Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 08-07-2009, 11:19 AM

And mountainman's reference to Plato is very important in this context.

When is Ezekiel thought to have been written? Might Ezekiel have been written post Alexander?

Clivedurdle · 08-07-2009, 11:24 AM

http://books.google.com/books?id=u91...age&q=&f=false [*]

This references Persia and Mithras in reference to the human ox lion eagle motif.

We are looking at "chariot mysticism".

mod note: the reference is to[*]The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization (or via: amazon.co.uk)By David Livingstone, p. 194

GakuseiDon · 08-07-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

A look at the didache would seem appropriate at this point, since it mentions apostles.

As far as I am aware the NT does NOT use the term apostle solely in the way Toto suggests.

Thanks for that, Roger.

Looking at the Didache, it appears that "apostles" and "prophets" is used interchangeably below:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...e-roberts.html

"Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."

It's hard to imagine the Didache calling the 12 Apostles "false prophets" for staying more than 3 days! This lends credence to the idea that "apostles" had a broader meaning than just the 12.

So perhaps we can't assume that Irenaeus was referring to the original 12 Apostles when he refers to the "apostles" that appointed Polycarp as bishop.

Toto · 08-07-2009, 07:55 PM

I did not suggest that the NT has a single use of the term apostle - did Roger mean to say that "as far as he is aware the gospels do NOT use the term apostle solely in the way Toto suggests?"

The gospels do seem to restrict the term to the 12, but the usage in the rest of Christendom is much broader, although I am not sure I would agree that the term is used interchangeably with "prophets" (see 1 Corinthians 12:28.)

Why do you think this is?

Vinnie · 08-07-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Eusebius helps us out with the dating of Polycarp. He says that Polycarp became bishop at the same time that Everestus became Bishop in Rome, in the third year of the reign of Trajan (Church History: 3:33-36) which would be the year 100.

So, assuming the apostles were born in the year 10 and were 20 in the year 30 when they followed Jesus, we now have them alive in the year 100, being 90 years old and appointing Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. Assuming he was 30 when made Bishop, that would mean that he was born in 70 C.E. He would have been 80 years when he voyaged from Smyrna to Rome to meet Anicetus in 150.

Eusebius gives the date (Church History, 4:14-15) of Polycarp's martyrdom as 161 C.E. That would make him 91 years old (another fantastic story to rival anything in a Superman comic book -- a fire could not kill him and when he was pierced by a sword, his blood put out the fire.)

In the best case, we have two apostles living 90 years and a Bishop they appointed living 91 years (61 years serving as Bishop of Smyrna).

Does anyone wish to argue that this is plausible?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Asking what an 80 year old Apostle would be doing with a 15 year old is a very good question. It makes the tale even more unlikely.

However, the writer of Against Heresies explodes our possible scenario even more certainly, when he writes (3.3.4), "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna,"

We were assuming that one apostle had survived till age 80, but the statement here is clearly "apostles". So at least two apostles had to survive till 80. If believing that one apostle, born in the year 10 C.E. could survive to age 80, the idea that two of them could, certainly makes the scenario more than highly improbable.

Still worse these 80 year old Apostles had to be alive to appoint Polycarp Bishop. But did Polycarp really become the Bishop of Smyrna at age 15?

We know have to take into account that the Apostles made Polycarp into a Bishop. At what age was Polycarp when this happened? Let us say that he was made bishop at age 30. That would mean that in our scenario, he was born in 60 C.E. He visited Rome when he was 90 and was was martyred at 101. We are clearly in fantasy land at this point.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I consider it highly unlikely that several members of the twelve would still be alive in 100 C.E. One of the twelve alone popping 90 is a remote possibility. But if the population pool is set at 100 initial followers a few of them would be statistically likely to have made it to the 80s or so.

The martyrdom of Polycarp says he was 86 when he died and there is some debate as to the exact time. Mark writes of "some standing here" who will not taste death before all is fulfilled. I take it this prophecy would not be created after all of Jesus's followers were known to be dead. Thus, when Mark writes ca. 70 C.E. some were still living.

Vinnie · 08-07-2009, 08:02 PM

Philosopher Jay, do you think this post by spamandham is plausible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham
Of those who made it past childhood, the typical lifespan was 45. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian

I think it fair to conclude based on that, that the probability of living to the age of 75 in the first 2 centuries was practically zero, so there really isn't any need to even consider dementia. It's fair to conclude based on age alone, that this scenario is not historical.

I think a proper understanding of life tables will easily dispel this myth. Just open one up and look at it.

Vinnie

spamandham · 08-07-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I think a proper understanding of life tables will easily dispel this myth. Just open one up and look at it.

Vinnie

Didn't we already go through this? :huh:

rlogan · 08-07-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think perhaps a little research into the age of various rulers when they came to the throne and fought in battle might correct some misapprehensions here. There is no issue.

What emperor fought in battle at age 80?

Quote:

I'm not really following this thread, so low is the standard of comment.

Except that you are, but not well enough:

Quote:

As I remarked earlier, there is no reason to suppose half a dozen of them did not reach that age.

Mis-stating the issue helps your case, doesn't it. First of all, the issue is not the age of death, but the age at which they are doing arduous work/journeys.

Secondarily, you of course find exceptional cohort-relative longevity to those born into the highest wealth and privilige in the kingdom such as emperor Valerian. He was the oldest I found leading troops into battle so far (age 69). Got captured, skinned, and stuffed with manure.

I think PhilosopherJay has done well in thinking carefully and honestly about this.

Provide evidence to the contrary (if you have any) instead of just dismissing it and saying the evidence is "out there".

Quote:

All these "calculations" seem rather silly to me. The events are certainly possible, and not particularly unlikely.

Well not surprising. Why look at numbers, dates - things that can be quantified. Oh, yea - because the Chistian case looks pretty bad when we do that.

What is silly is the backdrop: A legend or myth - however you want to put it. When pressed into defending the absence of contemporary evidence for Jesus it's "oh gee whiz he's a no-account itinerant preacher".

That says a lot about who the alleged "disciples" are. Not the elite of society, but the fringes of it. Posing them as having the most exceptional health performance in all of society is, well - unreasonable to put it mildly.

I forget who fingered Eusebius earlier in the thread. Sheesh, what a busy little beaver.

GakuseiDon · 08-08-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I did not suggest that the NT has a single use of the term apostle - did Roger mean to say that "as far as he is aware the gospels do NOT use the term apostle solely in the way Toto suggests?"

The gospels do seem to restrict the term to the 12, but the usage in the rest of Christendom is much broader, although I am not sure I would agree that the term is used interchangeably with "prophets" (see 1 Corinthians 12:28.)

Why do you think this is?

The Didache says:

"Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."

I'm thinking along these lines: Why is the apostle a "false prophet" if he stays more than three days, or asks for more than bread? A "false apostle", perhaps -- since an "apostle" is someone who has been sent forth to spread the word, so staying too long or accepting compensation is incompatible with their mission -- but why a "false prophet"?

I speculate that these apostles are ones who claimed to have received their commissions from visions of Jesus or God, and so there is that element of being a prophet as well. I wonder how many other self-appointed apostles there were after Paul.

DCHindley · 08-08-2009, 07:11 AM

Student,

The short answer is found in the statement of Didache 12:

2 If he who cometh is a wayfarer, assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be.
3 But if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat;
4 but if he hath no trade, according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle.
5 But if he willeth not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such.

The long answer involves some sort of sociological analysis of the circumstances of the stages of the development of the Christian church. The dominant theory fashions a reconstruction the early church from sources such as Didache, Gospel of Thomas and Q community speculation, and relies heavily on ideas that come from the social scientific speculations of Gerd Theissen (Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1978, and Social Reality and the Early Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1992), if not directly then surely indirectly.

My college major was Psychology, which exposed me to sociology. While this doesn't make me an expert, I was not very impressed by the sociological insight in Theissen's work (or, for that matter, in Richard Horsley's passionate rebuttal of Theissen's initial position, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1989).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The Didache says:

"Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."

I'm thinking along these lines: Why is the apostle a "false prophet" if he stays more than three days, or asks for more than bread? A "false apostle", perhaps -- since an "apostle" is someone who has been sent forth to spread the word, so staying too long or accepting compensation is incompatible with their mission -- but why a "false prophet"?

I speculate that these apostles are ones who claimed to have received their commissions from visions of Jesus or God, and so there is that element of being a prophet as well. I wonder how many other self-appointed apostles there were after Paul.

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

08-07-2009, 11:19 AM	#71
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And mountainman's reference to Plato is very important in this context. When is Ezekiel thought to have been written? Might Ezekiel have been written post Alexander?

08-07-2009, 11:24 AM	#72
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://books.google.com/books?id=u91...age&q=&f=false [] This references Persia and Mithras in reference to the human ox lion eagle motif. We are looking at "chariot mysticism". mod note: the reference is to[]The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization (or via: amazon.co.uk)By David Livingstone, p. 194

08-07-2009, 07:55 PM	#74
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I did not suggest that the NT has a single use of the term apostle - did Roger mean to say that "as far as he is aware the gospels do NOT use the term apostle solely in the way Toto suggests?" The gospels do seem to restrict the term to the 12, but the usage in the rest of Christendom is much broader, although I am not sure I would agree that the term is used interchangeably with "prophets" (see 1 Corinthians 12:28.) Why do you think this is?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.