ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 5945
Wed, 3-Aug-11 09:40:10
I note that no one's disputed the very clear reference to 1 Corinthians in 1 Clement.
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:19:37
The fact that Marcion split the church implies there was, already in existence, a church capable of being split. He did not invent the religion.
Posts: 20703
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:32:34
Moderator
Proteus wrote:The point in referencing Marcion is not to endorse any of his beliefs, but rather note the fact of his having referenced, prior to the third century, Paul's letters.
The point in referencing Marcion is not to endorse any of his beliefs, but rather note the fact of his having referenced, prior to the third century, Paul's letters.
"the Pauline letters in their entirety are inauthentic. . ."If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom? . . ."the fact that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus was very curious — just as strange as the related fact that immediately after receiving the revelation calling him to be an apostle he went to Arabia for three years (Gal 1:17f.) instead of visiting the Jerusalem community, as one might expect, whether to make contact with its leaders or to acquire more information about the life of the person who had appeared to him at Damascus (Acts 9:3f.). Can one imagine that someone who had just experienced the decisive turning-point of his life through a revelation took no notice and had no interest in the earthly past of the one who stood in the center of this revelation? . . .one must ask why Luke presents a picture of Paul that is entirely different from the picture of the apostle in the letters. Philipp Vielhauer observes, “The writer makes historical mistakes regarding the life of Paul that no companion would make,”. . .Why is the Catholic Justin in the middle of the second century silent with regard to the Pauline writings? Why do we first encounter a canon of letters with Marcion the heretic?
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:42:15
Proteus wrote:The fact that Marcion split the church implies there was, already in existence, a church capable of being split. He did not invent the religion.
There are a number of archaeological references to ‘Chrest’ and ‘Chrestiani’ in the first century, which we note here and, as noted in our article Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men, the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘Christian’ in the New Testament derive most probably from the Greek ‘Chrest’.The common usage of the word ‘Chrest’ in the first centuries of this era are most-often associated with theurgy, the practise of Greek low magic, as we see here with the ‘Chrest Magus’ bowl and the ‘Jesus Chrest’ spell.The Christian Church tried to obliterate Chrest, changing the biblical texts to read ‘Christ’. This has not been noticed until very recently. The association of Chrest and Chrestians with magic is in accord with the our interpretation of much Christian liturgy and ritual as magical in character.
The association of Chrest and Chrestians with magic is in accord with the our interpretation of much Christian liturgy and ritual as magical in character.
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:45:54
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:52:39
Chrest means "good" (apparently) and this is the term found in early manuscripts including the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus -- the basis of the modern Christian bible. Christ as a term does not appear until hundreds of years after Christianity SUPPOSEDLY began.
Suddenly Mordochai's uncle is looking to be a pretty smart man. . .
Wed, 3-Aug-11 10:56:12
Wed, 3-Aug-11 11:00:13
Wed, 3-Aug-11 11:16:06
"In his Apology, Justin Martyr calls his coreligionists Chrestians. And so it was for three centuries. To quote from Massey: "In Bockh's Christin Inscriptions, numbering 1287, there is not a single instance of an earlier date than the third century wherein the name is not written Chrest or Chreist." This was changed by those "who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of correction," as Origen said." Page 411.
Wed, 3-Aug-11 11:17:44
Wed, 3-Aug-11 11:25:40
Wed, 3-Aug-11 11:26:57
It would be interesting to find out what the Jesus Seminar folk say about these things.Still as yet no dispute as to 1 Clement.
Wed, 3-Aug-11 12:06:56
Posts: 7963
Wed, 3-Aug-11 12:30:28
Proteus wrote:The guy claims shemen (some kind of holy oil, if I recall correctly, mentioned in TaNaKh) is actually "semen."
What an absurd claim! שֶֽׁמֶן shĕmĕn is not “some kind of holy oil”, it means oil s'tam—ANY kind of oil. Moreover, the Hebrew word שֶֽׁמֶן shĕmĕn has nothing whatsoever to do with “semen”, which is a LATIN word and means a seed (the two words aren’t even pronounced alike: both syllables of שֶֽׁמֶן shĕmĕn have short “ĕ” vowels, rhyming with bed, while the first e in sēmĕn is long and rhymes with been). Anyone trying to claim that an etymological connection exists between these two words is an ignorant fool and also, quite possibly, a sick and perverted antisemite.
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Wed, 3-Aug-11 12:39:23
Wed, 3-Aug-11 12:59:05
Wed, 3-Aug-11 18:13:15
Posts: 499
Wed, 3-Aug-11 19:37:56
Wed, 3-Aug-11 21:13:12
Fri, 5-Aug-11 09:52:35
Share This