Did Jesus Exist?

[currentchristian]

The problem with the other religions of the time is that they really didn't write anything down like the Jews and Christians did. Much of what we know of many of these religions, such as Mithra, comes from the artwork that remains and what others wrote about the cult and their ways. We know some written documents did exist but were destroyed and so only bits and pieces remain. Perhaps we will discover a cache of pagan documents someday that can really shed light on this question?

 

However, it is clear that the religion did borrow elements from others. The question is when, where and how much? Symbolic elements can be much stronger (the image of the woman holding the child) than the names of the woman or the child. So does a name changing at a particular time disrupt that image? No. The continuity of the image remains and that is often what matters. Look at how the Nazis usurped imagery for themselves. Other dictators do as well. This can be used in both positive and negative manners. In a world where most people are illiterate the imagery is far more important than the actual words on a page.

 

Also, consider that the Greek gods were known by both their Greek and Roman names for hundreds of years. The fact that a name changed wasn't universal or immediate (or even manditory really as long as proper respect was paid). I've heard it said that most pagan religions changed to suit people's lives. We tend to think about lives changing to suit religion.

 

Anyhow, back to your point. I didn't read the entire article (just your quotes). You won't find any "holy books" for these religions. They never existed. That simply wasn't their way of doing things. You will find books that compile what we know about these religions and that's it. Informative, yes, but nothing like picking up a "Mithra Bible" for yourself. If you find such a thing let me know since I have looked far and wide. The artwork and interpretation (and historic writings) are quite nice however and well worth a look. I'd personally love to get a look at the Mithraic church that's supposedly under the Vatican.

 

mwc

 

This is an excellent analysis. Fair, honest, forthright, sensible. A great response to a complex issue.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

I've already given all his books a quick read and have finished book 2 with a more critical eye.

 

I appreciate your taking the time to actually read this stuff.

 

mwc

 

I have had a chance to read all of Book II. Very interesting read.

 

I have a couple of thoughts relating to the issue at hand -- where is Jesus in this bishop's letters?

 

Perhaps Jesus, unnamed or untitled, is found in Chapter 10: "...God made all things out of nothing....His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things....by His Word God created the heavens and the earth."

 

Reading this passage from our vantage point, one could easily read the NT Jesus into this text as "the Word" begotten by God, through whom God made the worlds. Very similar language is found in John 1 and in some of Paul's letters. But this does not establish that this is what Theophilus is doing; we do not know that his "Word" is the Jesus of the NT.

 

There may be a quote of Jesus' from Luke 18.27 in Chapter 13: "For the things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Theophilus quotes this saying, without attribution to Jesus or mention of Luke's gospel. Nevertheless, it does seem to be the Jesus saying from Luke.

 

In Chapter 15, Theophilus, at least in this translation employs the word "Trinity" to refer to "God...His Word, and His wisdom." We don't have here a "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," but some posit that this is the first direct mention of a "trinity" by a Christian author.

 

In Chapter 16, Theophilus writes of "remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." This seems very much so to be NT Christian language.

 

Chapter 17 might just have a Pauline quote from Colossians 3.1 (in bold): "For those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God."

 

In Chapter 22, he again reverts to "Word" language: "The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but his Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden [of Eden] in the person of God, and conversed with Adam." This passage seems to indicate that God is manifest on earth in his "Word." In light of John 1, this could very well be a reference to Jesus. In fact, in this chapter, Theophilus quotes directly from John's gospel, calling John (by name) "a spirit-bearing [inspired]" man who wrote, and then he quotes the familiar passage, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God." Theophilus continues by stating that this Word was "in Him [God]" and was "God" by virtue of being "produced by God" and that God sends the Word "to any place...and He...is both heard and seen." While the name Jesus is not referenced or the title Christ (or any of the variations thereof), this seems to be a direct reference to the Jesus of John's gospel.

 

I love Theophilus' admonition in the final chapter of Book II: "He then, who is desirous of learning, should learn much. Endeavour therefore to meet [with me] more frequently, that, by hearing the living voice, you may accurately ascertain the truth." We are doing just that!

 

What do you think, mwc, about the possibility that the Jesus of the NT is (at least) obliquely referenced in Book II? I'm on to Book III.

 

-CC

[trashy]

When the prosecution and defense rest their cases, each person must answer for him/herself the piercing question the alleged Jesus is alleged to have asked: "Who do you say that I am?" Good men and woman, smart men and women, honest men and women, spiritual men and women, can arrive at very different answers to that question.

 

-CC

From my perspective the proper question is "Did he exist?" not "Who was he?" If he didn't exist, there is no 'who' to discuss.

[mwc]

I wrote up a short synopsis of Book 1 of Theophilus' writings to his pagan friend. I thought I'd write up something similar for Book 2 and it turned out to be much, much longer (I knew it was longer but it's more than twice as long...I wouldn't have started if I would have looked at this first but as usual I just jumped right in).

 

Anyway, I did all the work and instead of letting it go to waste I'm just going to go ahead and post it all despite its length. Hopefully someone will get something out of it. If not, I learned a bit from the exercise. If people do actually read and enjoy this one there is one last book of his that I can write something similar about. It would be a little shorter than this posting (which is four parts for 38 chapters). Let me know if I should go ahead or if you've had enough (I'll just discuss the major "highlights" and be finished with him then).

 

-----

 

THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS

BOOK II

 

CHAP. I.--OCCASION OF WRITING THIS BOOK.

When we had formerly some conversation, my very good friend Autolycus, and when you inquired who was my God, and for a little paid attention to my discourse, I made some explanations to you concerning my religion; and then having bid one another adieu, we went with much mutual friendliness each to his own house although at first you had home somewhat hard upon me. For you know and remember that you supposed our doctrine was foolishness. As you then afterwards urged me to do, I am desirous, though not educated to the art of speaking, of more accurately demonstrating, by means of this tractate, the vain labour and empty worship in which you are held; and I wish also, from a few of your own histories which you read, and perhaps do not yet quite understand, to make the truth plain to you.

It seemed easiest to simply allow the author to speak for himself as to why he was writing this second book.

 

CHAP. II.--THE GODS ARE DESPISED WHEN THEY ARE MADE; BUT BECOME VALUABLE WHEN BOUGHT.

And in truth it does seem to me absurd that statuaries and carvers, or painters, or moulders, should both design and paint, and carve, and mould, and prepare gods, who, when they are produced by the artificers, are reckoned of no value; but as soon as they are purchased by some and placed in some so-called temple, or in some house, not only do those who bought them sacrifice to them, but also those who made and sold them come with much devotion, and apparatus of sacrifice, and libations, to worship them; and they reckon them gods, not seeing that they are just such as when they were made by themselves, whether stone, or brass, or wood, or colour, or some other material. And this is your case, too, when you read the histories and genealogies of the so-called gods. For when you read of their births, you think of them as men, but afterwards you call them gods, and worship them, not reflecting nor understanding that, when born, they are exactly such beings as ye read of before.

The bishop makes an excellent point to his pagan friend about idols. They are simply wood or whatever, and worthless, but have value as gods upon completion...even to those who made them. How absurd!

 

However, in the second portion is he also insulting his own? Why would he mock the histories and genealogies of a so-called god? Why would he mock the story of a god being born and thinking of a god as a man? Why would he mock worshiping this same now born god? Why would he mock the very foundation of his own religion in an attack of his pagan friend?

 

Surely he realizes that his own god has two histories, two genealogies, two stories of his birth and is the bishop's object of worship? Surely he realizes that he will need to inform his pagan friend of this? Perhaps their is no object in a temple, made of wood or stone, but is his friend so easily fooled by the absence of the object itself? This religion is identical to the pagan religion of his friend minus the man-made idol of stone or wood? It seems that is the argument in its best light.

 

CHAP. III.--WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE GODS?

He asks the same question of his pagan friend that is asked of Christians today. Where are the gods? Of course he phrases it a bit different but the essence is the same. So if it was valid to ask of the pagans then I guess it is still valid today. The answer now is "We can't search the entire universe and alternate universes and so YHWH could be stashed there" and our good bishop made a similar response on the pagan's behalf 2000 years ago. Seems everyone likes to think their god(s) are "just out of sight/reach" but they're "really real."

 

I find it ironic that this (and likely other Christians) find pagans beliefs equally foolish as people find Christian beliefs today. The arguments are even nearly identical. What does this tell the Christians? Not that they have anything original but it's all the same once you leave the accepted, entrenched, belief system. These are the questions you ask of it. The only difference is that we're not trying to replace it with a new religion (some might say science but I don't know if that's a valid answer or not).

 

CHAP. IV.--ABSURD OPINIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS CONCERNING GOD.

Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there is no God at all; or, if there is, they say that He cares for none but Himself; and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set forth at large. And others say that all things are produced without external agency, and that the world is uncreated, and that nature is eternal; and have dared to give out that there is no providence of God at all, but maintain that God is only each man's conscience. And others again maintain that the spirit which pervades all things is God. ...

He goes on to give his opinion of all these things (you can see agnosticism, atheism, evolution, deism and whatever just in those three sentences and this was 2000 years ago). He then argues a modified version of Plato's version of God (only god pre-exists and he made matter because if anything else pre-existed then it would be co-equal with god and unalterable even by god).

 

I just find it funny that he's attacking his friends' "church fathers" just as I am now. It wasn't immediately effective but Christianity eventually won out. Hopefully whatever "wins" this next time around doesn't leave the same legacy and instead of a "Dark Ages" we get something more.

 

CHAP. V.--OPINIONS OF HOMER AND HESIOD CONCERNING THE GODS.

So that the opinion of your philosophers and authors is discordant; for while the former have propounded the foregoing opinions, the poet Homer is found explaining the origin not only of the world, but also of the gods, on quite another hypothesis. ... Then he introduces in his poem the daughters of Jupiter, whom he names Muses, and as whose suppliant he appears, desiring to ascertain from them how all things were made; ... But how could the Muses, who are younger than the world, know these things? Or how could they relate to Hesiod [what was happening], when their father was not yet born?

He points out inconsistencies in the origin of the creation of the earth and the birth of the gods. Apparently he finds it silly that such inconsistencies could exist in such an important story. Perhaps his friend is a "cherry picking" pagan?

 

CHAP. VI.--HESIOD ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD.

... "First of all things was chaos made, and next Broad-bosom'd earth's foundations firm were fixed, Where safely the immortals dwell for aye, Who in the snowy-peak'd Olympus stay.

 

Afterwards gloomy Tartarus had birth In the recesses of broad-pathwayed earth, And Love, ev'n among gods most beauteous still, Who comes all-conquering, bending mind and will, Delivering from care, and giving then Wise counsel in the breasts of gods and men.

 

From chaos Erebus and night were born, From night and Erebus sprung air and morn.

 

Earth in her likeness made the starry heaven, That unto all things shelter might be given, And that the blessed gods might there repose.

 

The lofty mountains by her power arose, For the wood-nymphs she made the pleasant caves, Begot the sterile sea with all his waves, Loveless; but when by heaven her love was sought, Then the deep-eddying ocean forth she brought."

 

And saying this, he has not yet explained by whom all this was made. ...

I wasn't going to post the poem but he's quite unhappy that it simply doesn't say "goddidit." I thought the poem was quite nice. First there was chaos and then order (I'm way, way over-simplifying it obviously).

 

CHAP. VII.--FABULOUS HEATHEN GENEALOGIES.

Why need I recount the Greek fables,--of Pluto, king of darkness, of Neptune descending beneath the sea, and embracing Melanippe and begetting a cannibal son,--or the many tales your writers have woven into their tragedies concerning the sons of Jupiter, and whose pedigree they register because they were born men, and not gods? ...

 

...

He then notes that the reason gods are born is so men can trace their heritage to them. He then gives a rather lengthy list of lineages to back his claim.

 

This didn't seem to happen with the Jesus story as far as we know.

 

CHAP. VIII.--OPINIONS CONCERNING PROVIDENCE.

And why should I recount further the vast array of such names and genealogies? So that all the authors and poets, and those called philosophers, are wholly deceived; and so, too, are they who give heed to them. For they plentifully composed fables and foolish stories about their gods, and did not exhibit them as gods, but as men, and men, too, of whom some were drunken, and others fornicators and murderers. ...

Oh, and he was doing so well up until this point too. He once again mocks the pagans for something his own religion is guilty of doing. His god is also a man and shown as a man by the authors that wrote their stories. At least his god-man is of a higher moral character and not shown as drunkard, fornicator and/or murderer.

 

He then immediately switched gears and speaks of the creation of the world once again. He then quotes from various philosophers to show how inconsistent their beliefs are. This is much like quoting from all the church fathers to show how inconsistent Christianity truly is.

 

I don't have his ultimate trump card however. I cannot say that sometimes, when casting out a demon, they announce the truth that they have really lying to the world this whole time via these writers. Darn the luck!

 

CHAP. IX.--THE PROPHET'S INSPIRED BY THE HOLY GHOST.

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars. And there was not one or two, but many, at various times and seasons among the Hebrews; and also among the Greeks there was the Sibyl; and they all have spoken things consistent and harmonious with each other, both what happened before them and what happened in their own time, and what things are now being fulfilled in our own day: wherefore we are persuaded also concerning the future things that they will fall out, as also the first have been accomplished.

Now he's getting down to it. He's telling his friend how the system works.

 

The spirit of god goes into a person and they become "God-taught." No in-person instruction is mentioned. Hopefully he will clarify who a prophet is for us.

 

He says a lot about the prophet's here. They appear to all be in the past. They spoke of the creation and "all other things" (he's really caught up in the creation...apparently this is quite an issue for our bishop friend). The predicted the usual stuff: "pestilences, famines and wars." There were a lot of prophets both for the Hebrews and the Greeks (the Sibyls). The predicted the past, their present and their future (the bishop's present). From this he believes they will have correctly predicted the future (his future, our past and maybe our present and future too...but at least his future).

 

Since the Sibyls are valid "prophets" according to a bishop of the Christian church Christians should now be able to refer to their words without hesitation. So why aren't the Sibyls words available to all without guilt? They are co-equal with the prophets.

 

CHAP. X.--THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD.

I went through this chapter in my opening statement on this writer so I won't repeat it here (I should probably create a link to it but I'm being lazy after typing all of this).

 

I say again that this is where he speaks of the "word" and "wisdom" but in a very Jewish way. If he's aware of G.John he misses a key moment to tie this to Jesus. He also quotes Solomon from Proverbs 8 (I had to look that up) which is the chapter on, you guessed it, wisdom. I'll get back to this later.

 

[continued next message so quotes will work correctly - 1/4]

[mwc]

[continued from last message - 2/4]

 

CHAP. XI.--THE SIX DAYS' WORK DESCRIBED.

Now, the beginning of the creation is light; since light manifests the things that are created. ...

Here he quotes what appears to be the LXX version of Genesis 1 (I don't have the LXX text but it's not the version I'm used to and I know they used the LXX heavily then).

 

This tells me that he's not afraid to quote a lot of text if it suits his purpose. He's trying to make another point too but not in this chapter. This chapter is nothing but Genesis.

 

CHAP. XII.--THE GLORY OF THE SIX DAYS' WORK.

... For it is not meet that God be conquered by pleasure; since even men of temperance abstain from all base pleasure and wicked lust.

He describes the six days of work as beyond description and no one can even come close. There are seven days to a week and people take that day off and behave even if they don't know why. Obviously, here's why.

 

CHAP. XIII.--REMARKS ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.

Moreover, his [Hesiod's] human, and mean, and very weak conception, so far as regards God, is discovered in his beginning to relate the creation of all things from the earthly things here below. For man, being below, begins to build from the earth, and cannot in order make the roof, unless he has first laid the foundation. But the power of God is shown in this, that, first of all, He creates out of nothing, according to His will, the things that are made. "For the things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Wherefore, also, the prophet mentioned that the creation of the heavens first of all took place, as a kind of roof, saying: "At the first God created the heavens"--that is, that by means of the "first" principle the heavens were made, as we have already shown. ... The command, then, of God, that is, His Word, shining as a lamp in an enclosed chamber, lit up all that was under heaven, when He had made light apart from the world. ...

Do you recognize that first bold statement? Take a close look. Do you recognize it now? It's G.LUKE! He has the document. He quotes from it anonymously. But it's G.Luke 18:27 "27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." He doesn't even acknowledge his master's words here. From one believer to another the silence might be understandable but from a believer to a pagan? You would most certainly mention his name, especially, in a direct quote.

 

In the next line he simply continues on with "the prophet" meaning, more than likely, Moses since we're discussing Genesis.

 

Now, then again, perhaps we can find that there is just no real reason to mention, or even cite, Jesus in this context even with the direct quote. BUT! It proves he supposedly had the document OR a document with THAT saying on it. Because if he had G.Luke why did he not know that a man had died and come back from the dead for his Book 1? All the answers he didn't have from Book 1 are answered, nice and neat, in G.Luke. Since we know that quote is in G.Luke we are simply assuming that he is holding a copy of G.Luke.

 

He then describes the "word" as the light from Genesis. If he has G.John he likely wouldn't make that connection (so does he have G.John?). Do we make that connection? We do say Jesus is the "light of the world" but it's symbolic. He's quite literal as he believes the heavens to be a literal dome on the earth (read it for yourself). Anyhow, this is where much, if not all, of the whole idea that Jesus, as the "word," is the one that did the actually creating of things.

 

CHAP. XIV.--THE WORLD COMPARED TO THE SEA.

Consider, further, their variety, and diverse beauty, and multitude, and how through them resurrection is exhibited, for a pattern of the resurrection of all men which is to be. For who that considers it will not marvel that a fig-tree is produced from a fig-seed, or that very huge trees grow from the other very little seeds? And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea, if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness; so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets flowing and welling up sweetness, and compassion, and righteousness, and the doctrine of the holy commandments of God, would long ere now have come to ruin, by reason of the wickedness and sin which abound in it. And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable, and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbours in which the storm-tossed may find refuge,--so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies --we mean holy churches --in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God. And as, again, there are other islands, rocky and without water, and barren, and infested by wild beasts, and uninhabitable, and serving only to injure navigators and the storm-tossed, on which ships are wrecked, and those driven among them perish,--so there are doctrines of error--I mean heresies --which destroy those who approach them. For they are not guided by the word of truth; but as pirates, when they have filled their vessels, drive them on the fore-mentioned places, that they may spoil them: so also it happens in the case of those who err from the truth, that they are all totally ruined by their error.

He obviously has some of the texts. We've established G.Luke so far. Shouldn't JESUS be the pattern of the resurrection of all men? Sure, that other stuff is nice, but we have one KNOWN case to point to from a little over a hundred years prior. How about Lazarus? The soldiers daughter (that was supposedly "sleeping?")? If he has G.Matthew all those dead saints that came out of their tombs? He should have many recent examples, whose stories have spread far and wide from not only the apostles and disciples but those people who were around in those days who certainly spoke of those dead people getting up like that. But no, he opts for a fig tree story. Is that it? This is what it's about?

 

No, wait, there's more. They compare the world to the sea. Get ready because this must be one of their best examples. The heavy hitter.

 

The church, HIS CHURCH, is an island teaching a doctrine of truth. All others are heresies. This is all fed with the Law of God and the prophets. Also the doctrine of the holy commandments. Where is Jesus? What about the Christ? What about his sacrifice sent for the salvation of the world? Not so much as a hint that this might be something God wants anyone to know or a requirement for anything. Just deafening silence.

 

But maybe he's holding back for an even better moment to tell his friend of this most wonderful person and the very foundation of all things Christianity?

 

CHAP. XV.--OF THE FOURTH DAY.

On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. ... In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. ...

The thing about his first sentence is that he calls the philosophers vain as the believe plants need light to grow when he's so obviously wrong. I guess the spirit doesn't have a science degree (or even basic science)?

 

Next he gives an explanation of the "Trinity." Is this an explanation of an existing and accepted doctrine, his opinion or the invention of the trinity? He seems to originate quite a few of these types of ideas. However, "trinities," were not a foreign idea to pagans at all and his effort to supplant the existing concept of a high Greek god with his own Jewish version this introduction is not surprising. He's already usurped the Sibyls as prophets of Yahweh, instead of the Greek gods, for example. A trinitarian "overlay" isn't far fetched. Note, he's yet to introduce anything other than spiritual for Yahweh. There is still NO physical manifestation or the slightest hint of one being born and dying in Judea even though his friend is also familiar with this concept as well.

 

CHAP. XVI.--OF THE FIFTH DAY.

... Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. ... The race, then, of fishes and of creeping things, though partaking of God's blessing, received no very distinguishing property.

It looks as if he tries to relate the fifth day to baptism. He also mentions that the fish and fowl don't hurt the lessor animals and keep the word of God but other larger animals eat meat and are hurtful. So if you follow God you are righteous and do no harm. Looking at the last line, and the rest (that I didn't post), it appears that this is more than likely why Christians adopted the sign of the fish and NOT because they were "fishers of men" (or because of the other theory I heard which was the dawning of the age of Pisces...although all of these could play into it). Essentially it was to "be like a fish."

 

CHAP. XVII.--OF THE SIXTH DAY.

... For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him. For as, if the master of the house himself acts rightly, the domestics also of necessity conduct themselves well; but if the master sins, the servants also sin with him; so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.

He talks about the creation of animals and finishes up with this take on the original sin.

 

The odd thing is how we restore things. When we "have made [our] way back to [our] natural condition and no longer does evil?" How so? By faith in Jesus? After he returns and slaughters his enemies and sets up a huge clear gold Jerusalem?

 

The answer seems to be missing unless you simply believe it is acting righteously. Nah. It's gotta be worshiping Jesus! It couldn't be people weren't getting this stuff and they had to "create" an example for people to follow? One that might have lived a "sample" life down in Judea? Something that had all their ideals but, yet, the target audience could relate to so maybe borrowing from outside literature and mythology. No. Now, that's just stupid talk. What am I thinking? It seems these early Christians know nothing of that culture.

 

CHAP. XVIII.--THE CREATION OF MAN.

... For God having made all things by His Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of His own hands. ...

If this is true and we want to assume Jesus and the "word" are one then this is saying that the head god YHWH gave him the lessor work and saved the only "good" thing for himself. No really a co-equal partnership if one can tell the other what to do. It is obvious that the "word" and "wisdom" are appendages or tools of the singular God being. Not beings with their own wills. This guy already said the "word" came from God's "bowels" earlier. I think this all came from someone else's "bowels."

 

CHAP. XIX.--MAN IS PLACED IN PARADISE.

He just writes how god finishes up and plops us down somewhere nice in the East. Close enough.

 

CHAP. XX.--THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF PARADISE.

More Genesis. God makes critters. Adam takes a nap. Wakes up with a wife. What happens in Eden [doesn't] stay in Eden. Bummer.

 

[continued next message so quotes will work correctly - 2/4]

[mwc]

[continued from last message - 3/4]

 

CHAP. XXI.--OF THE FALL OF MAN.

... Such is the account given by holy Scripture of the history of man and of Paradise.

That pretty much says it all.

 

CHAP. XXII.--WHY GOD IS SAID TO HAVE WALKED.

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Now, this is one of those "gotcha" paragraphs. It can make or break my argument.

 

I've argued that the god of Genesis was able to walk simply because he was like us. He was basic an anthropomorphic object created in our image. However, our early Christian bishop now offers another view. A view that has truly stuck with us. Since this view has stayed around let it is good we examine it fully and hope that it doesn't blow up in my face (that's my hope at least. ).

 

Since god the "father" is everywhere it was the "word" that became human like and conversed with Adam. "The Word of God, who is also His Son." I'm about to eat my words. But wait! Not a son like the poets and "writers of myths" talk about, no, which are those sons that come from what? Intercourse [with women] (we presume...perhaps other critters...reading some of those myths it can be woman and miscellaneous). This alone EXCLUDES AN EARTHLY JESUS. He cannot be according to the KNOWN stories that we have in our possession unless we declare this bishop to be a heretic and no one did to our knowledge. He was even quoted by the church and so he must have remained in good standing. A good orthodox bishop that we can quote without fear.

 

So what is he talking about then? His conscience? His REASON. Is this Jesus? It would HAVE to be. But it's not. Jesus is not reason. He's salvation. He's life. He's love. He's the Law made man. He's not God talking to himself. Yet the bishop says that is exactly what it is. Where could he be getting there crazy ideas?

 

John! He gets this idea from G.John. But wait again! This isn't G.John but the holy writings. Perhaps they're synonyms? We'll have to wait and see. But what is important is this: "the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John." Not, John, the beloved apostle that walked for three years in Judea with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Word made Flesh sent to die for our sins on a cross. Who rose again after three days and will come again to judge the quick and the dead. WHY? This is IT! This is the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit connection. This is IT! He quotes John 1. He speaks of the word made flesh IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN???!!! NOT ON A CROSS IN JUDEA?

 

He doesn't say it because he DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT! With TWO of the "holy writings," Luke and John he simply doesn't know about the "word" being made flesh down in Judea. He doesn't know that it died and rose again. These are two of the topics of his books and he has MISSED the opportunity to sing the praises of his LORD AND SAVIOUR on both occasions. Inexcusable for a man in his position.

 

CHAP, XXIII.--THE TRUTH OF THE ACCOUNT IN GENESIS.

Man, therefore, God made on the sixth day, and made known this creation after the seventh day, when also He made Paradise, that he might be in a better and distinctly superior place. And that this is true, the fact itself proves. For how can one miss seeing that the pains which women suffer in childbed, and the oblivion of their labours which they afterwards enjoy, are sent in order that the word of God may be fulfilled, and that the race of men may increase and multiply? And do we not see also the judgment of the serpent,--how hatefully he crawls on his belly and eats the dust,--that we may have this, too, for a proof of the things which were said aforetime?

He, of course then deduces, the Genesis account is true because it is true. He is a True Christian.

 

CHAP. XXIV.--THE BEAUTY OF PARADISE,

... And God transferred him from the earth, out of which he had been produced, into Paradise, giving him means of advancement, in order that, maturing and becoming perfect, and being even declared a god, he might thus ascend into heaven in possession of immortality. For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either; so also the place, Paradise, was made in respect of beauty intermediate between earth and heaven. And by the expression, "till it," no other kind of labour is implied than the observance of God's command, lest, disobeying, he should destroy himself, as indeed he did destroy himself, by sin.

After describing where he thinks this place is he then gives us all this. It's kind of an interesting take on the whole thing. Not what you'd expect to hear I don't think.

 

CHAP. XXV.--GOD WAS JUSTIFIED IN FORBIDDING MAN TO EAT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE.

The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge;. but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily. ...

He thens gives an argument that Adam simply wasn't ready to eat from the tree of knowledge but did anyway becoming knowledgeable beyond his age.

 

CHAP. XXVI.--GOD'S GOODNESS IN EXPELLING MAN FROM PARADISE.

And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. And as to God's calling, and saying, Where art thou, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession.

Once again he makes another series of interesting comments that don't quite lead where they should.

 

God expelled man from the paradise, but didn't intend for him to remain in sin forever. He intends for us to have a sort of "discipline" and then be restored to Paradise. The first time we were there was the original in Genesis and the second time will be after the resurrection and judgment. Sounds good so far. All Christians know where this is heading, right? Not so fast.

 

First we get a little hint at what could be Paul's writings. A vessel having a defect being made new again. How? By dying. Ouch. Didn't see that coming. Usually it's being reborn but this man is a very careful author and he has chosen his words carefully. So you must die so that you can be resurrected. He clarifies this to mean "spotless, righteous and immortal." The only doctrine that allows one to do this without dying is via the rapture and he is clearly not speaking of this or being reborn in the "spirit."

 

So how is all this accomplished? Via repentance and confession it appears. Not quite what you'd expect any Christian to tell someone. Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is the answer to this question. If he has both G.Luke and G.John this is spelled out for him.

 

CHAP. XXVII.--THE NATURE OF MAN.

... For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.

He starts out giving a strange idea of what the nature of the newly created Adam was (neither mortal or immortal) and free will.

 

He then makes a very interesting set of summary statements.

 

Man brought death upon himself because he disobeyed god.

 

Man, if he obeys the will of god, can have eternal life.

 

How? God has given man the Law AND the commandments. That's IT. Two items. Everyone who obeys these two things can be saved, obtain the resurrection and be perfect.

 

No Jesus required nor mentioned! Again, if he had both G.Luke and G.John he would KNOW that the above are NOT enough to do what he says. If Paul's teachings are known to him (it's probably safe to assume so since this is one of Paul's churches according to Acts) then he would know the Law is a curse on mankind and to follow it is to lead to your destruction and not your salvation. But I won't assume and go with the FACTS. He's quoted something that resembles G.Luke and G.John so far and according to Christian apologists they were in their final forms (by and large) when those two persons wrote them by their own hand. Luke knows of this church in his very own book of Acts and, as such, the Luke-Acts set is probably very popular here. So why not mention ANY of Luke's valuable doctrine? The one that actually REPLACED the very doctrine the bishop is telling his friend according to all Christians today? His words are true PRIOR to the death and resurrection of Jesus but now HE is the path to God in the Christian theology and not the Laws of Moses. Sure the laws are helpful to living a good life but they a merely guides and not a means to secure your salvation as none can keep them save one...Jesus.

 

CHAP. XXVIII.--WHY EVE WAS FORMED OF ADAM'S RIB.

... This Eve, on account of her having been in the beginning deceived by the serpent, and become the author of sin, the wicked demon, who also is called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent, and who works even to this day in those men that are possessed by him, invokes as Eve. And he is called "demon" and "dragon," on account of his [apodedrakenai] revolting from God. For at first he was an angel. And concerning his history there is a great deal to be said; wherefore I at present omit the relation of it, for I have also given an account of him in another place.

He finally relates the serpent to Satan. Sounds like he has Revelation around there too. Notice he says the serpent was merely possessed by Satan though. Not important to this discussion but it gives insight into another aspect of his belief system. He also offers his friend the chance to read it. I wonder what the beasts number is in his version?

 

It also shows that he had a pretty good library available to him (or a great memory...maybe a little of both).

 

CHAP. XXIX.--CAIN'S CRIME.

... From that time the earth, through fear, no longer receives human blood, no, nor the blood of any animal; by which it appears that it is not the cause [of death], but man, who transgressed.

After describing Cain killing Abel he tacks on this explanation as to why blood doesn't soak into the ground well. Apparently it is from fear. Who would have thunk it?

 

[continued next message so quotes will work correctly - 3/4]

[mwc]

[continued from last message - 4/4]

 

CHAP. XXX.--CAIN'S FAMILY AND THEIR INVENTIONS.

Cain also himself had a son, whose name was Enoch; and he built a city, which he called by the name of his son, Enoch. From that time was there made a beginning of the building of cities, and this before the flood; not as Homer falsely says: - "Not yet had men a city built."

 

...

He then explains the above. See? Cain build a city, named Enoch after his son. Genesis says so. Homer says otherwise. He's so stupid. D'oh.

 

CHAP. XXXI.--THE HISTORY AFTER THE FLOOD.

He then talks about things after the flood. Babylon was the first city. I did not know that. I guess we'll have to tell everyone living in all those other cities they weren't really living there. And on and on he goes.

 

One thing of note is that he does quote yet another Sibyl as a valid prophet. So we should be able to as well.

 

CHAP. XXXII.--HOW THE HUMAN RACE WAS DISPERSED.

People started out in the East and spread around to all the places he lists off. The earth is a sphere and is talked about like a cube. How could those prophets of old had known this unless it was from God? Amazing arguments one and all...for someone from the second century. Sadly they are still in use today as "cutting edge."

 

CHAP. XXXIII.--PROFANE HISTORY GIVES NO ACCOUNT OF THESE MATTERS.

Who, then, of those called sages, and poets, and historians, could tell us truly of these things, themselves being much later born, and introducing a multitude of gods, who were born so many years after the cities, and are more modern than kings, and nations, and wars? For they should have made mention of all events, even those which happened before the flood; both of the creation of the world and the formation of man, and the whole succession of events. ... And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things.

This pretty much sums up the Christian movement he was involve in.

 

The existing stuff can't explain everything to our satisfaction. So they are false.

 

However, our thing does explain everything and then some. Not only that but only Christians have ever possessed the truth about these things because we are taught by the Holy Spirit.

 

Now how can that be? What is he really saying in that sentence? The Christians aren't an off-shoot of the Jews. Nope. They are USURPING the Jewish religion. Moses? Not a Jew (proto-Jew really) but a Christian. David? Solomon? Isaiah? Jeremiah? ALL CHRISTIANS. The Jew thing was a mistake (what pagan knows of the Jewish religion anyhow? He never mentions that these are Jewish texts but his sacred texts and prophets). An error. It was all in the scriptures for anyone to see if they chose to see it. So Christianity isn't a new religion at all but an ANCIENT religion. The MOST ANCIENT religion there is. If it started with some god-man Jew from 130 years prior it would destroy his argument that he has been making in this entire book. This is why he has been making such an effort to establish the beginning of things forward and how no one else, except HIM and HIS RELIGION, are privy to this information. It was handed down with its ranks.

 

Certainly someone reading this for themselves would discover this truth but precious few would be able to do this. Texts were read to people and not really by people in those days. The Jewish connection could be explained (or edited, in some cases) away. All the "prophecies" in (for example) G.Matthew today that are explicitly Israel are seen as "Jesus" and so this method of explanation works.

 

CHAP. XXXIV.--THE PROPHETS ENJOINED HOLINESS OF LIFE.

And, for the rest, would that in a kindly spirit you would investigate divine things --I mean the things that are spoken by the prophets--in order that, by comparing what is said by us with the utterances of the others, you may be able to discover the truth. We have shown from their own histories, which they have compiled, that the names of those who are called gods, are found to be the names of men who lived among them, as we have shown above. And to this day their images are daily fashioned, idols, "the works of men's hands." And these the mass of foolish men serve, whilst they reject the maker and fashioner of all things and the nourisher of all breath of life, giving credit to vain doctrines through the deceitfulness of the senseless tradition received from their fathers. But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God.

So good I quoted the whole thing.

 

"...the names of those who are called gods, are found to be the names of men who lived among them, ..."

 

Talk about shooting yourself in your own foot! Ouch! Did the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" not exist back then? Worshiping a god-man and denouncing other god-men is, well, ridiculous.

 

He then goes on to speak of all those things Jesus taught his followers to do. Their way of life. But he does so all without crediting him. Odd.

 

But is it really? Not if you read where god sent the Law and holy prophets to teach man kind. Not his Son. Jesus the SON OF GOD, word incarnate, never came here according to this person. He's not aware of him. So it's not so odd after all.

 

He then provides the Christian method of salvation. "he who ACTS righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God." Ummm. No. It's "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." And they must believe in Jesus, the only begotten son of God. They must believe that Jesus died and was resurrected to take away the sins of the world.

 

He HAS the opportunity and the motive to spread the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and yet HE DOES NOT! He is failing his calling given to him by his master and by the spirit. Unlike other books and letters where their may not be cause to mention Jesus or various Christian doctrines this is not one of them. I've pointed out a number of missed opportunities. Even if I concede some of them as "iffy" this is not one of those. The last line spells it out plain and simple for all to see and understand.

 

CHAP. XXXV.--PRECEPTS FROM THE PROPHETIC BOOKS.

He then quotes OT prophets and the ten commandments on things like not worshiping idols and such. At the very least it proves that even at this late date Christians believe they are under The Law AND the commandments. From Acts (and Paul) he should believe that's pretty much wiped away via the Jerusalem Accord but he doesn't seem aware of it either. Christians of today sure yell it from the top of their lungs though.

 

CHAP. XXXVI.--PROPHECIES OF THE SIBYL.

And the Sibyl, who was a prophetess among the Greeks and the other nations, in the beginning of her prophecy, reproaches the race of men, saying:-

...

Lots of quotes from the Sibyl. Again, I guess they're on the approved list instead of "demon" inspired sources. I guess when you're trying to usurp those religions around you it's up to you to choose what is and what is not "evil" and what is inspired by the "spirit." At least we know where the Sibyl stand now.

 

CHAP. XXXVII.--THE TESTIMONIES OF THE POETS.

...

That God will make inquiry both concerning false swearing and concerning every other wickedness, they themselves have well-nigh predicted. And concerning the conflagration of the world, they have, willingly or unwillingly, spoken in Conformity with the prophets, though they were much more recent, and stole these things from the law and the prophets. The poets corroborate the testimony of the prophets.

Looks like some of the poets made the cut too. Oh, looks like they only made the cut when they agreed with the Christian opinions. Otherwise their opinions were bad. They also stole their sayings from the "prophets" if it were more recent sayings. How odd that we can trace things back a little further than our bishop pal and find that just the opposite is true in most cases? Not that it matters to him now I guess.

 

CHAP. XXXVIII. --THE TEACHINGS OF THE GREEK POETS AND PHILOSOPHERS CONFIRMATORY OF THOSE OF THE HEBREW PROPHETS.

Which came first my guys or yours? We all know who the bishop will pick.

 

He then makes one final summation:

And as regards the others whom you have read, I think you know with sufficient accuracy how they have expressed themselves. But all these things will every one understand who seeks the wisdom of God, and is well pleasing to Him through faith and righteousness and the doing of good works. For one of the prophets whom we already mentioned, Hosea by name, said, "Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein." He, then, who is desirous of learning, should learn much. Endeavour therefore to meet [with me]more frequently, that, by hearing the living voice, you may accurately ascertain the truth.

He quotes Hosea? Not Jesus? His Lord? Not even in the closing? "May the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you" or some such? Nothing? Surely Jesus has a comparable saying to the one presented here from Hosea (I'm blanking on one right now)?

 

After 38 chapters he quoted from the OT "prophets" a lot to establish that Christianity was an ancient religion and had the answers to the origins of god and man that others were lacking.

 

He also quotes directly from G.Luke and G.John without so much as mentioning a savior figure, his life, death or any other details that were contained within those books even when the argument would have allowed for it (or preferred it over his given answer). The quote from G.Luke was also a red letter quote from Jesus himself and he doesn't even feel the need to make any mention of where these words came from.

 

He provides a version of the Trinity based not on a modern Christian tradition but rather a Jewish tradition. His descriptions resemble those given by Philo in his writings.

 

He clearly does not know the story of an earthly god-man irregardless of his name because he makes more than one comment that these are not his beliefs. Belief in a god-man is a pagan one and he pulls no punches stating such. Gods do not have relations with mortals so that they can give birth to god-men. They do not have histories. They do not die. These are not the things of gods. For him to say this and believe in a god-man born of a virgin woman impregnated by a godly spirit, creating an earthly history, and then that god-man growing up, dying and coming back to life is simply beyond belief. "Your god-man is a fake but my god-man is the real deal" is far from a convincing argument on any level. If this was his angle he would at least have mentioned it in the appropriate places, said his was better because it happened more recently and all the prophecies were leading up to that moment in time. He said none of this, and yet, this is the standard apology...as laid out in the gospels.

 

It's clear there is no singular "sage" that delivered a message to all of man kind on behalf of any god. That seems to be Christianity's primary weakness. It's an amalgam of existing philosophies with its own "spin." Was the "Jesus" character created as the sorely needed delivery system this philosophy needed? The "word" made man after all? Instead of "this prophet said this" and "this prophet said that" it simply became "Jesus said" and that was that. A two year old could now follow the instructions. Just look at the fine argument by the bishop to see how piecemeal his research truly is. Some "prophets" from various Jewish scrolls. Some poets from a number of philosophies. The Sibyls. The "holy writings" capturing the Christians teachings. Possibly other works like Philo and Josephus. A hodge-podge that no common person could ever hope to make their way through. But "Jesus says" fixes that problem very nicely. It combines what they know (pagan concepts of a god-man and trinity) and the Jewish ideas of a singular god (among other things).

 

However, did "Jesus" ever exist? He wasn't central to the Christian's original theology. Not to the extent that the bishop of a major church has once mentioned him in two books at least. Perhaps I am jumping the gun and he mentions him in his third book. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Could he have been a real person in Judea? Possibly, but if he's not who the gospels say he is, then does it matter? Not really since he's never coming back and he's certainly not delivering any salvation. If he was simply someone who died for what he believed in then he's just one in a long line that have done that very thing. At best he might be the first Christian martyr. Maybe that's enough?

 

Anyhow, that's enough for now. This has grown to four long, hopefully not entirely boring, pages (maybe I should put a warning on the first page?). I thank anyone who has bothered to actually read it all.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Dear mwc, I bow to no one, but God. Your efforts with this text, however, deserve applause and praise! I will read every word you have written. My views on Book II already were posted. I have finished Book III this morning and I will post my views on that in the evening. Book III begins to get more Christiany, but still no mention of Jesus...more later...

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

When the prosecution and defense rest their cases, each person must answer for him/herself the piercing question the alleged Jesus is alleged to have asked: "Who do you say that I am?" Good men and woman, smart men and women, honest men and women, spiritual men and women, can arrive at very different answers to that question.

 

-CC

From my perspective the proper question is "Did he exist?" not "Who was he?" If he didn't exist, there is no 'who' to discuss.

 

Fair enough. This question also may be answered differently by good, smart, scholarly, spiritual men and women. Those who conclude that Jesus existed, then can ponder the second question: "Who was he?"

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Lots of quotes from the Sibyl. Again, I guess they're on the approved list instead of "demon" inspired sources. I guess when you're trying to usurp those religions around you it's up to you to choose what is and what is not "evil" and what is inspired by the "spirit." At least we know where the Sibyl stand now.

mwc

 

The Sibyl at Delphi makes an appearance in the Sistine Chapel, too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Delphic...ichelangelo.jpg

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Thank you, mwc, for that very fine summation of Theophilus’s Book II.

 

I have a few responses. I'll note your words by means of "mwc wrote" in bold. My words will be "CC's response," also in bold. Okay?

 

mwc wrote:

Surely he realizes that his own god has two histories, two genealogies, two stories of his birth and is the bishop's object of worship? Surely he realizes that he will need to inform his pagan friend of this? Perhaps their is no object in a temple, made of wood or stone, but is his friend so easily fooled by the absence of the object itself? This religion is identical to the pagan religion of his friend minus the man-made idol of stone or wood? It seems that is the argument in its best light.

 

CC's response:

You make a good point here. There does seem to be a parallel to Jesus and he seems to be demeaning the parallel in pagan accounts. Perhaps he is referring to actual sexual intercourse between the pagan god and the human woman and thinking of the Mary event as a spiritual creation of life within her womb without there being an actual event of intercourse?

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

I find it ironic that this (and likely other Christians) find pagans beliefs equally foolish as people find Christian beliefs today. The arguments are even nearly identical. What does this tell the Christians? Not that they have anything original but it's all the same once you leave the accepted, entrenched, belief system. These are the questions you ask of it. The only difference is that we're not trying to replace it with a new religion (some might say science but I don't know if that's a valid answer or not).

 

CC's response:

Indeed some of Theophilus’s accusations against the pagan religions certainly came to be very closely imitated in the RCC. It seems inevitable that all religions take on characteristics of those of surrounding peoples. The RCC definitely did this with the Roman religions and ultimately became the final vestige of the Roman Empire.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

He then immediately switched gears and speaks of the creation of the world once again. He then quotes from various philosophers to show how inconsistent their beliefs are. This is much like quoting from all the church fathers to show how inconsistent Christianity truly is.

 

CC's response:

You are right that it is nonsensical to attack a belief system on the basis of the contradictory views of its adherents.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

Since the Sibyls are valid "prophets" according to a bishop of the Christian church Christians should now be able to refer to their words without hesitation. So why aren't the Sibyls words available to all without guilt? They are co-equal with the prophets.

 

CC's response:

I don’t think these words were preserved very much. They would be quite interesting to read.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

Do you recognize that first bold statement? Take a close look. Do you recognize it now? It's G.LUKE! He has the document. He quotes from it anonymously. But it's G.Luke 18:27 "27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." He doesn't even acknowledge his master's words here. From one believer to another the silence might be understandable but from a believer to a pagan? You would most certainly mention his name, especially, in a direct quote.

 

CC's response:

This does seem to be a quote from Luke. Theophilis seems to be seeking to establish the fact that his religion has an origin far in the past compared to his friend’s. Therefore, it seems likely that he might indeed forgo quoting from these new texts of the Jesus movement.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

If this is true and we want to assume Jesus and the "word" are one then this is saying that the head god YHWH gave him the lessor work and saved the only "good" thing for himself. No really a co-equal partnership if one can tell the other what to do. It is obvious that the "word" and "wisdom" are appendages or tools of the singular God being. Not beings with their own wills. This guy already said the "word" came from God's "bowels" earlier. I think this all came from someone else's "bowels."

 

CC's response:

It does not seem to be the case that at this time the “God of God, Light of Light” creed had been established. Theophilus seems to believe that the Father begat the Word, who is the servant of the Father, the one who appears in the world on behalf of the Father. Nothing co-equal here, which is much more in line with the NT, I think.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

Since god the "father" is everywhere it was the "word" that became human like and conversed with Adam. "The Word of God, who is also His Son." I'm about to eat my words. But wait! Not a son like the poets and "writers of myths" talk about, no, which are those sons that come from what? Intercourse [with women] (we presume...perhaps other critters...reading some of those myths it can be woman and miscellaneous). This alone EXCLUDES AN EARTHLY JESUS. He cannot be according to the KNOWN stories that we have in our possession unless we declare this bishop to be a heretic and no one did to our knowledge. He was even quoted by the church and so he must have remained in good standing. A good orthodox bishop that we can quote without fear.

 

CC's response:

I don’t think this excludes an earthly Jesus as I don’t think Theophilus took the “power of the holy spirit will overshadow you” announcement to mean intercourse. I don’t take it to mean that, either. The virgin conception is "IVF by means of the Holy Spirit," not sexual in nature.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

So what is he talking about then? His conscience? His REASON. Is this Jesus? It would HAVE to be. But it's not. Jesus is not reason. He's salvation. He's life. He's love. He's the Law made man. He's not God talking to himself. Yet the bishop says that is exactly what it is. Where could he be getting there crazy ideas?

 

John! He gets this idea from G.John. But wait again! This isn't G.John but the holy writings. Perhaps they're synonyms? We'll have to wait and see. But what is important is this: "the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John." Not, John, the beloved apostle that walked for three years in Judea with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Word made Flesh sent to die for our sins on a cross. Who rose again after three days and will come again to judge the quick and the dead. WHY? This is IT! This is the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit connection. This is IT! He quotes John 1. He speaks of the word made flesh IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN???!!! NOT ON A CROSS IN JUDEA?

 

CC's response:

The Word made flesh in the Garden of Eden and in other OT stories is a powerful idea. I like it. Theophilis contends that the Word is made flesh whenever there is a need for the Word, as ambassador of the Father, to be in the world. I like this idea. I don’t think it precludes a second or third or fourth incarnation in Judea in ca. 4 B.C.E.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

So Christianity isn't a new religion at all but an ANCIENT religion. The MOST ANCIENT religion there is. If it started with some god-man Jew from 130 years prior it would destroy his argument that he has been making in this entire book. This is why he has been making such an effort to establish the beginning of things forward and how no one else, except HIM and HIS RELIGION, are privy to this information. It was handed down with its ranks.

 

CC's response:

This is Theophilis’s point: His religion is ancient; the Greek pagan religions are new. This is why he does not reference Jesus directly and makes little use of the post-Jesus documents. He first wants to plant firmly the idea that his religion is older than his friend’s. That done, he'll bring his friend fully up to date on recent happenings.

 

**

 

mwc wrote:

Could he have been a real person in Judea? Possibly, but if he's not who the gospels say he is, then does it matter? Not really since he's never coming back and he's certainly not delivering any salvation. If he was simply someone who died for what he believed in then he's just one in a long line that have done that very thing. At best he might be the first Christian martyr. Maybe that's enough?

 

CC's response:

I don’t know that Theophilis provides any negation of a historical Jesus or of a savior Jesus. And I do hope Jesus returns. We need someone to clean up this messy world.

 

-CC

[mwc]

Thank you, mwc, for that very fine summation of Theophilus’s Book II.

Well, thanks for reading such a long thing.

 

Indeed some of Theophilus’s accusations against the pagan religions certainly came to be very closely imitated in the RCC. It seems inevitable that all religions take on characteristics of those of surrounding peoples. The RCC definitely did this with the Roman religions and ultimately became the final vestige of the Roman Empire.

The RCC might be the poster child for all of the ills that have been made in the name of Christianity but the fact of the matter is that they made Christianity what it is today. There's very little in the way of the religion, good or bad, that you cannot trace back to them. If you wish to demonize them you must also simultaneously praise them.

 

You are right that it is nonsensical to attack a belief system on the basis of the contradictory views of its adherents.

 

It is entirely fair to try to gain an understanding of their belief system based on what their adherents write for others to see though.

 

I don’t think these words were preserved very much. They would be quite interesting to read.

There were seven(?) Sibyls as I recall located in a number of countries so their prophecies have survived. Since much of it was spoken we really only have, at best, second hand accounts of what they really said though. It's likely that much of this is the same as what our bishop was reading as well.

 

This does seem to be a quote from Luke. Theophilis seems to be seeking to establish the fact that his religion has an origin far in the past compared to his friend’s. Therefore, it seems likely that he might indeed forgo quoting from these new texts of the Jesus movement.

He wants to establish not only its ancient origins but its accuracy (as shown when he mentions the prophets somehow knew the world was a sphere). So to quote an ancient set of sources that pointed to an event that actually just came true as scant 100 or so years ago would have been simply amazing. G.Luke would have allowed him to do just this very thing and he didn't.

 

Yet all apologists today try this very trick...only instead of pointing to an amazing thing that just happened it occurred 2000 years ago. Ho hum. One of the points of his Book 1 is that the gods seemed to have done nothing for ages. Here was his chance to show how his god was still active in the world in addition to proving how the ancient prophets were amazing and true.

 

You make a good point here. There does seem to be a parallel to Jesus and he seems to be demeaning the parallel in pagan accounts. Perhaps he is referring to actual sexual intercourse between the pagan god and the human woman and thinking of the Mary event as a spiritual creation of life within her womb without there being an actual event of intercourse?

...

It does not seem to be the case that at this time the “God of God, Light of Light” creed had been established. Theophilus seems to believe that the Father begat the Word, who is the servant of the Father, the one who appears in the world on behalf of the Father. Nothing co-equal here, which is much more in line with the NT, I think.

...

The Word made flesh in the Garden of Eden and in other OT stories is a powerful idea. I like it. Theophilis contends that the Word is made flesh whenever there is a need for the Word, as ambassador of the Father, to be in the world. I like this idea. I don’t think it precludes a second or third or fourth incarnation in Judea in ca. 4 B.C.E.

I took three of your points and combined them since they are somewhat related (especially the first and third items). I had already replied to the first when I thought to do this so I'm including that text again then I'll just reply to the whole thing after that.

 

He very well could be thinking this but could he slip it past his friend? Impregnating a woman so that she could give birth to an actual, physical, human being is unlikely to escape his notice with simple word play. The point is a god and woman come together and produce an earthly offspring.

 

If the "word" can simply be a human, as in the garden, then why a birth via Mary? This is really started to sound like yet another religion if the "word" is just an "incarnation" of god (or and aspect of god). If the answer is that he had to become man to understand us or to become the proper sacrifice or anything like that then you negate the abilities of god. He perfectly understands us. A human cannot be a sacrifice. So it can't be any of those, looking back through 2000 years of the church, answers. They don't work.

 

Also, here we are about a hundred years from the supposed event and our bishop tells us in his books that a god cannot die. He mocks the graves of the various pagan gods. Now, I'm sure you'd agree but tell me god rose Jesus from the dead and his (unknown) grave is empty. Surely you cannot believe that the graves of the pagan gods had bodies of actual god-human unions within? If you do not then, they too, are empty graves. Their god-men were not held by death since their (known) tombs possess no bodies.

 

I don’t think this excludes an earthly Jesus as I don’t think Theophilus took the “power of the holy spirit will overshadow you” announcement to mean intercourse. I don’t take it to mean that, either. The virgin conception is "IVF by means of the Holy Spirit," not sexual in nature.

A god becoming man via a human is still a god becoming man via a human. Book 1 is pretty clear that he finds this concept preposterous. Unless he's like the Christians we known (and love) of today that condemn from the pulpit but secretly practice behind closed doors. However, since he makes several invitations for his friend to read from his library I don't think this is something he intends to conceal until his friend is firmly entrenched in belief and so I have to remain convinced that he's so negative about it because he finds it absurd that gods and humans co-mingle (prior to the resurrection, at which time we a "purified" enough to be with god).

 

This is Theophilis’s point: His religion is ancient; the Greek pagan religions are new. This is why he does not reference Jesus directly and makes little use of the post-Jesus documents. He first wants to plant firmly the idea that his religion is older than his friend’s. That done, he'll bring his friend fully up to date on recent happenings.

But his religion isn't ancient. It's brand spanking new. He's lying. The origin of the Jewish religion only lies, maybe (if we push really hard and sort of close our eyes) about 1400 years prior to him. However, his actual religion only started about 130 years prior. Why hide it? Sing out loud the praises of his savior. But he does not. Is he ashamed of his young religion? He would seem to be.

 

I don’t know that Theophilis provides any negation of a historical Jesus or of a savior Jesus. And I do hope Jesus returns. We need someone to clean up this messy world.

He doesn't negate it, not by coming out and saying "My dear friend there is no Jesus that Christians believe in. That's a lie." No, he doesn't do that.

 

What he does do, what he has done so far, is make a set of positive statements that explicitly state the Christian doctrine as he sees it. He's trying to attack paganism, establish that Christianity is the most ancient religion and he's trying to recruit his friend into his religion at the same time by giving insight into its doctrine.

 

Now, on the last point he has explicitly stated that The Law and the Commandments are the way to god. Period. He has done this numerous times. This is simply not any form of "Christian" doctrine formed on any of the four gospels or the epistles. If he had G.Luke or G.John sitting in front of him when he wrote this he could have never had made those statements because the action required by those two books are in direct conflict with him. He could not, as a Christian, tell his friend to follow The Law and the Commandments, and only LATER switch him over to Jesus Christ. First and foremost is Jesus. The Law has fallen away and the commandments are words to live by but neither will do what he tells his pagan friend they will do and that is give you the resurrection into eternal life.

 

These positive statements about their beliefs, doctrine and even why they are named Christians are what is condemning him. His "argument from silence" is simply fueling that fire but is not the primary issue here. However, since he is actually giving answers that are on topic I don't even think we can consider his omissions an argument from silence.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Good morning mwc and all. I have a few responses to mwc's fine points.

 

 

mwc wrote:

The RCC might be the poster child for all of the ills that have been made in the name of Christianity but the fact of the matter is that they made Christianity what it is today. There's very little in the way of the religion, good or bad, that you cannot trace back to them. If you wish to demonize them you must also simultaneously praise them.

 

CC's response

No intention on my part to demonize the RCC, just wanting to say that it is very natural that the RCC would be impacted by the Roman Empire's culture, lanugage, religion, political structure, and that some/much of that would become housed in the RCC long after the Roman Empire had ceased to be.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

There were seven(?) Sibyls as I recall located in a number of countries so their prophecies have survived. Since much of it was spoken we really only have, at best, second hand accounts of what they really said though. It's likely that much of this is the same as what our bishop was reading as well.

 

CC's response

We should do some research on this and see what we can come up with!

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

He wants to establish not only its ancient origins but its accuracy (as shown when he mentions the prophets somehow knew the world was a sphere). So to quote an ancient set of sources that pointed to an event that actually just came true as scant 100 or so years ago would have been simply amazing. G.Luke would have allowed him to do just this very thing and he didn't.

 

Yet all apologists today try this very trick...only instead of pointing to an amazing thing that just happened it occurred 2000 years ago. Ho hum. One of the points of his Book 1 is that the gods seemed to have done nothing for ages. Here was his chance to show how his god was still active in the world in addition to proving how the ancient prophets were amazing and true.

 

CC's response

Perhaps that would have been a better argument, but Book III reveals that the Christians were being "made fun of" due to the newness of their particular religious history. I think the bishop is stringing his friend along with all this ancient history before introducing a "and if that's not enough, just 130 years ago...."

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

I took three of your points and combined them since they are somewhat related (especially the first and third items). I had already replied to the first when I thought to do this so I'm including that text again then I'll just reply to the whole thing after that.

 

He very well could be thinking this but could he slip it past his friend? Impregnating a woman so that she could give birth to an actual, physical, human being is unlikely to escape his notice with simple word play. The point is a god and woman come together and produce an earthly offspring.

 

If the "word" can simply be a human, as in the garden, then why a birth via Mary? This is really started to sound like yet another religion if the "word" is just an "incarnation" of god (or and aspect of god). If the answer is that he had to become man to understand us or to become the proper sacrifice or anything like that then you negate the abilities of god. He perfectly understands us. A human cannot be a sacrifice. So it can't be any of those, looking back through 2000 years of the church, answers. They don't work.

 

Also, here we are about a hundred years from the supposed event and our bishop tells us in his books that a god cannot die. He mocks the graves of the various pagan gods. Now, I'm sure you'd agree but tell me god rose Jesus from the dead and his (unknown) grave is empty. Surely you cannot believe that the graves of the pagan gods had bodies of actual god-human unions within? If you do not then, they too, are empty graves. Their god-men were not held by death since their (known) tombs possess no bodies.

 

CC's response

I think Theophilis is trying to distinguish between the gods of his friend who had some rather robust tales told about them, sexually and otherwise, and the God he claims to represent who isn't as human writ large, foibles and all, as the Greek gods. Your question about why the Word who could be incarnated in any guise came as a baby is a good one. I don't know. Perhaps to fulfill the "sign" given to Isaiah, perhaps to allow a full human experience, perhaps to allow "real" humans the benefit of knowing that Jesus lived precisely as they do. The former incarnations of the deity were very much the deity. Not even incarnations, but appearances, a temporary "taking on" the attributes to walk, see, talk with humanity. The Jesus event is a true incarnation as a complete human life form who was every bit human. The "incarnation" in the Garden was not "every bit human," as Jesus was.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

A god becoming man via a human is still a god becoming man via a human. Book 1 is pretty clear that he finds this concept preposterous. Unless he's like the Christians we known (and love) of today that condemn from the pulpit but secretly practice behind closed doors. However, since he makes several invitations for his friend to read from his library I don't think this is something he intends to conceal until his friend is firmly entrenched in belief and so I have to remain convinced that he's so negative about it because he finds it absurd that gods and humans co-mingle (prior to the resurrection, at which time we a "purified" enough to be with god).

 

CC's response

Maybe Jesus was not "God the Son" at this point in the evolution of Christian doctrine. Maybe he was not "God in the flesh," but a vessel through whom God spoke. As St. Paul wrote, "God was in Christ..." There's a difference. The "Jesus is God" doctrine evolved over time and many dispute it even now. I'd love to sit down with the bishop and ask some clarifying questions about his view. Jesus was not a "god" born of a woman in the sense that the Greek gods were born of women. I think this is the distinction Theophilis is making.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

But his religion isn't ancient. It's brand spanking new. He's lying. The origin of the Jewish religion only lies, maybe (if we push really hard and sort of close our eyes) about 1400 years prior to him. However, his actual religion only started about 130 years prior. Why hide it? Sing out loud the praises of his savior. But he does not. Is he ashamed of his young religion? He would seem to be.

 

CC's response

I don't see this as a lie. In his view and in the view of most Christians, their revelation dates back to Adam. The bishop is demonstrating a continuity of revelation and perhaps in his (now lost) fourth letter he makes this connection very clearly. We just don't know. But I see enough evidence here to indicate that Theophilis had a view of the Jesus experience that was fairly close to what we would expect of an Antiochian bishop in 160.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc wrote:

Now, on the last point he has explicitly stated that The Law and the Commandments are the way to god. Period. He has done this numerous times. This is simply not any form of "Christian" doctrine formed on any of the four gospels or the epistles. If he had G.Luke or G.John sitting in front of him when he wrote this he could have never had made those statements because the action required by those two books are in direct conflict with him. He could not, as a Christian, tell his friend to follow The Law and the Commandments, and only LATER switch him over to Jesus Christ. First and foremost is Jesus. The Law has fallen away and the commandments are words to live by but neither will do what he tells his pagan friend they will do and that is give you the resurrection into eternal life.

 

CC's response

This remains a great debate: Law vs. Grace, Works vs. Faith. As we know, the RCC, of which this bishop is present at the genesis, became very much so a works-based and law-based religion. Maybe we are seeing here that nascent view that will evolve and harden until the Reformation turned a spotlight back to faith and grace?

 

 

Thanks, mwc, for making me think as much as any professor ever has!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Theophilus to Autolycus, Book III

 

It becomes more clear in Book III that Theophilus seeks to make known to his friend Autolycus the "antiquity of our books" (Ch. 1). He, furthermore, declares that his ancient books are "eye-witness" (Ch. 2) accounts of events that had occurred, whereas the pagan accounts are not. I think we all agree that this is not the case with the OT, by and large, but there are those who feel the NT documents are more closely what we might call eye-witness accounts or at least second-generation accounts. Ch. 26: "Hence one can see how our sacred writings are shown to be more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and Egyptians, or any other historians."

 

In Ch. 4, Theophilus defends himself and his fellow religionists against the charge that "our doctrine has but recently come to light," meaning his Christian doctrine, called "foolishness" by many. This likely is the reason he has gone to great pains to avoid using much of the new doctrine and new writings to make his case that the religion of the Christians actually is a continuation of the ancient religion of the Jews as found in the OT. Therefore, all the OT information and very little of the NT from this one who is after all a NT-inspired bishop.

 

Theophilus makes a great error in Ch. 7, asserting that the atheists of his day wrongly proclaim that "all things [are] governed by self-regulated action," as opposed to by God. Few these days would side with the bishop on this. The study of nature has made it self-evident that indeed -- whether by chance of by design -- the laws of nature and the laws of the universe serve as the regulators of nature and the universe and God's hand is seen, by theists, only in the establishment of these laws not in their every-day execution.

 

In this third book, he does begin to make a little more use of the NT. In Ch. 12, for example, he speaks of "the prophets and the Gospels" and that "they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God."

 

He quotes directly from Jesus, without naming him, in Ch. 13: "And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: 'Whoseover looketh on a woman who is not his wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery her already in his heart.'" (This is one sin I have never committed! ) And again: "He that marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery and whoseover putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to comit adultery." Both of these quotes are from Matthew's gospel. The bishop already has mentioned specifically Luke and John. He now quotes from Matthew. At least three of the four canonical gospels are referred to by Theophilus.

 

In Ch. 14, he quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans and Paul's first letter to Timothy: "we may lead a quiet and peaceable life...honour to whom honour, fear to whom fear, tribute to whom tribute; to owe no man anything, but to love all." Interestingly, the bishop does not refer either to Paul or to the Romans or to Timothy, by name, instead calling these words "the divine word." It was very early on that the Bible itself was elevated to status of "divine word," replacing to some extent Jesus -- in my view -- as the "divine word." (This, for me, is the biggest beef I have with those called fundamentalists: They have in essence dethroned Jesus and replaced him with a book.)

 

Near the end of this Book III, Theophilus makes the case, again, for the antiquity of his religion and the reliability of its doctrines: "...one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenents mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true."

 

-CC

[Antlerman]

On and on and on, including the theory that Jesus was from another realm and that the gospels are an accurate understanding of who he was and what he stood for and the Pauline and other epistles are a valid analysis of the cosmic meaning of the earthly Jesus encounter.

 

One can find scholarly support for every conceivable possibility imaginable. There's always a book out there that tells it just as one imagines it. There's always a scholar out there who really, really knows what happened. There's always an ancient document that proves thus and so and disproves this, that, and the other thing.

 

When the prosecution and defense rest their cases, each person must answer for him/herself the piercing question the alleged Jesus is alleged to have asked: "Who do you say that I am?" Good men and woman, smart men and women, honest men and women, spiritual men and women, can arrive at very different answers to that question.

 

-CC

I'm playing catch up on this thread. Just as a quite aside from the substance of this discussion I wanted to point out that this argument can be easily said about accepting that there is nothing beyond what we see in this world. To frame the quesion around Jesus falsely places him as the ultimate question: "What will you do with Jesus"? I can more easily ask, "what will you do with the Void?"

 

Also I disagree that one arguement is just as good as the next and we can't really know anyhow. Whenever I hear that it screams cop out to me, and doesn't hold up to the reality of how any of us live and move this this world. We do base our beliefs on the best available information.

 

Back to the discussion....

[currentchristian]

Also I disagree that one arguement is just as good as the next and we can't really know anyhow. Whenever I hear that it screams cop out to me, and doesn't hold up to the reality of how any of us live and move this this world. We do base our beliefs on the best available information.

 

Back to the discussion....

 

I agree. Arguments do have their strengths and weaknesses and they are not all created equal. (Take, for example, this past week's Holocaust Symposium in Iran.)

 

But on issues such as the existence of Jesus and who he was (or any other similar question) one can always find good people at every possible place on the spectrum. This is my point. Good people can disagree about the existence of Jesus and about who he was and about the Void or about worm holes or parallel universes, etc, and not cease being good, or smart, or scholarly, or reasonable. Seems to me.

 

-CC

[mwc]

Theophilus to Autolycus, Book III

Moving on to Book 3 I'll go ahead and hit your points without writing up another long essay as it seems we're the only two in this discussion anymore.

 

It becomes more clear in Book III that Theophilus seeks to make known to his friend Autolycus the "antiquity of our books" (Ch. 1). He, furthermore, declares that his ancient books are "eye-witness" (Ch. 2) accounts of events that had occurred, whereas the pagan accounts are not. I think we all agree that this is not the case with the OT, by and large, but there are those who feel the NT documents are more closely what we might call eye-witness accounts or at least second-generation accounts. Ch. 26: "Hence one can see how our sacred writings are shown to be more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and Egyptians, or any other historians."

In chapter two he is saying these things "For it was fit that they who wrote should themselves have been eye-witnesses of those things concerning which they made assertions, or should accurately have ascertained them from those who had seen them; for they who write of things unascertained beat the air." "For what did it profit Homer to have composed the Trojan war, and to have deceived many; ..." "What reward, or of what kind, did he expect to receive after death?" "Or what benefit did the rest of the philosophers derive from their doctrines, not to enumerate the whole of them, since they are numerous? But these things we say, for the purpose of exhibiting their useless and godless opinions.?

 

That's pretty much his point. They made stuff up that did not do them a bit of good after they died (he also points out other things like how they were contradictory, he furthers this in chapter 4, and whatnot) so why even bother? The stuff that we say, the Christians, will help after death so we certainly must not be making it up. It's truly beneficial.

 

It's not a matter of age of the writings at this point but benefit to the person and motive for creating the writing in the first place.

 

In Ch. 4, Theophilus defends himself and his fellow religionists against the charge that "our doctrine has but recently come to light," meaning his Christian doctrine, called "foolishness" by many. This likely is the reason he has gone to great pains to avoid using much of the new doctrine and new writings to make his case that the religion of the Christians actually is a continuation of the ancient religion of the Jews as found in the OT. Therefore, all the OT information and very little of the NT from this one who is after all a NT-inspired bishop.

Actually, he does not say that his religion is a continuation of the Jewish religion at all. He is clear about this in chapter 9: "Of this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant, was made the minister both to all the world, and chiefly to the Hebrews, who were also called Jews, ..." He usurps Moses for his own purposes as Moses' purpose is quote clear in the OT (he's no "closet" Christian). In chapter 4 he accuses his friend of believing the claims of others over those of actual Christians.

 

The claims are listed in full: "alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh. But further, they say that our doctrine has but recently come to light, and that we have nothing to allege in proof of what we receive as truth, nor of our teaching, but that our doctrine is foolishness."

 

He goes on the attack to make his defense showing how it is really the pagans that do such things.

 

I really only need to focus on one key item however. If they practiced communion then they were eating the "flesh and blood" of their god which would be cannibalism. Way down in chapter 15 he says the following:

 

"Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such things can possibly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful intercourse, or, most impious of all, eat human flesh, especially when we are forbidden so much as to witness shows of gladiators, lest we become partakers and abettors of murders. But neither may we see the other spectacles, lest our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utterances there sung. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten; and as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honours and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas."

 

They can't even see a play about cannibalism since that would basically be the same thing to them as taking part in it (even passively). The communion is the symbolic eating of the flesh and blood of their own god. If watching something is the same as doing it then symbolically doing it certainly is not allowed. They couldn't symbolically murder someone by this same argument. It would be like actually doing it. Also, since they follow the Law of Moses they are required to pour the blood out upon the ground like water.

 

They cannot practice the Last Supper as described in the gospels as we know it.

 

They could have practiced something more like this (from the Didache):

CHAPTER 9

The Eucharist -- The Cup -- The Bread

1 And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus:

2 First concerning the Cup, "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory for ever."

3 And concerning the broken Bread: "We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever.

4 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever."

5 But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

However, we would imagine he would be using the one from the gospels that does support the cannibalism of his god-man. Unfortunately, if they only knew of a variation of a version like the Didache this more supports his disgust and outrage.

 

As for the rest. I made this point when speaking of book 2. He could have pointed to all the "prophecies" leading up to the very birth of a god on earth to show how it was all true and he didn't. This would show the ancient books to be both true and relevant. It would also give weight to the modern books as relevant. He didn't. He doesn't even try.

 

Theophilus makes a great error in Ch. 7, asserting that the atheists of his day wrongly proclaim that "all things [are]governed by self-regulated action," as opposed to by God. Few these days would side with the bishop on this. The study of nature has made it self-evident that indeed -- whether by chance of by design -- the laws of nature and the laws of the universe serve as the regulators of nature and the universe and God's hand is seen, by theists, only in the establishment of these laws not in their every-day execution.

I believe that you are lumping all the philosophers and poets beliefs together. He cites quite a few in this chapter. He talks of the atheism, reincarnation and so on. He claims that "Euhemerus" is the one who states that all things are self-regulated (he also calls him "superfluous").

 

He then quotes the rather long poem of Ariston (which threw me for awhile reading it at earlychristianwritings.com it looks like many separate paragraphs and lines of thought -- they need to reformat some of their texts for clarity).

 

His primary problem is that the philosophers and poets can't come to a consensus as a group or even individually in some cases. He seems to find this inconsistency reason to do away with their entire belief system. Hmmmm. The more things change...

 

In this third book, he does begin to make a little more use of the NT. In Ch. 12, for example, he speaks of "the prophets and the Gospels" and that "they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God."

Good point. Not that any of them were eye witnesses to these events. I'm sure that the interpretation you're seeing him make is that the authors are all simply inspired by the spirit so that there is a unified theme throughout the biblical texts (the modern interpretation). However, based on all his other comments it is more likely that the proper interpretation is that the prophets, all of them (new and old...no matter who they are) got their words directly via the spirit (being prophets they're speaking of things they aren't directly experiencing...this is one point he's already established in his prior books).

 

Now, briefly, we skipped chapter 9 where he mentions: "Of this great and wonderful law, which tends to all righteousness, the ten heads are such as we have already rehearsed." He couldn't have said this had he been a Pauline Christian or believed in replacement theology. He's said the Law is a wonderful thing numerous times. Once again he confirms it gives to righteousness. Contrary to Paul. If those who speak on behalf of god are in unity this is a big problem.

 

In chapter 11 he speaks of repentance and finishes with "Many therefore, yea rather, countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins." This is a great opening to show that god kept trying with the Jews but they wouldn't listen and finally he gave them Jesus but they made the ultimate rejection and so salvation was made available to everyone. This is why the doctrine simply "seems" new. But as we're about to see he is oblivious of all this. The ultimate rejection of god and his wanting to give man repentance via the sacrifice of his own son.

 

He quotes directly from Jesus, without naming him, in Ch. 13: "And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: 'Whoseover looketh on a woman who is not his wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery her already in his heart.'" (This is one sin I have never committed! ) And again: "He that marrieth her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery and whoseover putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to comit adultery." Both of these quotes are from Matthew's gospel. The bishop already has mentioned specifically Luke and John. He now quotes from Matthew. At least three of the four canonical gospels are referred to by Theophilus.

He quotes from what appears to be G.Matthew (what is currently contained in G.Matthew). But, as you point out, he flat out does NOT name the source as Jesus. We know he cites names without problem. He doesn't name Jesus in any of the 3 gospels he has in his possession (assuming they are reasonably similar to our own) and yet he names ALL the OT prophets by name each time he quotes from them (or nearly each time that I can tell) such as Solomon in that same chapter and he also names pretty much each Greek philosopher/poet he quotes (many probably from memory I would imagine). But when the opportunity to cite his lord and savior, the reason for the existence of his very religion, he FAILS to do so. He calls him the "voice of the gospel" (not even naming the book...so this is likely their "official" text as well as opposed to the others).

 

Consider the above and then consider that maybe his gospels were perhaps no more than "sayings" gospels. Perhaps "sayings" gospels with some parables interspersed. The central character that "tied" the whole thing together hadn't yet been weaved into the tale. This is why there is no "Jesus" to cite but simply an unknown "voice."

 

In Ch. 14, he quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans and Paul's first letter to Timothy: "we may lead a quiet and peaceable life...honour to whom honour, fear to whom fear, tribute to whom tribute; to owe no man anything, but to love all." Interestingly, the bishop does not refer either to Paul or to the Romans or to Timothy, by name, instead calling these words "the divine word." It was very early on that the Bible itself was elevated to status of "divine word," replacing to some extent Jesus -- in my view -- as the "divine word." (This, for me, is the biggest beef I have with those called fundamentalists: They have in essence dethroned Jesus and replaced him with a book.)

Quoting Paul and Timothy are more nails in his theological coffin. It shows that where he should be arguing the damnation through the Law, he is not. When he should be arguing replacement theology via the death and resurrection, he is not. His positive assertions towards the law are killing him.

 

As for elevating the bible to anything, he could not. He didn't have a bible. Nor do I see him elevating the "divine word" to anything more than what it is which is the only source of his information. The line "the divine word gives us instructions, in order that 'we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.'" sure doesn't seem like he's elevating it much to me and the rest of the chapter is on loving one's enemies. Where he should be quoting Jesus like crazy he makes barely a peep. If we didn't know better this would pass by us unnoticed as only "Isaiah the prophet" gets a citation by name.

 

The one thing you fail to consider, at all, is that he was NOT aware that these were the words of a "Paul." That there was no "Paul" to write those words. That they were "borrowed" by someone else and the true author is lost. Convention merely forces us to call this person "Paul" as it forces us to call the anonymous authors of the "gospels" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

I'm going to make a brief digression at this point. Surely you have heard of the Essenes at the Dead Sea. They moved there because of a split in the temple and faced much persecution under the authority of the temple. Many of them fled to Damascus where they tried to avoid this very persecution. Could our boy "Saul" be persecuting Essenes in Damascus? Could the "oh, by the way, Saul is now Paul" in Acts the magical usurpation of this story? Could "Saul" had turned Essene after persecuting them so long? Could he have even died at the hands of the Romans as many of them did making his making stories "fair game?" Maybe he's even the one to invent Jesus...but I doubt it.

 

Near the end of this Book III, Theophilus makes the case, again, for the antiquity of his religion and the reliability of its doctrines: "...one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenents mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true."

Yes he does and I'm glad you point this out. You do gloss right over the largest hole in his argument and I'm more than happy to point it out for you, and everyone else, right now.

 

Here's a few quotes to make my case:

"But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty." (chapter 26)

 

"How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God!" (chapter 27)

 

"On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world." (chapter 27)

 

"For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the ridiculous mendacity of your authors, and show that their statements are not true." (chapter 27)

 

So he makes his case from chapter 27, the last one I quote through the following (the titles are pretty good give-aways as to what he's talking about): "CHAP. XVIII.--ERRORS OF THE GREEKS ABOUT THE DELUGE," "CHAP. XIX.--ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE," "CHAP. XX.--ANTIQUITY OF MOSES," "CHAP. XXI.--OF MANETHO'S INACCURACY," "CHAP. XXII.--ANTIQUITY OF THE TEMPLE," "CHAP. XXIII.--PROPHETS MORE ANCIENT THAN GREEK WRITERS, "CHAP. XXIV.--CHRONOLOGY FROM ADAM," "CHAP. XXV.--FROM SAUL TO THE CAPTIVITY," "CHAP. XXVI.--CONTRAST BETWEEN HEBREW AND GREEK WRITINGS," "CHAP. XXVII.--ROMAN CHRONOLOGY TO THE DEATH OF M. AURELIUS," "CHAP. XXVIII.--LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS."

 

That last one "CHAP. XXVIII.--LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS." I happen to know our current western calendar is split at a particular epoch. An epoch considered by many to be the single most important event in all of history. Now, the question is, after all of the discussion the bishop makes, does he consider this event important enough to include it? Does he consider it enough to point out that ANY prophets from the past even made mention of it? The answer is a resounding NO. He does not. He has all the information in the "gospels" in his hands and yet he skips right by the most important event in human history.

 

The single recent event that would prove all those prophets were accurate and true to his unbelieving friend. He simply omits it. He ignores the lineages in G.Matthew and in G.Luke instead relying on other material to make his case to trace to King David when the whole point is to get from Adam to Abraham on down to David to Solomon to Jesus. This is the POINT.

 

He tells his friend that he wants to give him a more accurate demonstration. He's determined to show that this religion is not new. But if this religion is because Jesus, a GOD, came down from heaven to save mankind by dying for the sins of everyone, who cares if it is new? Who cares if it's 5 minutes old? It's TRUTH that matters. So show how the whole thing about Jesus is true. He doesn't. He needs to show how the Jewish religion is secretly the Christian religion. He needs to show how the Jewish Law is really the Christian Law. He needs to show how the the whole Jewish thing is really the whole Christian thing sans the temple (and the related stuff). The Hebrews were just the primary beneficiaries of the Christian religion up until now.

 

If there were a Jesus and sacrifice to reveal he would have revealed him by now. He wouldn't have given his friend the useless Jewish rules to follow if there were updated Jesus based rules to live by. The rules of Paul and Jesus are simply not known to this man. There is no communion celebrating the "body and blood of Christ" as that's in opposition to his beliefs on cannibalism. There is no savior of any kind as the Law and the Commandments provide righteousness that give the resurrection and eternal life. The rest are just helpful hunts for living a good life. More rules handed down by modern prophets.

 

Those are his "positive" statements. Not the things he left out and I'm reading in. He left out Jesus but he explicitly stated the above. The doctrines of the gospels and, in particular, Paul simply contradict him. For someone in his position, at the level of education he clearly appears to possess, in the church he is at, his ignorance of what we know of the biblical texts is appalling. It's clear that he is unaware of Jesus not because he is "hiding" Jesus. He is not afraid to tell his friend what he thinks on any topic. He openly puts forth his ideas in a clear fashion and cites his sources whenever necessary. Jesus simply didn't exist for this man. He is not aware of a Jesus. Not a Jesus that had any impact on his theology at least and certainly not one that was the central figure of his religion much less a god.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

 

mwc writes:

Moving on to Book 3 I'll go ahead and hit your points without writing up another long essay as it seems we're the only two in this discussion anymore.

 

 

CC responds:

Sounds good!

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

Actually, he does not say that his religion is a continuation of the Jewish religion at all. He is clear about this in chapter 9: "Of this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant, was made the minister both to all the world, and chiefly to the Hebrews, who were also called Jews, ..." He usurps Moses for his own purposes as Moses' purpose is quote clear in the OT (he's no "closet" Christian). In chapter 4 he accuses his friend of believing the claims of others over those of actual Christians.

 

 

CC responds:

You are right that he never says "what we Christians have is the next step in this divine revelatory process." But it seems to me quite clear that this is what he is saying. His friend likely knows all about the doctrines of the bishop and his church, all about Jesus, all about the basic doctrines. What his friend does not know is that the Jesus experience was the most recent manifestation of a God who goes back, in the bishop's view, to Adam and Eve, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, etc. His only point in these letters is to make known that the Christian religion, while new in its particularity, is as intimately connected with the ancient prophets of Israel.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

 

I really only need to focus on one key item however. If they practiced communion then they were eating the "flesh and blood" of their god which would be cannibalism. Way down in chapter 15 he says the following:

 

"Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such things can possibly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful intercourse, or, most impious of all, eat human flesh, especially when we are forbidden so much as to witness shows of gladiators, lest we become partakers and abettors of murders. But neither may we see the other spectacles, lest our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utterances there sung. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten; and as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honours and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas."

 

They can't even see a play about cannibalism since that would basically be the same thing to them as taking part in it (even passively). The communion is the symbolic eating of the flesh and blood of their own god. If watching something is the same as doing it then symbolically doing it certainly is not allowed. They couldn't symbolically murder someone by this same argument. It would be like actually doing it. Also, since they follow the Law of Moses they are required to pour the blood out upon the ground like water.

 

They cannot practice the Last Supper as described in the gospels as we know it.

 

They could have practiced something more like this (from the Didache):

 

 

CC responds:

Even today many view the doctrine of transubstantiation as "cannibaly." I have a friend who is born and raised New England congregational protestant, who does not even believe that the elements are the blood, body, soul and divinty of Jesus as the RCC teaches, and yet she won't partake of the elements as it seems cannibalistic to her. She attends every church service but does not partake of the elements. She has talked to her minister about her feelings and he recommends that she do what her conscience leads her to do.

 

It is quite likely that the Didache formula you quote (that I omitted above) is the forumla used in celebrating the Lord's Supper. The early Christian celebration was much less dogmatic and must less "cannibalistic" than what became of the celebration of mass in medieval times. But let's say that the eucharist as fully evolved doctrine was known to the bishop as it is to today's RCC bishops. None of them would not be repulsed by cannibalism while at the same time eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Jesus. Just as a modern bishop rightly (in my view) separates these two acts -- cannibalism and the eucharist -- so too could have this bishop in the last half of the second century.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

Now, briefly, we skipped chapter 9 where he mentions: "Of this great and wonderful law, which tends to all righteousness, the ten heads are such as we have already rehearsed." He couldn't have said this had he been a Pauline Christian or believed in replacement theology. He's said the Law is a wonderful thing numerous times. Once again he confirms it gives to righteousness. Contrary to Paul. If those who speak on behalf of god are in unity this is a big problem.

 

In chapter 11 he speaks of repentance and finishes with "Many therefore, yea rather, countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins." This is a great opening to show that god kept trying with the Jews but they wouldn't listen and finally he gave them Jesus but they made the ultimate rejection and so salvation was made available to everyone. This is why the doctrine simply "seems" new. But as we're about to see he is oblivious of all this. The ultimate rejection of god and his wanting to give man repentance via the sacrifice of his own son.

 

 

CC responds:

I think many Pauline Christians say such things. Think of the former Worldwide Church of God, the Assemblies of Yahweh, etc. There is much diversity in terms of what the Mosaic Law meant, means, and the role it plays in Christians' lives. I think there was much diversity of thought on this subject the first two centuries of the Christian era as well. You write about those who "speak on behalf of god" and that they should have a unified message. My first thought is this: "Does anyone other than Jesus speak on behalf of God?" Yes and no, I guess. But I think there are all sorts of diverse views among the people of God about all sorts of things, including the Law and the Eucharist and the correct style of worship, etc. The mirror is dirty and dusty and dark...so lack of unity does not surprise me nor trouble me.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

But when the opportunity to cite his lord and savior, the reason for the existence of his very religion, he FAILS to do so. He calls him the "voice of the gospel" (not even naming the book...so this is likely their "official" text as well as opposed to the others).

 

Consider the above and then consider that maybe his gospels were perhaps no more than "sayings" gospels. Perhaps "sayings" gospels with some parables interspersed. The central character that "tied" the whole thing together hadn't yet been weaved into the tale. This is why there is no "Jesus" to cite but simply an unknown "voice."

 

 

CC responds:

Could it be that his friend knew much about Jesus already? If I said to you, mwc, "the voice of the gospel is clear in saying blah, blah, blah (sortta like that image in the upper left-hand corner of every page on this forum! ) you would know that I mean something said by or about Jesus. A lot of people say things like, "The Bible says ... thus and so." We know what they mean. Maybe Jesus said it. Or Paul. Or a prophet. Or Moses. Or God. But the shorthand is "The Bible says...." (I personally don't like that shorthand, prefering to identify who allegedly said what, but many use such shorthand.)

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

Quoting Paul and Timothy are more nails in his theological coffin. It shows that where he should be arguing the damnation through the Law, he is not. When he should be arguing replacement theology via the death and resurrection, he is not. His positive assertions towards the law are killing him.

 

As for elevating the bible to anything, he could not. He didn't have a bible. Nor do I see him elevating the "divine word" to anything more than what it is which is the only source of his information. The line "the divine word gives us instructions, in order that 'we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.'" sure doesn't seem like he's elevating it much to me and the rest of the chapter is on loving one's enemies. Where he should be quoting Jesus like crazy he makes barely a peep. If we didn't know better this would pass by us unnoticed as only "Isaiah the prophet" gets a citation by name.

 

The one thing you fail to consider, at all, is that he was NOT aware that these were the words of a "Paul." That there was no "Paul" to write those words. That they were "borrowed" by someone else and the true author is lost. Convention merely forces us to call this person "Paul" as it forces us to call the anonymous authors of the "gospels" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

 

 

CC responds:

As in the previous response above, many people quote from Paul and never identify him. I don't like that practice, myself, as I want to know who said what, when, why, where, and to whom. But it is common practice to make claims about how we are to behave and use the words of Paul in doing so, without an explicit attribution.

 

I know they did not have the Bible as we have it, but by 160 the OT had been canonized by the Jews and the NT was well on its way. What the bishop did, which I feel is unfortunate, is elevate these writings to "divine word." This view is the origin of the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, which do not seem to be wise doctrines or logical ones, in my view.

 

I understand your thesis, but I don't find it supported by these documents or what we know about the life of the Christian movement in 160 C.E. I think the bishop knew who Jesus was, knew who Paul was, knew what the gospels were and I think these gospels were pretty much what we have today.

 

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

I'm going to make a brief digression at this point. Surely you have heard of the Essenes at the Dead Sea. They moved there because of a split in the temple and faced much persecution under the authority of the temple. Many of them fled to Damascus where they tried to avoid this very persecution. Could our boy "Saul" be persecuting Essenes in Damascus? Could the "oh, by the way, Saul is now Paul" in Acts the magical usurpation of this story? Could "Saul" had turned Essene after persecuting them so long? Could he have even died at the hands of the Romans as many of them did making his making stories "fair game?" Maybe he's even the one to invent Jesus...but I doubt it.

 

 

CC responds:

That's a good hypothesis, but I don't know how one would ever collect the data necessary to prove or disprove it. BTW, there's a brand new hypothesis by a leading Israeli archaeologist about the Dead Sea Scrolls and where they came from. He discounts the Essene hypothesis and claims that the area was nothing more than a place where pottery was made, that none of these scrolls were written by Dead Sea Essenes but were brought to that area only in order to escape the Roman invasions of the 60's leading up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

 

 

**

 

 

mwc writes:

I happen to know our current western calendar is split at a particular epoch. An epoch considered by many to be the single most important event in all of history. Now, the question is, after all of the discussion the bishop makes, does he consider this event important enough to include it? Does he consider it enough to point out that ANY prophets from the past even made mention of it? The answer is a resounding NO. He does not. He has all the information in the "gospels" in his hands and yet he skips right by the most important event in human history.

 

The single recent event that would prove all those prophets were accurate and true to his unbelieving friend. He simply omits it. He ignores the lineages in G.Matthew and in G.Luke instead relying on other material to make his case to trace to King David when the whole point is to get from Adam to Abraham on down to David to Solomon to Jesus. This is the POINT.

 

He tells his friend that he wants to give him a more accurate demonstration. He's determined to show that this religion is not new. But if this religion is because Jesus, a GOD, came down from heaven to save mankind by dying for the sins of everyone, who cares if it is new? Who cares if it's 5 minutes old? It's TRUTH that matters. So show how the whole thing about Jesus is true. He doesn't. He needs to show how the Jewish religion is secretly the Christian religion. He needs to show how the Jewish Law is really the Christian Law. He needs to show how the the whole Jewish thing is really the whole Christian thing sans the temple (and the related stuff). The Hebrews were just the primary beneficiaries of the Christian religion up until now.

 

If there were a Jesus and sacrifice to reveal he would have revealed him by now. He wouldn't have given his friend the useless Jewish rules to follow if there were updated Jesus based rules to live by. The rules of Paul and Jesus are simply not known to this man. There is no communion celebrating the "body and blood of Christ" as that's in opposition to his beliefs on cannibalism. There is no savior of any kind as the Law and the Commandments provide righteousness that give the resurrection and eternal life. The rest are just helpful hunts for living a good life. More rules handed down by modern prophets.

 

Those are his "positive" statements. Not the things he left out and I'm reading in. He left out Jesus but he explicitly stated the above. The doctrines of the gospels and, in particular, Paul simply contradict him. For someone in his position, at the level of education he clearly appears to possess, in the church he is at, his ignorance of what we know of the biblical texts is appalling. It's clear that he is unaware of Jesus not because he is "hiding" Jesus. He is not afraid to tell his friend what he thinks on any topic. He openly puts forth his ideas in a clear fashion and cites his sources whenever necessary. Jesus simply didn't exist for this man. He is not aware of a Jesus. Not a Jesus that had any impact on his theology at least and certainly not one that was the central figure of his religion much less a god.

 

 

CC responds:

You set out a powerfully written argument in these concluding paragraphs. What you propose just might be possible if, and here I could list a hundred if's, such as: if John does not mean the gospel of John; if the quotes from Matthew are not from Matthew; if the quotes from Luke are not from Luke; if the quotes from Paul are not from Paul; if the gospel does not mean the gospel; if this is the entirely of the correspondence between the two men; if.......

 

There are too many if's for me.

 

That said, your argument is original, strongly made, scholarly, exciting, and worth more study. I guarantee that I will never in my life read or hear the name Theophilus (a man I had never heard of before you introduced him to me) -- and not pay closer attention to what I am reading or hearing. Nor will I fail to remember you, mwc, or this very fine discourse.

 

Thank you.

 

-CC

[mwc]

 

mwc

[trashy]

I hate to jump in just when you two seem to have wound down, but I just ran across something that made me go "hmmmmmm"

 

From Luke 1

 

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."

 

Surely the good Bishop isn't above seeking documentation....

[currentchristian]

I hate to jump in just when you two seem to have wound down, but I just ran across something that made me go "hmmmmmm"

 

From Luke 1

 

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."

 

Surely the good Bishop isn't above seeking documentation....

 

Hello, Trashy! The common name did dawn on me, and likely on mwc, too, as he's quite the scholar. I suppose an argument could be made that the author of Luke is addressing the bishop. The dating is off, however, if we accept the majority view for the dating of Luke. Theophilus was bishop ca. 163-182 (some have him bishop until 188), while Luke was written, most surmise, 100 years earlier. Likely, they simply have the same name, like all the Mary's in the NT.

 

There also was a Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea about the same time as the Theophilus of Antioch.

 

The greeting "most excellent Theophilus" in Luke, some suggest, identifies this Theophilus as a Roman official. Only two others in the NT are referred to as "most excellent ...": Felix (Acts 24) and Festus (Acts 26). But who really knows.

 

Some suggest that Theophilus, Lover of God, is not a proper name but a description of the person to whom the author is sending this account. But who knows about that, either?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Anyone know if the European Court of Human Rights has heard this case?

 

Did Jesus Exist?: Italian Court to Decide

 

Wikipedia Summary of Case up to July 2006 Appeal to the European Court

 

I'm waiting for the Europeans to decide, so I know what to believe!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

In searching for more information on the case in the preceding post, I ran across a 150-year-old book that is new to me: The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of Harvard Law School. In this book, the claim is made, he approaches the canonical gospels by means of the rules of evidence established in courts of justice to determine admissibility and reliability of a witness.

 

Here's a link to this book.

 

According to this Wikipedia biography, Greenleaf was born of Jewish parents, later considered himself agnostic, then embraced Christianity after a careful study of the gospels.

 

-CC

[mwc]

Here's a link to this book.

I read the book is really just a collection of essays and his is just one of the shorter ones of the bunch. It should be in the public domain so I'll see if I can download it and give it a quick once over (assuming that's the case...I don't much feel like reading a book about this at this moment especially a cross-examination of the gospels).

 

EDIT: Here's his essay.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Here's a link to this book.

I read the book is really just a collection of essays and his is just one of the shorter ones of the bunch. It should be in the public domain so I'll see if I can download it and give it a quick once over (assuming that's the case...I don't much feel like reading a book about this at this moment especially a cross-examination of the gospels).

 

EDIT: Here's his essay.

 

mwc

 

Thanks, mwc. I'll be away from a computer for the next few days, but I'll definitely look this over as soon as I can.

 

-CC