Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake in Calvin's Geneva in 1553
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 36 of 75 (824222)
11-24-2017 11:02 PM


Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
I will get around to responding to your post 31 Phat, but let me get this out of the way.
I will look at Romans 9 and Philippians 2.
But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God.
(I think Steve Mason's work I will quote RIGHT NOW is perhaps my favorite book ever)
First, the NRSV scripture, then Mason's comments (in the verse annotations in the lower half of the same page the relevant Biblical text is on)
quote:
Romans 9
New Revised Standard Version
(NRSV)
God’s Election of Israel
9 I am speaking the truth in ChristI am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Now the evangelical commentaries have a translation that say the Messiah is God in verse 5. It can indeed be translated that way and it wouldn't really be any worse of a translation grammatically.
Here is Steve Mason's Early Christian Reader.
(most italics are replaced with caps)
quote:
p.179
If Paul intends to call Jesus God as one possible translation would read, it is the only place where he does so, and it would sound quite jarring immediately after ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. Even if he did mean to call Jesus God in this case, we should beware of reading later Christian content (concerning the divine nature of Christ) into such language. Other Jewish writers of the time, such as Philo, could describe various intermediaries as "God" without meaning they were "coequal" and "coeternal" with the Creator. see Philo, Somn. 2.189. The Chalcedonian definition of Christ's two natures required another 400 years to take shape (451 CE).
But see James Tabor's article, Praying to Jesus: From Jewish Messiah to Incarnate God (Biblical Expositions / January 20, 2016)
quote:
So far as the Jesus movement goes our earliest evidence for this practice of conflating the name of God—i.e., Yahweh, with that of Jesus—that is, calling them both Lord in an interchangeable way, goes back to Paul. Even though Paul clearly distinguished between the One God, the Father and the One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6), when he used the word Lord things are not always so clear—especially when he quotes the Hebrew Bible in passages that refer to Yahweh/Yehovah.
Paul writes to the Jesus followers at Rome that if they confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God has raised him from the dead—they will be saved. He asserts that for Jew or Greek the same Lord is Lord of all,—clearly referring to Jesus—and ends with a quotation from Joel: For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:9-13; Joel 2:32). The problem is, in the passage in Joel, the Hebrew text clearly says: Whoever calls upon the name of Yahweh will be saved,—but Paul clearly has no problem in identifying Lord here with Jesus. In fact Paul regularly quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible that clearly refer to Yahweh/Yehovah and applies them directly to Jesus as the Lord. Just one chapter earlier, in Roman 9:33, Paul conflates quotations from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 that clearly refer to Yahweh and applies them to Jesus as the rejected stone or rock of offense to those Jews who did not accept him as Messiah and Lord. In Philippians 2:10-11 Paul equates confessing Jesus as Lord and the entire human race bowing the knee to him—whereas Isaiah 45:22-23 proclaims such devotion is reserved for Yahweh alone. Here the work of David Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, J. C. B. Mohr, 1992 is absolutely groundbreaking.
Praying to Jesus: From Jewish Messiah to Incarnate God – TaborBlog
Now the next scripture is this.
quote:
Philippians 2
New Revised Standard Version
(NRSV)
5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death
even death on a cross.
9
Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
I will repeat my own words (from the reincarnation thread, plus additional comments) , but first, Steve Mason.
He began by explaining that this scripture is what came to be called "Kenosis" (self emptying) in the later Christian creedal statements.
He goes on to present the Orthodox argument( just before he responds to it)
quote:
Early Christian Reader
p.79
although Christ was God, he emptied himself of divine attributes and became a man in order to save humanity. But if this is the point of the passage, then (a) Paul's use of Christ's action as a model to be followed (2:5) is puzzling (for how could any human emulate this kind of self-emptying?), and (b) the emphasis on Christ's exaltation as a REWARD for his humiliation (2:9-11) is difficult to understand, since his exaltation should have been simply a recovery of his original glory after the completion of his mission. Other scholars have argued that the hymn does not concern a preexistent Christ but Christ as the second Adam, a prominent theme in Paul's letters (1 Cor.5:22, 45, 49; Rom 5:12-21). Like Adam, Christ was made in the image of God (2:6). But unlike Adam, he did not grasp at equality with God (2:6); he accepted his human condition and served God's purpose faithfully (2:7-8). Therefore, God has exalted him. Thus Paul's point would apply to his readers: God rewards those who humbly serve others. This would mean, however, that Paul understood Jesus' status after his resurrection as new (see Rom. 1:3-4, Acts 2:36). Some interpreters claim that the rhythm of the passage marks it as a hymn that Paul borrowed or slightly edited...
The exaltation Christology could, indeed, chronologically predate Paul's letters (though Epistle is the earliest textual evidence extant), but Paul does seem to be saying that Jesus was equal to God BEFORE he was born to Mary.
And the 2nd Adam/Last Adam theme could(contrary to my Reincarnation thread comments I am about to quote) be seen as evidence of preexistence. The First Adam issue sure did become an Avatar (reincarnation of a deity that became a totally separate eternal entity) of the Logos spirit by the end of the first century.
Here are my words (from two threads in the reincarnation thread)
First, Jaywill was quoted saying:
quote:
This portion talks about the indwelling God Who gives life. And it agrees with Paul in the other letter First Corinthians that Christ became a life giving Spirit.
" ... the last Adam (Christ) became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
To give life here really means to give God Himself - the uncreated and eternal life.
(I was planning on eventually addressing the "last Adam" issue as a possible reincarnation teaching by Paul, but never did. I wasn't sure I could demonstrate a mid-1st century use of the First Adam concept as being about a preexistent Christ who was reincarnated anyway.)
Here was my (flawed) expedient response. I was more interested in responding to the claim that Romans 8:3 said God and Jesus were the same thing (Jaywill was trying to say Paul was teaching complete Trinitarian-ish views all along)
quote:
Good this this is the 21st century or you would get killed for taking away from the separate existence of the 3 persons of the Trinity.
Philippians 2 is interpreted, by historians, as an "exaltation" Christology, but not inborn incarnation at conception.
Your verses don't support incarnation Christological views.
See the Bart Ehrman videos above. I have not but I know that he is an accessible expert on the Christological issues.
I'm just trying to report what has been said. I don't know for sure myself. Just keep in mind that Paul is the decisive factor when it comes to early Christian evidence since the Gospels date later. Mark doesn't even have the virgin birth.
Then I added a bit later (in my last post until I posted 1 more time about 18 months later)
quote:
I think we should look at the authentic letters of Paul.
One by one.
And see if we can find 3 different things in them.
1)Verses saying Jesus was God
2) incarnation at conception
3)virgin birth
Those are the three things we will be looking for.
Now, where to look? The 7 authentic letters of Paul.
Start with the youngest epistle first, then get to the older ones, in order.
1 Thessalonians (most British scholars put Galatians earlier)
2 1 Corinthians
3 2 Corinthians
4 Galatians
5 Romans
6 Philippians
7 Philemon (I'm not even sure if this can be dated)
I actually do think Philippians 2:5-10 qualifies for #1 & #2 , but not #3 (the virgin birth). Romans 9:5 possibly qualifies for #1, though most would disagree (it depends on the translation). Philippians was a "prison epistle" (written from 59-61 AD).
I still can't understand why Paul didn't mention the virgin birth. I find it amazing that he only said Jesus was God in 1 place (and only in an epistle roughly 10 years after his first), and only 1 (the same)place was the divine incarnation (albeit not a spermless one)mentioned.
This post of mine will be an attempt to maintain direction.
I have attempted to inject honesty into Biblical discussion. It has ticked people off who prefer to see what they want to (I was accused of hacking or SPAMing the site in another thread by a wacko). I urge those who value honest discussion to stay vigilant and don't let dishonest arguments and hateful attacks overrun these important historical issues. Force the participants to display integrity and accuracy in their arguments. Challenge those with preconceived notions to empty out their prepackaged ideas, and to start clean with an open mind and open heart.
Anyway, lets see who can offer any evidence in 1 Thessalonians.
Don't let them smuggle verses in from the Gospel of John. Infact, every book of Paul should be able to stand on its own weight. (Don't forget this last point P-L-E-A-S-E)
(jaywill wasn't the one attacking me fyi. I appreciated his spirited efforts)
Now, I make all sides angry when I tell the truth.
Uncritical posters (fundamentalists and non-believers) will not like my honesty.
I am not sure that Avatar like views indicate a virgin birth (the later 1st century Jewish Christians seemed to reject a virgin birth while accepting the Logos/First Adam/Power preexistence and incarnation). And they also felt that the preexistant Christ was separate from God (BUT not God!).
But Paul accepted Jesus as the same thing as God (albeit late and only after a - visible - evolutionary fashion). Paul's evolution is perceptible IMO.
I don't know if Jesus actually called himself a preexisting Power. I doubt he called himself God (ditto with his Jewish Christian brethren).
I only know what later first century teachings seem to show us.
(EDIT----- Paul only began to consider Jesus & Jehovah to be two split personalities of God only after 99% of what he said indicated that Jesus wasn't a God. It might have evolved due to his loose application of Old Testament verses, specifically verses indicating that Jesus' fulfilling of God's will would eventually morph his Christology, in a evolutionary process , which resulted OVER TIME in Paul seeing Jesus as ACTUALLY God. Jesus eventually was indeed the person God in those prophecies, and not simply an instrument of God in fulfilling his promises. Paul turned his views towards seeing the two "Lords" as actually the same exact thing. I imagine that he originally never intended to apply Old Testament prophecies and verses, describing Jehovah, to be a literal description of Jesus. But they became so - eventually. Perhaps this was the case even in Romans when he first penned the Epistle. But by the time of Philippians , Jesus was a fully split personality of God with a totally separate eternal spiritual body. I don't know if Paul ever saw Jesus as being as "old" as Jehovah himself, certainly 1 Corinthians doesn't seem to indicate that Jesus was as old as God, because Adam was created, and Paul didn't indicate that Jesus was eternal in both directions - PAST and future. Not that Jehovah was necessarily eternal anyway.)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 12:25 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 11-25-2017 1:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 38 of 75 (824226)
11-25-2017 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
11-25-2017 12:25 AM


Re: Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
I said
quote:
But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God.
quote:
I am not sure what you mean by this statement, but for me, the question is not whether Paul worships Jesus as a god, but whether he thinks Jesus is Yahweh either in a Trinitarian fashion or any other fashion.
I will study the issue.
There was a carm site, that you read (jaywill linked it), which had Pauline references to Old Testament verses about Jehovah (and they were either certainly or possibly describing Jesus).
I can see what Mason says about these verses so I can get a better view of his views.
quote:
In my opinion, some of the best arguments that Paul did not have this view come from a review of the Bible quotes that folks use to prove that Jesus is actually Yahweh. Invariably the arguments involve a stretching of text in ways it is hard to attribute to Paul and of course, there are plenty of counter-examples that are hard to explain except by departing from the entire exercise.
There were multiple Christological views.
And Paul was an evolving mishmash.
quote:
When all is said and done, the Trinity doctrine seems like an attempt to address accusations that Christianity is not monotheistic. I don't see any reason to bother with the doctrine if you don't have that concern.
There are lots of important historical questions though.
I am interested in when the virgin birth was first around.
Clement of Rome can help to date Matthew (which will also help to date Mark).
But good for a reference to the Virgin Birth.
The views of the Jewish Christians are important.
The chronology of the preexistent Christ is important.
Virgin birth origin date important.
All Christological views are important.
But the chronology is tricky.
Bart Ehrman said this
quote:
I have read, pondered, researched, taught, and written about the writings of Paul for forty years, but until recently there was one key aspect of his theology that I could never quite get my mind around. I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, he viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades — especially his teaching that it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was exactly?
One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out, in systematic detail, what his views of Christ are. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that — until recently — I thought could not possibly be as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive. How could Paul embrace higher views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a low Christology to a high Christology (using these terms that I am no longer fond of) over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be higher than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are lower. And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.
But I get it now. It is not a question of higher or lower. The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 12:25 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 1:44 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 11-25-2017 11:16 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 42 of 75 (824279)
11-25-2017 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
11-24-2017 1:49 AM


Paul the Nazarene and the early Baptists (response to Phat post 31)
quote:
So my first question is why was I brainwashed simply by being exposed to mainstream cultural beliefs? How is a Trinitarian concept/definition of GOD any less monotheistic than ...for example...Islam? Or JW's Jehovah and their (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion that Jesus was the first created being, as an angel?
The JW are WASP Protestants that accept the Roman Catholic Bible (with the Gospel of John).
They aren't the same thing as 1st century (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) Jewish Christians, who rejected the Gospel of John (as soon as they got the chance to know of it).
There was a very different Bible back then (with a lot more consistency of belief that aligns with "The Bible" used, unlike the JW who want to ignore and twist parts they don't want to agree with).
quote:
Nazarene (sect) - Wikipedia
Nazarene - Wikipedia(sect)
The Nazarenes originated as a sect of first-century Judaism. The first use of the term "sect of the Nazarenes" is in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, where Paul is accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes ...
Jerome, in the late 4th century, went to live in Palestine and he interacted with the Nararenes, (which Acts of the Apostles seems to indicate was the actual name of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem), who had the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
They rejected John.
The Nazarenes had an incarnation Christology, with the Virgin Birth.
Other Jewish Christians, like the Ebionites, had the same Gospel of Matthew, according to Jerome.
But the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis (written at the same time as Jerome wrote his works on the Jewish Christians), seemed to indicate a different Gospel, with the first few chapters missing. Like earlier commentaries on the Jewish Christians (Hippolytus 200 years earlier), there was clearly reincarnation (or possession) type beliefs among the Jewish Christians. Jesus was born a man (with no virgin birth), and the Spirit came into him just after the baptism of John the Baptist.
An Adoptionist Christology.
(Which is a "higher" Christology than the Exaltation view, which seems to have raised Jesus' status only after his death?)
quote:
In early Christian heresiology, the Panarion (Greek: , derived from Latin, panarium, meaning "bread basket"), to which 16th-century Latin translations gave the name Adversus Haereses (Latin: "Against Heresies"),[1] is the most important of the works of Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403). It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued about three years later,[2] as a treatise on heresies, with its title referring to the text as a "stock of remedies to offset the poisons of heresy."[3] It treats 80 religious sects, either organized groups or philosophies, from the time of Adam to the latter part of the 4th century, detailing their histories, and rebutting their beliefs.[4] The Panarion is an important source of information on the Jewish Gospels, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Sect - Wikipedia
The Ebionites had the same Gospel of Matthew, but without the first few chapters.
Scholars don't SEEM TO see Adoptionism Christology (as they read in Mark) as a Transmigration of the Soul issue.
The adoptionism Christology, of many Jewish Christians (Ebionits and Elkesaites) had Jesus born a man, but with a wandering Spirit (Logos or the Holy Spirit or the Hidden Power) possessed him at the Baptism of John.
Others had straight reincarnation.
The Nazoreans were, according to Epiphanius (and Eusebius), the Jerusalem Christian followers of James the Just.
quote:
Panarion 19:1
Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them- I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others
The Panarion of Ephiphanius of Salamis: Book I (sects 1-46) - Saint Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus) - Google Books
Paul was specifically described as Nasaraean in Acts of The Apostles.
Nazarenes.
Jerome said they had the original Gospel of Matthew and he translated it into Greek. It was called the Gospel of the Hebrews.
They were followers of James the Just
quote:
Flight to Pella
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River.
....
The people of the Church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea"
 Eusebius, Church History 3, 5, 3
This heresy of the Nazoraeans exists in Beroea in the neighbourhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokaba (Chochabe in Hebrew). From there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said."
 Epiphanius, Panarion 29,7,7-8
For after all those who believed in Christ had generally come to live in Perea, in a city called Pella of the Decapolis of which it is written in the Gospel that it is situated in the neighbourhood of the region of Batanaea and Basanitis, Ebion's preaching originated here after they had moved to this place and had lived there."
 Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 2, 7
So Aquila, while he was in Jerusalem, also saw the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith and working great signs, healings, and other miracles. For they were such as had come back from the city of Pella to Jerusalem and were living there and teaching. For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emigrants in Pella, the city above mentioned in Transjordania. And this city is said to be of the Decapolis."
 Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 15
Flight to Pella - Wikipedia
They had different scriptures.
Back to the issue of different scriptures.
Is there Biblical evidence that James, brother of Jesus, changed the scriptures?
Remember the Apostolic Council of Acts 15?
It saw James quote Amos 9:11-12
Here is the NIV text of those Old Testament verses.
quote:
so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear my name,
declares the Lord, who will do these things.
Here is the Septuagint text of Amos 9:11-12
quote:
so that the remnant of men / and all the nations that bear my name may seek the Lord
The words of James
NIV TRANSLATION
Acts 15:17
quote:
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things
(NIV)
James used the Septuagint in an anti nationalist way
Here is an older Southern Baptist commentary
quote:
Broadman Bible Commentary
Volume 10
Acts-I Corinthians
p.92
By using the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12, instead of the Hebrew text, James modified the meaning of the prophecy of Amos. The prophet predicted that the disrupted kingdom of David would be reunited and that Israel would possess the land of Edom along with other nations. The Septuagint version makes the message of Amos a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles.
James did seem to change the Hebrew scriptures.
quote:
jar first brought it to my attention by explaining that Saul/Paul was Jewish and likely didn't see Jesus as God. He claims that John was redacted and that there was a rift in the early Christians between reformed Judaism and the marketing of a new Christianity. So that is the first I had heard of it.
You earlier raised the issue of the Trinity.
The trinity was a chronologically later development than the Apostolic period.
There was a lot of Christological controversy back then at the time of the Gospel of John.
The LOGOS incarnated (or permanently possessed) a human Jesus at the Baptism as the early Baptists believed?
Not according to John.
The Gospel of John seemed to be a response to the early Jewish Christians and their Baptist beliefs.
Just like the Acts of the Apostles.
Remember when the author of Luke-Acts attempted to portray Alexandrian or Jewish Christian "Power of God" or "Hidden Power" views as foreign to the Apostles in Jerusalem (like James specifically)?
The invention of the Simon story.
Have you ever read the Gideon Bible translation?
It is like the ESV
Acts 8
quote:
Simon the Magician Believes
9But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the power of God that is called Great. 11And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miraclesb performed, he was amazed.
....
17Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19saying, Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.
It was a polemical story that attempted to portray the Jewish Christians as receiving their views NOT FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES BROTHER OR JESUS but from a man called Simon.
quote:
Meyer's NT Commentary
Acts 8:10. Προσεῖχον just as in Acts 8:6.
ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου A designation of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old. Comp. Hebrews 8:11; Acts 26:22; Bar 1:4; Jdt 13:4; Jdt 13:13; 1Ma 5:45; LXX. Genesis 19:11; Jeremiah 42:1, al.
οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύν. τ. Θεοῦ ἡ καλ. μεγ. this is the God-power called great. The Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and appearing and working among them as a human person, which, as the highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific appellation κατʼ ἐξοχήν as the μεγάλη. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God (the Logos, which Philo also calls μητρόπολις πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ Θεοῦ) had become at that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this effluence of the Godhead rendered human by incarnation,a belief which Simon certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neighbouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ; comp. Ewald. The belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an analogue of the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and hence served to prepare for the true and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip: the former became the bridge to the latter.
Acts 8:10 Commentaries: and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, "This man is what is called the Great Power of God."
The Gospel of John was specifically meant to counter the LOGOS word (which was also a term along with Great Power or Hidden Power that incarnated Jesus, the True Prophet) version of the Adoptionist Christology.
The Gospel of John was polemical (against the Jewish Christian views) like the Simon story in Acts 8.
EDIT τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Philo) is Power of God
LATER EDIT ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is (I think) The Logos became flesh (I just saw this one, and I can only know the definition the first 3 words "the word (logos) flesh (sars)" but I can go check on google).
(I know very little Greek)
Also, the Nazarenes were said to believe in the virgin birth at the time of Jerome and Epipanius (their Gospel was first mentioned by Hegesippius around 180 AD, and he was a Jewish Christian vegetarian who said James and Matthew were also)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 11-24-2017 1:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 11-26-2017 4:42 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 50 of 75 (824326)
11-26-2017 9:10 PM


Sorry for General Reply (site is running slow)
I was going to respond to several posters, but I don't think the computer will make it though. I'm amazed I logged in.
The issue of the views of the Jewish Christians came up, and how old they were.
Here is the situation in the 70s (of the 4th century).
Via Epiphanius
quote:
Panarion 30
Ebionites are very like the Cerinthians and Nazoraeans; the sect of the Sampsaeans and Elkasaites was associated with them to a degree. They say that Christ has been created in heaven, also the Holy Spirit. But Christ lodged in Adam at first, and from time to time takes Adam himself off and puts him back on-for this is what they say he did during his visit in the flesh. Although they are Jews they have Gospels, abhor the eating of flesh, take water for God, and, as I said, hold that Christ clothed himself with a man when he became incarnate. They continually immerse themselves in water, summer and winter, if you please for purification like the Samaritans.
It seems to fit in with the older evidence.
The Gospel of the Hebrews (the one that seemed to be from Egypt, and was quoted by Clement of Alexandria AND IS NOT the same thing as the Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Nazarenes, though Jerome and Epiphanius called the latter "2" Gospels the Gospel or the Hebrews (single!) or the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and Jerome & Epiphanius said the Nazarenes and Ebionites used the same single Hebrew Gospel) is dated to around 100-120 AD, and it seems to have the Holy Spirit coming into Jesus's body in a possession/ (not incarnational?) Adoptionist kind of way.
The Kerygma Petri (or Kerygmata Petrou) had reincarnation/possession themes, and it is dated variously from 80-140 or 100-120. Clement of Alexandria quoted it much. I will find a source from a book I have in a while.
Here is Wikipedia, showing everything we know about this Gospel of the Hebrews.
quote:
There is wide agreement about seven quotations cited by Philipp Vielhauer in the critical 3rd German edition of Wilhelm Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha, translated by George Ogg.[19] The translations below follow Vielhauer's order:[n 3][n 4]
(verse)
1. When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12)
(Wikipedia comment)
Fragment 1 identifies Jesus as the son of the Holy Spirit; this idea is found also in the Egyptian Coptic Epistle of James, another indication of the Egyptian origin of the gospel.[n 5]
(next verse)
2. And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4)
(comment)
Fragment 2 uses the language of Jewish Wisdom literature,[n 6] but applies it to the Holy Spirit: the Spirit has waited in vain through all the prophets for the Son. The "rest" that the Holy Spirit finds in the Son belongs to the Christian gnostic idea of the pre-existent Redeemer who finally becomes incarnate in Jesus.[20]
(verse)
3. Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor. (Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87)
(comment)
Fragments 2 and 3, giving accounts of Jesus' baptism and temptation or transfiguration, spring from the widespread Greco-Roman myth of the descent of divine Wisdom; this underlies the parallel passages in the gospels of Matthew (11.25—30), Luke (7.18—35 and 11.49—51) and John (1.1—18), as well as the Gospel of Thomas.[16] The differences between fragment 3 and the orthodox canonical gospels are considerable: their third-person narrative has become an account by Jesus himself, Satan is replaced by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is identified as Jesus' mother.[21]
(verses)
4a. He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest. (Clement, Stromateis 2.9.45.5)
4b. He that seeks will not rest till he finds; and he that has found shall marvel; and he that has marveled shall reign; and he that has reigned shall rest. (Clement, Stromateis 5.14.96.3)
(comments)
Fragment 4 is a "chain-saying", seek—find—marvel—reign—rest, describing the steps towards salvation, where "rest" equals the state of salvation.[20] The saying is similar to themes found in Jewish Wisdom literature,[n 7] and the similarity to a saying in the Gospel of Thomas suggests that the text may have been influenced by gnostic Wisdom teaching.[7][n 8]
5. And never be ye joyful, save when ye behold your brother with love. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 3)
(verse)
6. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews ...there is counted among the most grievous offenses: He that has grieved the spirit of his brother. (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 6)
(comments)
Fragments 5 (on Ephesians 5.4) and 6 (on Ezekiel 18.7) are ethical saying of Jesus, suggesting that such teachings formed a significant part of the gospel.[16]
(verse)
7. The Gospel according to the Hebrews ...records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: He took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep. (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2)
(comments)
Fragment 7 emphasizes the importance of James, the brother of Jesus and head of the Jewish—Christian movement in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, thereby testifying to the Jewish character of the community of the gospel.[17]
In addition to direct quotations, other gospel stories were summarized or cited by the Church Fathers. The translations below are from Vielhauer & Strecker (1991), except "b2" which is from Klauck (2003):[n 9]
(quote of DIDYMUS)
a. (Scripture) seems to call Matthew "Levi" in the Gospel of Luke. Yet it is not a question of one and the same person. Rather Matthias, who was installed (as apostle) in place of Judas, and Levi are the same person with a double name. This is clear from the Gospel of the Hebrews. (Didymus the Blind, Commentary on the Psalms 184.9—10)
(Wikipedia comment)
The summary of a gospel passage identifies Mattias, rather than Matthew, as the name of the tax-collector who was called to follow Jesus.[22][n 10]
(quote of Eusebius)
b1. And he (Papias) has adduced another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.17)
(Wikipedia comments)
The citation by Eusebius of a story he found in the writings of Papias is believed to refer to an alternate version of the account in John's gospel of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.[23][24]
b2. It is related in some gospels that a woman was condemned by the Jews because of a sin and was taken to the customary place of stoning, in order that she might be stoned. We are told that when the Savior caught sight of her and saw that they were ready to stone her, he said to those who wanted to throw stones at her: Let the one who has not sinned, lift a stone and throw it. If someone is certain that he has not sinned, let him take a stone and hit her. And no one dared to do so. When they examined themselves and they recognized that they too bore responsibility for certain actions, they did not dare to stone her. (Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 4.223.6—13)
Although Didymus does not name his source, he found this independent tradition of the story of the sinful woman in a non-canonical gospel in Alexandria which may have been the Gospel of the Hebrews.[25][n 11]
Gospel of the Hebrews - Wikipedia
Here is a reference to the Kerygma Petri or Proclamation of Peter.
quote:
Vielhauer & Strecker 1991, pp. 174—6; p. 174 — "This is also the objective of the pre-existent Redeemer who, according to the Jewish—Christian—gnostic Kerygmata Petrou, after endless change in form becomes the incarnate in Jesus: 'From the beginning of the world he runs through the ages, changing his form at the same time as his name, until in his time, anointed of God's mercy for his toil, he shall find his rest forever.' (ps.Clem. Hom. 3.20.2) To the circle of such gnostic speculations belongs the Christology of the baptism pericope of the GH."
Graham Stanton (rip), mentioned the Kerygma Petri in his book, Jesus and Gospel, as a book that showed conscious awareness of the "Law of Christ" (nomos Christou) mentioned in in Galatians 6:3 (nomou Christou or "of the law of Christ" in the verse). He pointed out that 2nd century authors, like Clement of Alexandria used the term, and quoted works that used the term. He said the Kerygma Petri is to be dated from the first few decades of the 2nd century.
The Elkesaites are dated either 100 AD (in the 3rd year of Trajan) or 116-117 (3rd year of campaigns in Persia), and they clearly have this Christology. (and the vegetarian views)
The New Testament book of Hebrews was quoted by Clement of Rome (wrote in the 90s AD) and it seems to be responding to these themes.
The Pastoral Letters, Acts of the Apostles, and Gospel of John seem to be responding to various views that Epiphanius (writing around 375) describes in his Panarion.
All Jewish Christians seemed to have similar views.
vegetarianism
Christology that is an incarnational adoptionism.
(and the ELKESAITES have vegetarian views described in 3 diverse sources. The long extant Panarion by Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus), then the Cologne Mani Codex essentially supports the vegetarianism(found in Egypt and it describes the vegetarian Mani rebelling against the Jewish Christian Elkesaite community he, a Persian, was born into) , and then a 10th century Arabic encyclopedia describes the Elkesaites as vegetarian. Many scholars try to say that early Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Elkesaites might not have been vegetarian but they have zero evidence for the assertion. Hegesippius and Clement of Alexandria were clearly vegetarians and they clearly described the Apostles as vegetarian. They were alive from the mid second century, and had better access to Jewish Christians AND ALL CHRISTIANS than modern scholars.
All ancient sources agree that the diverse sects of Jewish Christians were ALL vegetarian! Any attempt to deny that the early 2nd century Jewish Christians were vegetarian has fallen completely apart. It is amazing how many diverse arguments I have seen, from historians, that attempt to discredit the sources. The doubting scholars say that Epiphanius was confusing the views of the Manicheans with the Elkesaites! The scholars admit that some of the 4th century Jewish Christians were vegetarian, but will say that not all would necessarily been, and then will say that "The 4th century vegetarian Ebionites of Epiphanius shouldn't be evidence that the 2nd century Ebionites of Irenaeus were so. They ignore the Elkesaite evidence plus Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippius. )
Hegesippius is as credible a source as there can possibly be.
Listen to what Steve Mason said, in his Early Christian Reader.
quote:
p.693
By the middle of the second century, some individuals were visiting churches to learn about the local history. One, Hegesippus, tried to establish lists of bishops from his day back to the apostles, based on records and memory of the various churches. His five-volume work is now lost, but brief passages from it have been preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. It is believed that the full works of Hegesippus had been preserved in some libraries until the sixteenth or seventeenth century. The discovery of his complete works would probably be more significant than the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library for our understanding of early Christianity.
I often hear a lot of people talk about the Vatican supposedly hiding texts from people. I mention Hegesippus as the only REAL POSSIBILITY (fairly often when the issue of conspiracy comes up), but when people find out that my only concession is also hand-in-glove with the making of an argument that vegetarianism was a fundamental part of REAL CHRISTIANITY, the conspiracy theorists end up not liking Hegesippus and don't pursue the issue any further.
People pursue what tickles their ears, not what is plausible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 11-27-2017 8:43 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:10 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 57 of 75 (824445)
11-29-2017 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
11-28-2017 1:10 PM


Re: The Plausibility Of Belief
quote:
Why is reincarnation more plausible than resurrection? Is incarnation plausible?
Are you aware of the differences between Eastern and Western belief systems?
Is one group more plausible than the other?
jar has a logical argument in that much of what shaped doctrine was political. You also have an argument that the dominant European culture called the shots on doctrine more than the minority cultures and their Christian (or Jewish Christian) communities.
Most of the Alexandrian Church Fathers EVENTUALLY were denounces as heretics over something very similar to reincarnation this issue. (a bunch of related issues to your 2 options in the plausibility question)
Clement of Alexandria was about the only was that avoided (by the skin of some teeth?) the official stigma.
See:
Didymus the Blind - Wikipedia
It is a monumental loss indeed that we lost so many works from Origin and Didymus (not to mention Clement of Alexandria), and it seems to be tied to this 2nd Council of Constantinople anathema load they got condemned with.
Had their works been preserved, then we would surely have a much more complete Gospel of the Hebrews. (The Egyptian one that dates from 100-120 or I think earlier)
Though we should never forget that Jerome considered all 3 Gospel of the Hebrews (that scholars now divide up in a Gospel of The Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Nazarenes) to be a single Gospel of the Hebrews book and it was Matthew.
quote:
In the Gospel, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, and which I lately translated into Greek from the Hebrew tongue, and which is called by most the authentic Gospel of Matthew
The Catholic church wouldn't let Jerome use the authentic Gospel of Matthew in the Vulgate translation. (very vegetarian "Gospel" - singular! - and it could have Jesus sort of reincarnated or something at Baptism)
And a really amazing thing is that Catholics and Protestants make a big deal about how Papias is now dated at about 110 A.D., and the excitement is over Irenaeus saying he knew John the Apostle (as they say about Polycarp a supposed Disciple of Apostle John)
Google searches:
papias eyewitness
papias eyewitness john
Did Papias Know the Apostle John? - Canon Fodder
But Papias also knew a "Hebrew Gospel" that had the oldest type of story that was later known as Pericope Adulterae (much later put into the John Gospel: John 7:53-8:11 in KJV).
Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia
Papias and Didymus are sources (what little we have of them anyway).
I suppose the biggest thing about the Papias re-dating is that it could very well place the Gospel of the Hebrews in the first century!
You won't hear a peep from fundamentalists on that one!
(They are more likely to try to use the Papias reference to prove that the Gospel of John was what was referred to when he mentioned the sinful woman/Jesus issue. Though the impossibility of John chapter 3 making any sense in any language other than Greek would prevent too many from even going there, thus it will, again, simply be ignored.)
EDIT: see my Gospel of the Hebrews paste several posts above for the adultery periscope issues (it isn't one of the extant quotes, but is a reference chain of piece by piece evidence)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:10 PM Phat has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 58 of 75 (824521)
11-29-2017 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
11-28-2017 1:10 PM


The Plausibility Of Belief: "Additions" or "subtractions" to authentic Gospel of Matt
quote:
Why is reincarnation more plausible than resurrection? Is incarnation plausible?
Are you aware of the differences between Eastern and Western belief systems?
Is one group more plausible than the other?
jar has a logical argument in that much of what shaped doctrine was political. You also have an argument that the dominant European culture called the shots on doctrine more than the minority cultures and their Christian (or Jewish Christian) communities.
A related topic to the reincarnation ( or at least the pre existence of the soul issue) is the difference between the eastern and western "church" on the Gospel of Matthew.
The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew of Jerome seemed to support the idea that the Holy Spirit (and thus Jesus?) was incarnated into humans before. (the idea of reincarnation for all humans seems to have been a Jewish Christian view).
But were certain things added to the Hebrew Gospel as is conventionally said?
quote:
Whether the Greek version of Matthew was a translation of this Semitic text, as Jerome and eastern Christian authors assumed, or vice versa is also a matter of scholarly debate. For citations of this "Hebrew" gospel by Origen, Eusebius and Jerome himself include material that seems to have been added to the canonical gospel of Matthew.
Jerome's claim that Matthew did not rely on the standard Greek Septuagint translation of Jewish scripture is of little use for deciding the issue of the original language of this gospel. For while it is true that the citation of Hosea 6:1 in Matthew 2:15 is not based on the Septuagint, there is no clearly identifiable source for Matt 2:23 ("He shall be called a Nazarene") in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, contrary to Jerome's assertion, the canonical gospel of Matthew is sometimes clearly based on the Greek Septuagint translation of Jewish scripture rather than the Hebrew text; for example, the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23 ("Behold a virgin shall conceive...") and Jesus' citations from Deuteronomy in the temptation story (Matt 4:1-11).
Synoptic Gospels Primer - Glossary: Jerome
Jerome had to submit to the Pope, despite his own personal views, on numerous Bible book (versions) selection issues.
SEE "Against Rufinius" by Jerome.
Bing
Against Rufinius jerome canon
The Papias evidence shows that there were SUBTRACTIONS from the Hebrew Gospel (and it should be seen as a first century Gospel. The story that later made it into the Gospel of John was already in the Hebrew Gospel (Matthew?).
There were differences.
quote:
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd edition)
by Bart Ehrman
p.197
The Gospel of the Ebionites. This Gospel appears to have been a combination of the Synoptic Gospels, a kind of "Gospel harmony" in which the three accounts were merged to form one longer and fuller version of Jesus' life. It was evidently written in Greek and was possibly used among Jewish Christians living in Transjordan. One of its striking features is that it recorded words of Jesus to the effect that Jews no longer needed to participate in animal sacrifices in the Temple. Connected with this abolition of sacrifice was an insistence that Jesus's followers be vegetarian.
Then the same Gospel (according to Jerome) did have certain stories out (like the virgin birth?)
quote:
Bart Ehrman
p.197
The Gospel of the Nazareans. ....written in Aramaic... It may have been produced in Palestine near the end of the first century, that is, about the time of the gospel of John. The church fathers who refer to it sometimes claim that it was an Aramaic translation of the Gospel according to Matthew, minus the first two chapters
Was there an original without the Virgin Birth but with pre existence of the soul (which came to get Alexandrian Chruch Fathers labeled as heretics)?
quote:
In 553 the Second Council of Constantinople condemned his works, along with those of Origen and Evagrius, but not his person. In the Third Council of Constantinople in 680, and in the 787 Second Council of Nicaea, Didymus was again linked with and condemned with Origen.[10] Many unconventional views became associated with Origen, and the 15 anathemas attributed to the council condemn a form of apocatastasis along with the pre-existence of the soul, animism (in this context, a heterodox Christology), and a denial of real and lasting resurrection of the body.[11]
Didymus the Blind - Wikipedia
also said
quote:
He was a student of Origen, and, after the Second Counsel in Constantinople condemned Origen, Didymus's works were not copied
Why were certain views seen as threatening?
Reincarnation or (a related heresy) pre existence of the soul?
Do you have any ideas why there would be hatred directed at those who hold to the pre existence of the soul?
I do know that history has taught us that those who hold to the pre existence of the soul seem to have religious views that predispose them to vegetarianism. (though a massive amount of atheists hate to see suffering for sure)
There is a clear difference, when compared to today's Christians, in the respect for life and suffering in Early Christianity. We know that the Roman Catholic side won the Empire, and decided what was "true Christianity".
Is it the fact that the ability to kill (for whatever reason) is severely hamstrung if one holds reincarnation or preexistence views?
The Bhagavad Gita can perhaps be seen as reflecting that concern (Ahisma seemed to be winning the day and the old religion of India was changing and Dharma needed to be invoked and described as including THE REQUIRMENT TO "FIGHT!" WARS)
The Pythagoreans did fight wars, though they wouldn't cut through bean fields (because beans reproduce in a way that seems parallel to a sperm fertilization relationship). They fought to defend their society's ability to exist in an intolerant world.
The threat of a pacifism among people might be a concern. The ability to eat meat (something rich Catholics valued highly) is a major concern. You can't beat a trusting pet pig over the head with a hammer if you have a Christian population that opposes it (that majority population doesn't seem to have ever quite existed in the Roman Empire, though we don't really know what the majority was from 325 to 380 AD).
The hatred the Roman Government "Church" had for various peoples ( Jewish Christians and related original Christian communities, Hindus, Pythagoreans, etc.) would have been compounded by all sorts of power factors.
We know that the original Gospel of Matthew has been lost forever, and it must have been due to threatening concepts. (assuming there was a Hebrew/Aramaic original, it must have been lost forever. Papias indicated a 1st century Hebrew Gospel that had the story with a sinful woman in it.)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:10 PM Phat has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 59 of 75 (856248)
06-28-2019 9:28 PM


Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
I never was sure if Origen actually believed in reincarnation. If Ehrman is correct, then this would be impressive. It might mean a massive chunk of European Christians held Jewish Christian beliefs in the 3rd century.
Just a moment...
The bulk of his article is behind a paywall.
But he said this:
quote:
Origen is our most famous Christian proponent of the idea of reincarnation.
I need to subscribe to read the rest of the article.
His "comments" (responding to reader questions) on Elijah and John the Baptist seemed to indicate some divergent views on that issue.
Ehrman said this in the comments:
quote:
The doctrine of the Trinity developed long after Paul. Not sure what he would make of it, but my sense is that he would find it completely unacceptable. What he would propose as an alternative is hard to say. But he seems to have had a subordinationist view, that Christ was not fully equal, let alone of the same substance, as the Father.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 11:13 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 63 of 75 (856257)
06-29-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
06-28-2019 11:52 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
Faith, after you said Origen was a heretic, you said:
quote:
A heretic is someone who promotes a belief system that contradicts the traditional system in important ways.
Do you consider his role in helping European Christians develop their Bible as injecting heresy into the Bible?
HOLMAN STUDENT BIBLE DICTIONARY
BY KAREN DOCKREY
JOHNNIE & PHYLLIS GODWIN
(1993 HOLMAN BIBLE PUBLISHERS; NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE)
There is a graph on page 15, and I am presenting it horizontally, with a very changed format. I am skipping no words, but don't consider this a precise quote due to the radically changed format to make my quote.
quote:
NEW TESTAMENT CANONIZATION PROCESS
0-180 A.D. Early Fathers quote Apocryphal books as Scripture: first challenged by Origen
200 Muratorian Canon Lacks: Hebrews 3 John
250 Origen's New Testament Lacks: Hebrews James 2 Peter 2 &3 John Jude
300 Eusebius New Testament Lacks: Hebrews James 2 Peter 2 &3 John Jude Doubts authorship of Revelation
400New Testament Fixed by the Council of Carthage
Do you consider his questioning the "divine inspiration" of the Apocryphal books as heresy?
Does his concern about late-written, and poorly attested, books (like 2 Peter) qualify as heresy?
Was he a heretic to feel that 2nd Peter was not written by Peter? Or was he in good company with non-heretics?
What makes a heretic?
Anybody who was closer to the first century (like Origin, who was born in the late second) runs the risk of being deemed heretical when a 21st century European Christian looks at their scholarship.
Origen - Wikipedia
He was born in 184 in Alexandria, Egypt.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-28-2019 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 12:26 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 65 of 75 (856259)
06-29-2019 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
06-29-2019 12:26 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:
If Origen taught reincarnation certainly that makes him a heretic. And Alexandria is known as a place where heretics flourished in the early centuries. That's one reason to doubt the "Alexandrian" Bible manuscripts that were "found" in recent times and are now used to replace the authentic manuscripts, which is a great fraud on the Church.
I don't know where to start.
This sounds like your obsession with the Hebrew Bible text behind the King James and certain New Testament manuscripts being behind the New Testament, correct?
The ironic thing is that NO EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS (except Jerome and a small handful) could read Hebrew.
Even the mighty scholar Origin could not read Hebrew.
quote:
Eusebius even claims that Origen learned Hebrew.[58][59] Most modern scholars agree that this is implausible,[58][60] but they disagree on how much Origen actually knew about the language.[59] H. Lietzmann concludes that Origen probably only knew the Hebrew alphabet and not much else;[59] whereas, R. P. C. Hanson and G. Bardy argue that Origen had a superficial understanding of the language, but not enough to have composed the entire Hexapla.[59] A note in Origen's On the First Principles mentions an unknown "Hebrew master",[58] but this was probably a consultant, not a teacher.[58]
Origen - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 12:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 1:12 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 67 of 75 (856314)
06-29-2019 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
06-29-2019 1:12 AM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:
my "obsessions with the Hebrew text?" I don't think I've ever said a word about the Hebrew text. As I understand it the Hebrew texts weren't available to translators of the Christian Bible until very late, but I don't know the date.
It is true that the King James translators used a post Jerome/Pope Damascus Hebrew text
The (anti Roman Catholic) "King James ONLY" crowd makes a big deal about "their" Hebrew text, which is ironic, since Jerome translated certain Hebrew manuscripts into the Latin Old Testament Vulgate around 382, which should be (logically?) considered "superior" to the LATER Masorah (with all of that "Jewish tampering" and "mystical numbers" accusations against so many groups - so all the more so against actual Jewish scholars).
The reason very few (so-called) "real Christians" (which to you, Faith, means Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Europeans) knew Hebrew was due to two factors:
1) There were very antagonistic relations between Jewish Christians (and also actual Jews themselves) and the European Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox ("real Christians"), thus there was little friendly communication (no scholarly or friendly help).
2) The lack of vowels in the written text (until the Masorah was finished centuries later) made understanding the words very difficult for non-Hebrew speakers.
quote:
Anyway, I've certainly talked about the GREEK texts of the NEW Testament, and the Alexandrian versions of these I've called a fraud on the Church, having been tampered with by gnostics in the early centuries, according to Burgon.
Burgon does not say "gnostics" added to the scripture - infact he strongly would deny such, but he somehow manages to keep a straight face when he claims they subtracted a word here and there to supposedly make some big doctrinal difference.
He makes a big deal about Mark 16:9-20 being "removed" from the Alexandrian text.
(same thing about John 7:53-8:11 being 'removed")
If you can show me where 12-14 verses were ADDED BY GNOSTICS, then I will take the Textus Receptus (or King James) "only" crowd seriously. You cannot have it both ways (The words - in ALL Bibles - are ALL divine BUT some "divine" words were "removed")
(And why would a "gnostic" care about REMOVING John 7:53-8:11? So the death penalty could be used against themselves by the Roman government, even though the Roman government was not "Bible based" during the time of the supposed "removal"?)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 1:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 69 of 75 (856316)
06-29-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
06-29-2019 3:02 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:
I believe Burgon specifically referred to Marcion though I may be misremembering. And no there's nothing about their adding, it was all subtracting.
So we have these manuscripts that were controlled by "gnostics", yet they are 100% divinely inspired, with nothing added? Only things taken away?
Correct?
quote:
And as far as the Hebrew goes, as I said I've never mentioned it and don't address it at all anywhere that I recall. But as for the Masoretic text it is well known that the Jews were scrupulous about preserving the text exactly and that makes it the best Hebrew text. Also we know that the Hebrew books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls match ours exactly.
I was just reading a book by a member of the international team (the famous team that was Christian only) that controlled the scrolls for the first 40 years. It was by John Allegro (the book was titled along the lines of "Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Revealed"), and he said the DSS are closer to the Septuagint (LXX) than the MT.
So no "we" do not "know" what you just said.
This means the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts found a Qumran do actually allow for the possibility that the Gospel quotations actually quoted a Hebrew text, as opposed to the (Greek!) Septuagint. It does increase the odds that the Gospels could have been written in Hebrew and that Jesus (even Paul) had actual conversations that the Synoptic Gospels portray.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:44 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 71 of 75 (856325)
06-29-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
06-29-2019 3:44 PM


Re: Bart Ehrman said Origen believed in reincarnation. (Jan 2019)
quote:
I certainly don't consider the Alexandrian mss to have been inspired.
I just don't see how you can consider these scholars honest when they claim that nothing has been added to the manuscripts, only subtracted from "the autographs".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 8:10 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 73 of 75 (856452)
06-30-2019 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
06-29-2019 8:10 PM


Scholars like Bruce Metzger are dishonest (but not in the way Faith says they are)
quote:
Whut? I DON'T consider the scholars honest who think the Alexandrian mss are legit.
It's obvious nothing has been added when you see the comparisons many have made. It's all subtractions.
I do consider the same Christian scholars dishonest (Metzger included) and hypocritical.
They are correct in holding the "Alexandrian" (or eastern) text as the least changed (thus the most accurate).
But then they will still follow the changes made to the "Western" text, by introducing fraudulent interpretations.
Look at the Apostolic Council of Acts 15.
The Western text changed things so that food requirements were (essentially) taken out.
The Alexandrian text kept everything in (btw, it has the same text as the later King James manuscripts, except the added part - in the "textus receptus" - that , I think, says "Moses has been taught for generation to generation in all the synagogues", around verse 21), which requires the mandatory minimum on gentiles: follow the WRITTEN kosher food laws plus the ORAL Law rules against eating meat sacrificed to idols and strangulation/head tearing of chickens & kosher birds.
But Metzger found a way around the rules.
(quotation marks around Metzger's words were added by me)
quote:
Historicity
See also: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
The description of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[13] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[14] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[15][16][17] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[18] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[19] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[20] Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994:
"In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree[21] as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity”whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree[21] in some such way as those suggested above.[22] An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" [Les problmes du Livre des Actes d'aprs les travaux récents (Louvain, 1950), p.70]."[23]
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia
("ethical" is the same thing as what scholars call "moral". Then misuse of so-called "ritual" laws are sometimes called "cultic" or "ceremonial". Scholars have made alot of crap up, including "table fellowship" crap. It is almost all fraudulent.)
People will always do what pleases themselves.
The rules in the text will be ignored, even when the most authentic manuscripts (with the toughest rules) are allowed to stand.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 06-29-2019 8:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 74 of 75 (856461)
07-01-2019 12:58 AM


cultic, ceremonial, ritual (as opposed to "ethical", "moral") is not about pork.
Christian scholars are liars.
The Jewish religion had issues with purity and "table fellowship" type stuff.
There were categories of folks:
starting with am ha aretz
quote:
CAMBRIDGE COMMENTARIES ON WRITINGS OF THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WORLD
200 BC TO AD 200
VOLUME 4
Early Rabbinic Writings
by HYAM MACCOBY
xi
*am ha-ares (literally, 'people of the land', but employed to mean 'person of the land'): 1. 'layman', in the sense of one not learned in the Torah (see talmid \iakam)\ 2. 'layman', in the sense of one not a member of a ritual-purity society (see haber).
....
xiv-xv
haber, pi. haberim ('associate' or 'fellow'): 1. a member of a society of those voluntarily undertaking to observe a supererogatory standard of ritual purity and tithing (see 'am ha-'ares);
2. a member of any other religious society, e.g. a charitable organisation or a society for the decent burial of the dead;
3. a title of scholars (like 'fellow' in English). haburah, pi. haburot ('fellowship'): a group formed for any religious purpose; especially for the supererogatory observance of ritual purity and tithing.
....
xviii
neeman ('trusted'): a member of a society for the supererogatory observance of tithing.
It had nothing to do with the food laws related to pork and proper slaughter.
quote:
CAMBRIDGE COMMENTARIES ON WRITINGS OF THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WORLD
200 BC TO AD 200
VOLUME 4
Early Rabbinic Writings
by HYAM MACCOBY
pp.73-74
Note that 'ritual purity' is quite a different thing from the 'dietary laws', though these two topics are often confused. The 'dietary laws' consist of prohibitions against the eating of certain animals, birds, fish and insects. These prohibitions are biblical (see Lev. 11), and are obligatory on all Jews (but not on non-Jews). Consequently, no societies of haberim were formed to observe these laws, since they were obligatory, not supererogatory. Included also in the dietary laws is the prohibition against eating the flesh even of permitted animals unless they have been slaughtered by the method called sehifah; this law is not found explicitly in the Bible, but was regarded as an halakah le-Moseh mi-Sinai (see p. 4).
If permitted meat was not available, Jews would sometimes resort to vegetarianism, as did Daniel and his companions (Dan. 1:8-16), not as a matter of'ritual purity' but of kasrut ('permitted food').
The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that the language of'defilement' is occasionally used in relation to forbidden foods, which are sometimes called 'unclean', but this word has a different connotation in this context from its connotation in a 'ritual-purity' context. Also, there are some repercussions between the two systems of'dietary law' and 'ritual purity'; for example, someone who touches the carcase of a forbidden animal becomes ritually unclean (Lev. 11:26). He is not forbidden to touch such a carcase, but is required to undergo ablution before entering holy areas, or eating or touching holy food, if he has become ritually unclean in this or any other way. Thus to eat 'forbidden food' was a very serious matter, while to incur 'ritual impurity' was not serious at all, but was an inevitable part of everyday living, for which the easily available remedy was the ritual bath (miqweh).
Table fellowship in New Testament?
quote:
pp.13-14
The New Testament, too, is far from assigning a tiny, unassuming role to the Pharisees. Though critical of Pharisaic attention to tithing, it ascribes a very wide range of authority to the Pharisees, saying that 'they sit in Moses' seat' (Matt. 23:2), and, though it makes some reference to ritual-purity observances, such as hand-washing and vessel-washing, it nowhere identifies the Pharisees with the 'table-fellowships', which, indeed, are not even mentioned in the New Testament. (It is only a modern scholarly theory, based on nothing in the texts, that relates Jesus' association with sinners to the question of ritual purity and 'table-fellowship'.) The impression of the Pharisees given by the New Testament, though hostile, is certainly not one of an insignificant group, taking no part in the general life of the nation.
It was about other issues.
quote:
pp.67-74
The Ne'eman and the Haber
Mishnah Demai 2:2-3
"He who undertakes to be a neeman, tithes that which he eats and that which he sells and that which he buys; and he does not accept an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-9ares. Rabbi Judah says: Even if he accepts an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-'ares, he is a ne'eman. They said to him: He is not trustworthy about himself; how can be be trustworthy about what belongs to others? He that undertakes to be a haber does not sell to an 'am ha-9ares either wet or dry, and does not buy from him wet, and does not accept an invitation to a meal with him and does not invite him to a meal in his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: Also he does not raise small cattle, and he is not free with vows or with merriment, and he does not allow himself to become unclean through a corpse, and he frequents the House of Study. They said to him: These things do not come under this heading."
There are many misapprehensions, found even in scholarly books, about the 'table-fellowships' and their aims. The present passage is important for a true understanding of these voluntary groups.
neeman: literally, 'one who is trusted'.
The neeman groups were not essentially attached to the 'table-fellowships' as a kind of apprentice stage, though some individuals might graduate from being a neeman to joining a haburah ('table-fellowship'). The ne'eman was one who had made an 'undertaking' in relation to tithes only, while the 'undertaking' of a haber concerned both tithes and ritual purity, primarily the latter. It is important to understand that someone who was neither a ne'eman nor a haber, was not thereby regarded as a sinner, since the life of these special groups was one of supererogatory virtue, in the area pertaining to their vow, or 'undertaking'. tithes that which he eats: this was not a biblical obligation, because, according to Scripture, it was the duty of the farmer to separate the tithes, and non-farmers could legitimately rely on the trustworthiness of farmers in this respect.
However, since the farmers had come under suspicion of not separating some of the tithes, it had become a matter of supererogatory virtue to separate tithes even from cereals bought from dealers, though it was quite possible that these had already been tithed. The name given to such 'doubtful' cereals was demai. Societies were thus formed of people who had 'undertaken' to be 'trustworthy' in relation to tithes. Such people would always separate tithes from produce, unless they bought it from another member of a tithe-society, who could be trusted to have separated tithes, or to have bought it from a farmer whom he knew to be trustworthy. Since demai produce was not known to be untithed, and since there was no real obligation on anyone except the farmer to separate tithes, there were many leniencies in relation to demai produce: for example, it might be given to the poor, who were not required to suffer deprivation because of such scruples. (See M. Dem. 1:2 and 3:1 for other such leniencies.)
The most important tithes (those due to the priests) were not made subject to the rules of demai, as the farmers were not suspected of neglecting them; also, the Levites' Tithe and the Poor Man's Tithe were never included in the calculations, since they were regarded as only payable when full proof that the produce was untithed was available. Consequently, even the neeman societies only concerned themselves with about half the tithes that were due. These considerations should be borne in mind, because there has been much exaggeration about the extent to which the tithe and purity societies divided the Jewish people. It should be noted that the rules oidemai, so far from being biblical (de-oraita) were not even regarded as being rabbinical (de-rabbanan), but rather as applying only to people who had given a voluntary 'undertaking' to observe them. It is clear from certain passages that the people who decided to give this 'undertaking' did not belong to any particular class; some of the learned Pharisaic class, for example, are known not to have been among them.
and that which he sells and that which he buys:
this means that if he buys produce not to eat but to sell, he tithes it before he sells it: anyone buying from him knows that the produce has been certainly tithed. His customers, therefore, are likely to be other members of the society, who would not be obliged to separate further tithes, but would probably pay more than the market price.
"he does not accept an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares":
the term 'am ha-ares (literally 'people of the land', but employed to mean 'person of the land') means here simply someone who is not a member of a tithing or purity society (see, however, pp. 126 and 142 for other usages of the term). An 'am ha-ares, then, was not necessarily someone who deliberately ate produce which he knew to be untithed. He was much more likely to be someone who ate produce on the assumption that it had been tithed, relying on the fact that the biblical responsibility to tithe lay on the farmer, not on him. The prohibition against accepting an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares does not, therefore, imply any strong disapproval of his way of life, or stigmatize him as a sinner. It simply means that the special vow or 'undertaking' of the society-member precludes him from partaking in meals that are not guaranteed to comply with the conditions of his vow. To give a modern analogy, someone who is on a special diet might refuse an invitation to dinner without in any way casting reproach on his intended host. It should be noted, furthermore, that such a refusal would not lead to the breaking off of friendly relations between the ne'eman and his 'am ha-ares friend, since there was no objection whatever to their sharing a meal at the house of the ne'eman, while the 'am ha-ares perfectly under-stood that his friend's vow precluded him from accepting invitations. Such arrangements are quite common even among modern Jews who have different standards of observance of food laws (kasrut).
Rabbi Judah says: Even if he accepts an invitation to a meal with an 'ama-ares, he is a neeman\
Rabbi Judah here means Rabbi Judah ben Il'ai, a very prominent authority in the Mishnah, where he is always called simply 'Rabbi Judah' (not to be confused with Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah, who is called 'Rabbi'). Rabbi Judah ben Il'ai was a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, and flourished about AD 130 (see p. 45). Rabbi Judah's point here is that a ne'eman may be trusted to know whether his friend, the 'am ha-'ares, can be relied on to respect his friend's vow to the extent of putting before him at a meal only food bought from a ne'eman shopkeeper. Even one who normally does not keep to neeman rules can be trusted to do so on occasion, when hospitality demands such conduct. Rabbi Judah's attitude would be unintelligible on the view often put forward, that all friendship between society-members and the 'am ha-ares was impossible. On the other hand, there is no great gulf between Rabbi Judah and his opponents on this issue, since both would agree that a meal in the neeman's house to which the 'am ha-ares was invited would be unobjectionable.
They said to him: an expression implying that there was a majority against him. The view of the majority was that the vow of a ne'eman obliged him not to rely on anyone except a (fellow-ne'eman in tithing matters. If he relaxed this rule in relation to his own conduct, he could not be trusted to observe the rules in relation to fellow members.
He that undertakes to be a haber: to observe special rules of purity, in addition to special rules of tithing. Here, too, an 'undertaking' or vow was necessary because the society was under a special rule that went beyond the requirements of normal Judaism. The essence of a haber s 'undertaking' was 'to eat ordinary food (hullin) in purity', i.e. to avoid imparting ritual impurity to ordinary food. Normally, there was no obligation to do this, for biblical law forbade only the imparting of impurity to holy food (see p. 53).
The haber underwent ablutions in the ritual pool similar to those that were obligatory for the priest before eating his priestly food (terumah). Those who were not haberim were even less under a stigma than those who were not ne'eman, for, whereas the neeman was concerned about a possible breach of the law of tithing (even though such a breach was not really his responsibility), the haber was not concerned even about a possible breach, but only engaged in an exercise of supererogatory piety.
does not sell to an 'am ha-ares\
an 'am ha-ares means here anyone who is not a haber, and may even include a ne'eman, since the latter is 'trustworthy' only in relation to tithes, not ritual impurity. The reason why a haber does not sell produce to an 'am ha-ares is that the haber has undertaken not to be instrumental in the conveying of impurity to ordinary food.
Consequently, the haber sells produce only to his fellow-haber im, who will handle ordinary food in the same way that he does himself. This does not imply disapproval of the way of life of the 'am ha-'ares, who is not bound by any 'undertaking', and is quite entitled to ignore purity questions when eating ordinary food. Note that it is only in connection with produce of the Land of Israel that the haber gives his 'undertaking'. Since the whole of the Land of Israel was regarded as an extension of the Temple, and thus as holy territory, it was natural for some people, as an exercise in piety, to undertake voluntarily to treat its products as if they were subject to the same restrictions that governed the handling of holy food, such as the terumah. There was also a practical reason why a small minority of laymen should keep themselves in a constant state of ritual purity: in order to assist the priests in the collection of the terumah (see p. 96).
either wet or dry, and does not buy from him wet:
only produce that had been moistened was susceptible to ritual impurity, in accordance with Lev. 11:37-8, 'When any of their dead bodies falls on seed intended for sowing, it remains clean; but if the seed has been soaked in water and any dead body falls on it, you shall treat it as unclean' (see M. Maks.) The haber may buy grain from the 'am ha-ares as long as it has never been purposely moistened and thus cannot have acquired any impurity. It is noteworthy that the 'am ha-ares is trusted to say whether grain, which may be dry at present, has been moistened at any time in the past. For the degree of trust in which the 'am ha-ares was held, see also p. 96.
The haber, however, must not sell grain to an 'am ha-ares whether wet or dry, because this would be to hand it over to impurity.
does not accept an invitation to a meal with him:
here there is no dissenting opinion. Whereas it was conceivable for an 'am ha-'ares to be trusted in relation to tithes since it was a simple matter to provide tithed food for a guest, it was far too much to expect an 'am ha-ares to put his food, his house and himself into a state of purity in order to receive a guest. and does not invite him to a meal in his own garment: social relations between the haber and the 'am ha-'ares are not ruled out completely, for the haber may entertain his friend who is an 'am ha-'ares, as long as the latter puts on a garment provided by the haber as he enters the house; this is rather like the donning of white coats and masks in a modern hospital by visitors to a surgical theatre. The 'am ha-ares, however, is not required to cover his face or hands, because he would see that these were at the required standard of purity before visiting his haber friend. While it was relatively easy to avoid contact of face and hands with a source of impurity, such as the dead body of a 'creeping thing', it was regarded as more difficult to preserve the purity of one's clothes; this indeed formed part of the apprenticeship of one entering a haburah. For a further instance of the distinction made between persons and their clothes in ritual-purity matters, see p. 94. he does not raise small cattle: i.e. sheep or goats.
By an ordinance of the rabbis, probably dated about AD 60, it was forbidden to raise small cattle in any areas where they might damage crops, though it was permitted in semi-wilderness areas. Rabbi Judah probably means that the haber, being dedicated to a life of supererogatory virtue, should not raise small cattle anywhere, since they might stray and damage crops. It is somewhat ironic that sheep-rearing, associated with the Patriarchs and with ideal figures such as David, should have acquired such disrepute in our era.
he is not free with vows:
Rabbi Judah is probably referring to idle vows made merely for emphasis, which were not considered legally binding; but the rabbis also frowned on the making of vows generally, unless for a special religious purpose.
or with merriment:
he must preserve a grave demeanour. Similarly, the Community Rule of the Qumran sect prescribes 'Whoever has guffawed foolishly shall do penance for thirty days'. he does not allow himself to become unclean through a corpse: according to the Bible, this rule applies only to priests (Lev. 21:1). Rabbi Judah thus wants the haber to behave like a priest. Exaggerated as Rabbi Judah's attitude is, it is quite clear from his remarks that the practice of the haburah was never intended as a norm for all Israelites.
It would be impossible to discharge important religious duties if everybody refused to become unclean through a corpse. Note that this is the only form of impurity forbidden to a priest, and even this is waived if the priest is the only person available to bury the corpse.
he frequents the House of Study:
the haber was to combine the character of the ritual-purity devotee with that of the talmid hakam, or man of learning. These things do not come under this heading: Rabbi Judah is overruled by his colleagues, who do not want to extend the concept of the haburah to make it into a kind of contemplative order, but to restrict it to its original purpose, which was to act as a special group devoted to ritual purity. *The passage is very instructive about the nature of the haburah and the neeman fellowship. Neither of these groups was like the Qumran sect, which regarded itself as an oasis of righteousness in a desert of wickedness. On the other hand, they were not quite like the Christian monastic orders, leading a life isolated from the community. The essence of these Jewish groups was that they dedicated themselves to the perfection of one particular aspect of Judaism, while by no means abandoning the rest. The imperfect analogy with Christian monastic orders is, however, helpful.
Just as a Trappist monk does not regard the ordinary church member as sinful because he talks, so a haber did not repudiate as sinful the practice of the 'am ha-are$, who followed biblical law in not bothering about ritual purity except on special occasions, and in leaving tithing to the farmers.
**Note that 'ritual purity' is quite a different thing from the 'dietary laws', though these two topics are often confused. The 'dietary laws' consist of prohibitions against the eating of certain animals, birds, fish and insects. These prohibitions are biblical (see Lev. 11), and are obligatory on all Jews (but not on non-Jews). Consequently, no societies of haberim were formed to observe these laws, since they were obligatory, not supererogatory. Included also in the dietary laws is the prohibition against eating the flesh even of permitted animals unless they have been slaughtered by the method called sehifah; this law is not found explicitly in the Bible, but was regarded as an halakah le-Moseh mi-Sinai (see p. 4). If permitted meat was not available, Jews would sometimes resort to vegetarianism, as did Daniel and his companions (Dan. 1:8-16), not as a matter of'ritual purity' but of kasrut ('permitted food'). The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that the language of'defilement' is occasionally used in relation to forbidden foods, which are sometimes called 'unclean', but this word has a different connotation in this context from its connotation in a 'ritual-purity' context. Also, there are some repercussions between the two systems of'dietary law' and 'ritual purity'; for example, someone who touches the carcase of a forbidden animal becomes ritually unclean (Lev. 11:26). He is not forbidden to touch such a carcase, but is required to undergo ablution before entering holy areas, or eating or touching holy food, if he has become ritually unclean in this or any other way. Thus to eat 'forbidden food' was a very serious matter, while to incur 'ritual impurity' was not serious at all, but was an inevitable part of everyday living, for which the easily available remedy was the ritual bath (miqweh).
Late edit:
Demai mean this
quote:
p. xiv
demai (derivation not certainly known): produce about which there is doubt whether it has been tithed
de-rabbanan ('of the rabbis' or 'rabbinical', Aramaic): descriptive of laws instituted by human authority (opposite: de-oraita).
derasa ('interpretation', from the root daras, 'to search', see derus and midrash): an interpretation, using rabbinic hermeneutic methods, of a scriptural text, not necessarily in a work of the genre midrash (see pesat).
Pork (and all kosher food requirements) is not "cultic"!
Not "ceremonial"!
Not "ritual"!
We (humans of all religions or of no religion) actually do have a "Jewish" religion to check this stuff.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 75 of 75 (856885)
07-03-2019 7:32 PM


Scripture tells us what about people in an "unclean" state?
From the great scholar Hyam Maccoby (in the same Cambridge work):
quote:
pp.53-54
Priests who had become unclean through contact with some impurity such as a dead 'creeping thing' were forbidden to touch or eat the priestly food, or terumah (given from the harvests to the priests by Israelites, see Num. 18:8-11), though they were permitted to touch or eat non-priestly food. Priests who had immersed themselves in the ritual pool (miqweh) in the morning in order to cleanse themselves of their impurity, still had to wait until the evening before eating terumah (Lev. 22:6).
During the period from the morning immersion to the coming out of the stars, a person is termed a tebul yom ('he who immersed that day'). In this state, a person is regarded as having a mild degree of impurity, sufficient to transfer impurity to holy food but not to ordinary food. Thus a haber, or member of a table-fellowship, may eat his food even when he is a tebul yom, for, although his vow or 'undertaking' compels him to eat even ordinary food 'in purity' (i.e. without conveying impurity to it), the mild degree of impurity adhering to a tebul yom is insufficient to convey impurity to ordinary food. For further explanation of ritual-purity matters, see pp. 67, 94-100. It should be remembered that ordinary Israelites (non-priests) were not much concerned about ritual purity, since being in a state of impurity, or conveying it to ordinary food, was not sinful in law. Only priests, or those laymen who made the special voluntary vow of the table-fellowships, had daily concern in the matter; and the seriousness involved was much greater for the priest than for the haber, since the priest had to worry about committing sacrilege, while the haber only had to worry about a possible breach of his vow. Moreover, as we have just seen, the task of the haber was less arduous than that of the priest, ordinary food being less susceptible to impurity than holy food.
So much for this "cultic" (aka "ceremonial", "ritual") sin excuse when it comes to pork and these supposed big "fellowship" divisions in Christianity.
There was no breaking off contact between Jewish folks or "purity" and non purity(in fact, meals could be had together!)
quote:
p.69
there has been much exaggeration about the extent to which the tithe and purity societies divided the Jewish people.
....
The prohibition against accepting an invitation to a meal with an 'am ha-ares does not, therefore, imply any strong disapproval of his way of life, or stigmatize him as a sinner.
....
It should be noted, furthermore, that such a refusal would not lead to the breaking off of friendly relations between the ne'eman and his 'am ha-ares friend, since there was no objection whatever to their sharing a meal at the house of the ne'eman,
Pork was still a sin. A moral/ethical sin.
The (via Christian scholar's claim) claimed "universal agreement" among "scholars" that Acts 15:20-29 is about "ritual" (aka "cultic", "ceremonial") sin centering around (table?) fellowship is a lie.
It is a lie that can only be gotten away with when opposing views were short lived: that is held by people soon to be killed (in a manner similar to Servetus). Truth was always told a a small number or marked & muted people.
(amazing that circumcision was not required by gentile-Christians, as per the Apostolic Council, but Christian scholars still keep a straight face/pen while claiming Acts 15 was somehow only an expedient set of meaningless words meant to sound good to a first century Jewish Christian - yes, circumcision not required!)
What about today?
Here is a hint:
3 billion Christians (of the European Christianity offshoot branch)
15 million Jewish people
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024