatius' history involves confrontation with a Roman Emperor, suggests confabulation to my way of thinking. To put in another way, it would seem, at least to me, that the letters of Ignatius "appear to be false".

avi

stephan huller

Except for the fact that it is meaningless. Is it 'false' in that it never was written by the author in question or 'false' because someone after him corrupted it? Sorry that my arguments seem convoluted but this isn't Dr. Seuss.

aa5874

I will NOT ignore you.

But, what sense does it make to ADMIT your OWN arguments seem CONVOLUTED?

I have NOTED your CONVOLUTION long before you admitted it.

I am vindicated AGAIN.

Clivedurdle

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

stephan huller

But somethings just can't be made simple. There are just too many missing gaps. Take this thread for instance. We are talking about the origins of Christianity in Alexandria. There are some scholars who - for instance - deny that ANY of the story of the founding of Christianity in the city are true. St. Mark coming to Alexandria and bringing the gospel, is a myth. There never was a catechetical school. There is no connection between Alexandrian Judaism and Alexandrian Christianity, this is a myth developed by Clement and Origen to give legitimacy to their inventions.

According to these people Christianity only began in the period when we have solid information about Christianity in Alexandria - so at the time of Alexander, Athanasius and the Nicaean compromise, or just before.

This is why AA I attack your use of terms like 'fiction' and 'falsehoods.' They are actually used by the defenders of the faith to demolish the existence of something whose existence is tenuous and difficult to piece together - like the Alexandrian Church and its origins in Alexandrian Judaism.

Now you may ask, why should I care about defending Alexandrian Christianity? The answer I think follows from something you don't seem to understand which follows from your own research.

Let's suppose that you and I basically agree that there was some kind of an effort to reshape the canon and the writings of famous Christians before the third or fourth century. Let's leave the exact date of when this effort to 'change' Christianity open for the moment.

The transformation effort has to be understood to bury something rather than to invent something out of scratch.

The reason for this is clearly set forth in my other thread - Alexandria is connected with a castration ritual in the writings of Justin who you have said on a number of occasions is 'untouched' by correction efforts (I would disagree but here is where you fall on your sword).

If Justin tells us that Alexandrians were engaged in ritual castration and you HAVE TO ACCEPT this understanding because of your repeated statements about your belief in the authenticity of Justin's writings THEN I would argue that you have to acknowledge at once that the subsequent efforts to reshape Christianity HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD to involve taking it away from ritual castration.

Origen is identified by OTHERS as being a product of this second century ritual castration tradition but he himself lies about it, keeps it secret (as acknowledged by his supporters and detractors alike). Epiphanius also says that the Origenists themselves stopped maintaining the ritual which at least implies that the Imperial effort to root out 'rooting out' (the etymological origins of the Aramaic word for eunuch = saris) a man's genitals were successful.

What I am trying to say is that you can't just assume that the Imperial forces were trying to 'invent' a tradition through their falsification of earlier material. THERE WAS THIS EARLIER MATERIAL. It was falsified. Yes we agree. But the writers themselves are all either eunuchs or one step removed from ritual castration.

And then we end up with a Nicene tradition which bans castration WITHIN Christianity (something the second and third century Emperors were trying to accomplish through decree and persecution from OUTSIDE the tradition).

stephan huller

Avi,

You asked

Don't look at the name Theophorus. Look instead at the name Ignatius. The Syrians call him Nurono. Ignatius and Nurono are just ways of expressing the idea of 'the fiery one' in Latin and Syriac.

BUT if you translate that same idea into Aramaic you get Seraph which means both 'fiery one' and 'angel' or 'angelic being.'

I think Ignatius was a reworking of the historical Polycarp. Irenaeus was behind the reshaping of one common body of literature associated with a single, nutbar, para-suicidal ass-kissing but extremely popular Christian preacher in the second century into two (possibly three collections of material - i.e. Ignatius, Polycarp and possibly Clement of Rome). But the point is that calling someone an 'angelic being' seems to develop from the contemporary idea of castration reforming the individual as an equal to the angels.

i.e. the 'perfect work' (Deut 32:4) especially as conceived in the Samaritan tradition of Mark.

aa5874

You are wasting your time.

You have ALREADY admitted that your arguments seem convoluted.

And now look at another convolution.


Convolution 101.

avi

Hi Stephan,
Sorry, I have not had an opportunity yet to read your thread on castration, perhaps then, many of my comments are superfluous.

This thread, as I understand it, focuses on Alexandrine impact on Christianity.

To revisit some of the comments: Russellonius invoked Ignatius, thereafter, aa5874 sounded a note of caution regarding probable forgery (at least according to Wikipedia) of many/most/all of Ignatius' correspondence.

You then suggested that aa5874 had invoked a cautionary modus, unnecessarily, thereby implying, at least to me, that you disagreed with his (and Wikipedia's) assessment of Ignatius' writings, as we have them today.

In reply to my inquiry regarding your evidence which may refute Wikipedia (and aa5874) you wrote:

I wish to offer three comments on your rejoinder:
a. I do think that you possess an excellent imagination, and your creative potential, as illustrated by this reply to my question, is much enjoyed here on this forum.

b. I cannot help but note, however, that, notwithstanding your obvious brilliance, you have replied to my question seeking evidence, by offering conjecture, and correct me, if I err, here, but, I believe that it is precisely this point which serves as the focus of aa5874's arguments with you, on the forum. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, and offering some (new, perhaps) theories about history, but, it is even more attractive, at least in my opinion, to cite specific evidence in support of such interesting, novel theories. If you have already done so, in another thread, then, again, please accept my apologies for having not yet read your many other important contributions to the forum--all much appreciated....

Where is your evidence suggesting this link between these three "patristic" authors? I ask it, not because I doubt your assessment, but simply because of my ignorance.

3. Even assuming that your analysis were correct, and it may well be, I am certainly unqualified to challenge your creative ideas, I fail to perceive (probably due to a rather limited imagination on my part) how these three authors, all of whom lived, as I understand it, in what we call today, Syria/Turkey, i.e. NOT in Egypt), contributed to Alexandrine development of Christianity?

avi

stephan huller

Perhaps its AA's writing style which makes me feel I am having a discussion with Godzilla. He just seems to be so hostile from the get go that he gets my back up and I guess I become King Kong. Great movie.

Anyway I am rushing out the door but my friend Hermann Detering did publish an article of mine at his site a while back

http://www.radikalkritik.de/Huller_Peregrin.htm

I have improved the paper since then (my son was just popping out of my wife's stomach) but the basic idea that Polycarp is more than just Polycarp should be pretty self-evident from this.

I can take it from there.

I am a nice guy. I just turn into King Kong when I see a Godzilla coming over the horizon.

Sorry

Stephan