I always have thought of SPIRIT as something of a non-flesh/blood type of body. Example : 1 Enoch (Ethiopian Enoch ) says that the souls in bodies of the offspring of the sons of god (angels ) , born from human females, became evil spirits after they were killed in the flood.
Jesus was perhaps raised bodily so this complicates matters.
But there was the first three days after the cross death. I Peter says that he went to Hell to talk to the angel characters of Genesis 6 that impregnated the human females. Even if one holds the flesh body resurrection view, he would have been a spirit for the first 3 days.
1 Corinthians 15 called Jesus the "last Adam" and said that he became a quickened spirit.
Romans was written by the same author - Paul himself.
To Phat and Faith-
Am I understanding that the Holy Spirit chronologically didn't exist , according to your reasoning, as a separate entity until Jesus Christ died?
Or is this Romans 8:9 issue just an unusual word phrase?
I would perhaps be inclined to think that Paul felt that Jesus was still alive but in a spirit body.
I don't think he felt that the Holy Spirit was the same thing as Jesus Christ (whether when he was alive or after the cross ). I am able to allow for a rare terminology use in Romans 8:9 for the Holy Spirit, but Paul would, in that case, then not consider it as Jesus.
These comments (Phat and Faith ) don't sound like orthodox Trinity interpretations. I'm not sure though.
I was questioning the idea that the spirit of Christ was the same exact thing as the Holy Spirit.
I was thinking that the Spirit of God might be the same thing as the Holy Spirit in the Romans 8:9
Let us assume that Luke (and John ) are not simply a later response to the early Christian view of a spiritual, as opposed to flesh body resurrection ( and the Gospel of Luke might have misunderstood the concept of spiritual bodies anyway - who says that the spirit bodies can't be touched? ) .
The previous ( to Jesus ) existing Holy Spirit is the exact same spirit as Christ then? Possibly what Paul felt, I will admit.
Then when Jesus died, I Corinthians says that he became a spirit. Chapter 15. The First Man and Last Man is an interesting thing.
I guess the problem I have is that you & Phat blurred the difference between a very specific Holy Spirit and a very specific Christ. I admit that Paul did not have a clearly defined Holy Spirit at this time ( or at least not something detectable in his extant writings ).
I don't feel that you have actually ironed out the massive wrinkles in the response above.
I'm not at all convinced that your interpretation of Romans 8:9 would have been considered anything other than a type of heresy that considered God to have 3 separate modes or offices. Like a person being a son to his father. A father to his father's grandson ( his son ). And a boss to his workers. A holy man type of mode if he is a preacher.
You are interpreting the Holy Spirit as a description.
Not as a distinct, separate and eternal entity.
The orthodox Trinity interpretation has 3 separate and clearly defined entities.
(I admit that Paul long predated the orthodox interpretation )
Do you have other scripture that matches this interpretation of Paul you have presented?
All New Testament collections are essentially Roman Catholic.
The Coptic Church is just a 4th century Constantine Nicea offshoot. It isn't based on the beliefs of some older Christian community. It might as well be considered another European "Christian" religion.
The Syrian churches ended up all accepting the Gospel of John (and that was despite the general rejection of the writings attributed to the "John" that is attached to so many books in the Bible ).
Even the Ethiopian churches are offshoots of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic Church ilk.
The Ethiopian churches did gain independence early enough from the "Christian" powers (above) that they were able to get some pre Roman Catholic features maintained in what is otherwise another Roman Catholic offshoot. Pork isn't eaten and the cannon is larger.
The Book of Enoch is extant in Ethiopia and this great exception to the rest of the "Christian" world , when combined with the near total ignorance of the Book of Enoch issue, is a fact that prevents me from seeing organized religion as anything but a mass brain washing machine. (it isn't like the Book of Enoch is just any book )
Re: All New Testament collections are essentially Roman Catholic.
I assume that is your favorite explanation for the New Testament cannon being "inspired" by God and not "Roman Catholic or Orthodox "
(capital C Catholic means Roman Catholic not simply catholic/universal just like capital O Orthodox means Eastern Orthodox which was the early European "pre Catholic Church " brand of what is still essentially the same thing.)
(I call it all Catholic but Faith considers the slightest variations of the European pre Catholic Christians as BOTH "Apostolic" and somehow different from the later Roman Catholic Church. )
These (pre Catholic Church ) Greek "orthodox" Christians are all Faith has, right Faith?
Any chance you can show a Semitic group or 2 from pre AD to make your case?
NOW THE CANNON
I think of the fact that Aristotle established the concept of Cannon and the specific idea of neither adding to or subtracting from. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus was the first to mention four Gospels and he frequently said "No more, no less " while Aristotle said "neither add nor take away " was a proverbial expression.
Justin Martyr might have referenced the Gospel of John in a few places. I Apology 61.4 draws on John 3:3-5 and Dialogue 88.7 on John 1:19-20
This makes 150 AD the most early reference to Gospel John but not by name.
This makes 180 the earliest known cannon if you want to read into Irenaeus.
Look at archaeological evidence for the codex and 4 Gospels.
In 1933 F G Kenyon edited the recent P45 discovery which had the four Gospels and Acts. It was dated 200 to 250 AD
Some say that the 175 to 225 P75 might have had all four Gospels
T C Skeat also has shown that P64 + P67 + P4 are from the same single quire codex which may date from the late 2nd century. All four Gospels there but not before 150 AD
We need to understand that the Gospel Harmonies with John all are after 150 AD too. No evidence at all from archaeology or scholarship for anything before 150 at the earliest.
The pre 150 Gospel Harmonies are very telling evidence that destroys the Fundi claims of an early fourfold Gospel Cannon.
The pre 150 Gospel harmonies lack the Gospel of John but contain the 3 Synoptic Gospels.
The early ones are from Jewish Christian communities too.
The harmonies aren't the worst problem (perhaps ) for fundi Christians.
Look at the c 110 Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp. He quoted scripture in his writings.
And the Bishop of Smyrna was a proficient quoter of the New Testament books but showed no knowledge of the Gospel of John.
The same 2ND century apologists that offered the early mentions of John and the (possible ) fourfold Gospel Cannon also said (by later reports of their writings ) that Polycarp was a disciple of John.
So much for the Holy Cannon with the Gospel of John!
And shouldn't we ask why Syriac Aramaic Cannons reflected a deep suspicion of books attributed to John. Like Revelation.
Nevermind the Hebrew Ebionites and Nazarene churches.
Re: All New Testament collections are essentially Roman Catholic.
You can't back up your claims, so you say you aren't interested. You have no proof that the early Nicean church of the 4th century matches up with the earliest Christianity. You know that the evidence shows that it was rather different from the picture you like to draw.
You are forced to do a yo-yo like detour around the Roman Catholic Church, where you state that the Roman Empire was part of the Holy Spirit inspired cannon for a while (during the formative 4th century cannon period and the well-known "Holy" deliberations ) , then went bad (in the "7th century" or so you have been farting out lately ) for a spell, then magically the Holy Spirit appeared around 1500 AD in Europe.
You are high on claims BUT then you run when presented with semi-specific historic evidence (as I have presented from time to time ).
People are ever so slightly understanding the historic role that the 4th century Roman Empire played in shaping your preferred brand of "Christianity", and be advised that I am talking about the general population of the United States. You can do the hit&run tactic (even on the much more informed EVC site ) but many are catching on to what happened at the important stages of the last 2 millennia.
Re: All New Testament collections are essentially Roman Catholic.
So the canon isn't closed?
I thought you said that the Holy Spirit guided the book selection process and the ultimate canon.
How about if you give your own history about how the Bible came to be ( I mean the Greek and Hebrew books and I am more interested in the Greek New Testament collection and canon ) and I am not at all talking about the English translation which is a late issue.
I am wondering how I can even begin to understand what you just said (and I mean it when I say it ). I expected you to say that the Roman Empire didn't control the councils or Bishops (not that I can do anything but disagree strongly, based on the historic record of things ), but now I am totally lost. I also expected that you would say that there was a canon already completed in the 2nd century ( and then say that the second century archaeological evidence has lists that are similar to the 397 completion ).
In the past, you have said that the Roman Empire developed into the Catholic Church. You said it was a church extension of an Empire. You agree with what I just recalled? Care to explain it anyway?
Re: All New Testament collections are essentially Roman Catholic.
There is the early Christian years (pre Constantine) and then the early Christian Roman Empire years ( which includes the Council of Nicea and the canon formation process during the fourth century) .
The problem with what I have seen (over the years of observing your posts) is that you do indeed consider the early Christian Roman Empire years as part of the Holy inspired part of Christian history.
Your (theological) posts clearly have presented that view.
You say that 606 AD was different enough from 325 (the Council of Nicea year of the Roman Empire ) that you can see a Roman Catholic Church in the former while the latter is just small "c" catholic and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you could tell us which Church Councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were simply Roman Catholic Church councils.
It makes alot of the difference when we are going to throw (Catholic)labels around on the one hand and "Spirit inspired" descriptions on the other.
quote: 1) as Faith said, it is not technically correct to refer to the Church as ROMAN Catholic until the Bishop of ROME becomes dominant.
Well, it also has to do with the church order of Paul in his authentic epistles verses the forged Pastoral Epistles system (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and after.
Let us start with Clement of Rome.
Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: ÊëÞìçò Ῥþìçò; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 to his death in 99. He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church.
Few details are known about Clement's life. Clement was said to have been consecrated by Saint Peter, and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the late 1st century. Early church lists place him as the second or third bishop of Rome after Saint Peter. The Liber Pontificalis presents a list that makes Pope Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, with Peter as first; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Pope Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor. Tertullian considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter. In one of his works, Jerome listed Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter", and added that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle". Clement is put after Linus and Cletus/Anacletus in the earliest (c. 180) account, that of Irenaeus, who is followed by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Clement's only genuine extant writing is his letter to the church at Corinth (1 Clement) in response to a dispute in which certain presbyters of the Corinthian church had been deposed. He asserted the authority of the presbyters as rulers of the church on the ground that the Apostles had appointed such. His letter, which is one of the oldest extant Christian documents outside of the New Testament, was read in church, along with other epistles, some of which later became part of the Christian canon. These works were the first to affirm the apostolic authority of the clergy .... Epistle of Clement
Main article: 1 Clement
Clement's only existing, genuine text is a letter to the Christian congregation in Corinth, often called the First Epistle of Clement or 1 Clement. The history of 1 Clement clearly and continuously shows Clement as the author of this letter. It is considered the earliest authentic Christian document outside of the New Testament.
Clement writes to the troubled congregation in Corinth, where certain "presbyters" or "bishops" have been deposed (the class of clergy above that of deacons is designated indifferently by the two terms). Clement calls for repentance and reinstatement of those who have been deposed, in line with maintenance of order and obedience to church authority, since the apostles established the ministry of "bishops and deacons."  He mentions "offering the gifts" as one of the functions of the higher class of clergy. Although one who reads the Epistle will note that when the term "offering the gifts" by the bishops is used, it has no reference to "communion" and or Remembrance of the Lord but that of the gifts of ministering to the church with no actual indication of a specific gift. The epistle offers valuable insight into Church ministry at that time and into the history of the Roman Church. It was highly regarded, and was read in church at Corinth along with the Scriptures c. 170.
It was written about the same time as the Pastoral Epistles.
Here is Oxford scholarship
quote: OXFORD DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS p.226 Clement of Rome, St. Traditional third *bishop of Rome, perhaps to be connected with the fellow worker of *Paul (Philippians 4.3). A letter from the Roman church to that of Corinth is ascribed to him and is known as 1 Clement. The letter, a somewhat pompous appeal for peace in the church of Corinth, shows the beginning of Roman claims to authority over the churches.
Here is a good work that can be read online
quote: Early history of the Christian church from its foundation to the end of the fifth century Louis Duchesne ....
Chapter 5 .... Towards the middle of the 2nd century, the monarchical episcopate also comes before us as an undisputed fact of received tradition, in the Western Christian com- munities of Rome, Lyons, Corinth, Athens, and Crete, as well as in more Eastern provinces. Nowhere is there a trace of any protest against a sudden and revolutionary change, transferring the government from a college of bishops to that of a single monarchical ruler. From the 2nd century onward — in some places at least — it was possible for them to name the bishops linking them to the apostles. Hegesippus, who travelled from church to church, made in various places a collection of lists of bishops, or drew them up himself from local recollections and documents. The line of succession of the bishops of Rome dates back to St Peter and St Paul, and is known to us through St Irenaeus ; that of Athens, dating back to Dionysius the Areopagite, is given by St Dionysius of Corinth. In Rome, the episcopal succession was so well known, and its chronology so clear, that it served to fix the date of other events. It was said of different heresies, that they appeared under Anicetus, or Pius, or Hyginus. In the discussion as to the observance of Easter, Irenaeus fixed a date in the same way, going back farther still, to Telesphorus and to Xystus I., that is to the time of Trajan and of St Ignatius.
What conclusion can be drawn from all this, if not that the system of government by a monarchical bishop was already in existence, in countries west of Asia, at the time when such books were written as the Shepherd of Hennas or the Second Epistle of Clement, the Teaching of the Apostles, and the First Epistle of St Clement ; and that, therefore, the testimony of these old writers to the col- legiate episcopate does not preclude the existence of the monarchical episcopate? Towards the end of the 2nd century, the author of the Muratorian Canon said of Hermas, that he wrote a short time before, under the episcopate of his brother Pius : nuperrime, temporibus nostris, sedente cathetra (sic) urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius. Thus Hermas seems only to know of the collegiate episcopate, yet writes under a monarchical bishop, his own brother. About the time of Commodus, a Modalist teacher was cited more than once to appear before the ecclesiastical authority of Smyrna. Hippolytus, who recounts the event ^ uses the expression " the priests " (ot irpecr/SvTepoi). Yet it is quite certain that Smyrna then had a bishop. Moreover, the collegiate episcopate, which was certainly the original system in more places than one, was not likely to be the final form : it had to modify itself very soon. Government cannot be carried on by commission, unless presided over by a head who has it well in hand, who inspires it, guides it, and acts in its name. Probably the members of these episcopal colleges in primitive times were rather more on an equality with their president, than are canons of our day with their bishop. According to the rather confused memories which tradition has transmitted to us, they for long retained the power of ordination, which now especially characterises the episcopal dignity. The priests of Alexandria in replacing their dead bishop, not only elected, but also consecrated his successor.- This custom no doubt dated from a time when Egypt had no church but that of Alexandria. It would not be surprising to find that the same circumstances had led to the same results in Antioch, Rome, and Lyons, and in fact, in every place where the local churches had a very wide jurisdiction.
We are thus able to explain the custom of designat- ing both the president and his counsellors by a common denomination. We ourselves speak of the clergy, the priests, of a parish, although there is considerable differ- ence between the authority of the parish priest and that of his curates. In like manner, when they spoke of the priests of Rome, or the bishops of Corinth, the term covered both the higher grades of the hierarchy. But the natural course of events tended to concentrate the authority in the hands of one person, and this change, if change there were, was one of those which come about of themselves, insensibly, without anything like a revolu- tion. The president of the episcopal council in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and many other places, stood out sufficiently from his colleagues to be separately and easily remembered. The Church of God which " dwells in Rome" may have inherited the supreme authority of its apostolic founders in a diffused form ; this authority concentrated itself in the priest-bishops as a body, and one of them embodied it more specially, and exercised it. Between this president, and the one monarchical bishop of succeeding centuries, there is no difference in principle.
It has to do with the church order as much as anything.
Clement is venerated by protestants too.
Here is Wikipedia.
quote: Venerated in
Roman Catholic Church Anglican Communion Lutheran Church Eastern Orthodoxy Russian Orthodox Church
I feel that the early church fathers that are extant will be quite devoted to the Primacy of Peter (Hegesippius and Clement of Alexandria will be exceptions to the rule ), since James looms large in the early centuries.
The same Irenaeus that is big on Peter being the Bishop of Rome is the same one who said John authored the fourth Gospel and also said that Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of his. I should caution that I get Irenaeus and his dittohead Tertullian confused easily.
Papias was the first to say Peter went to Rome. The tradition is fairly early considering Papias was born in the first century and was the Bishop of Hieropolis as early as 100 AD I think.
What to think of the office of Bishop is another thing.
Was Peter ever a Bishop ( whatever it meant ) ?
The Roman church was ideological as far back as the late 1st century and it seems like it was willing to make things up.
But the Christian communities of the late first and early second century got to write books in the name of Apostles. He who writes the rules gets to make the rules.
The canon is the rule.
Was there an unrecorded (in extant writings from the 2nd century ) canon from the Roman church? Or from those in its orbit ?