Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Under this scenario Chrestos would represent the "right one" whatever that meant (Jesus?)
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Another supportive fact is that the Christian liturgical calendar begins with Epiphany but the gospel starts on Yom Kippur some months earlier. Could there be a "pre-history" (late October to January) which didn't appear in shorter gospels which typically began with Jesus's baptism? This also might account for Tertullian's statement that John appears late in Marcion's gospel.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Hi Stephan

This may have been posted before and if so I apologize, but if not it may be relevant.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies I discussing the ideas of Marcus the Valentinian says
He [Marcus] maintains, therefore, that Jesus is the name of that man formed by a special dispensation, and that He was formed after the likeness and form of that [heavenly] Anthropos, who was about to descend upon Him. After He had received that AEon, He possessed Anthropos himself, and Loges himself, and Pater, and Arrhetus, and Sige, and Aletheia, and Ecclesia, and Zoe.
The whole discussion by Irenaeus of Marcus' views may be relevant.

Andrew Criddle
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Stephan Huller »

Brilliant! Thank you Andrew, much appreciated.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is also intriguing that 2Clement (with its frequent use of a non-canonical gospel) also seems to echo the "Man and Church" concept of the Valentinians (cf Irenaeus Adv Haer 1):
Wherefore, brethren, if we do the will of God our Father, we shall be of the first Church, which is spiritual, which was created before the sun and the moon; but if we do not the will of the Lord, we shall be of the scripture that saith, My house was made a den of robbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of the Church of life, that we may be saved.

And I do not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our IC also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us.

Now the Church, being spiritual was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and defile her not, he shall receive her again in the Holy Spirit: for this flesh is the counterpart and copy of the spirit. No man therefore, when he hath defiled the copy, shall receive the original for his portion. This therefore is what He meaneth, brethren; Guard ye the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit.

But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such and one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. So excellent is the life and immortality which this flesh can receive as its portion, if the Holy Spirit be joined to it. No man can declare or tell those things which the Lord hath prepared for His elect.
I don't think we are that far here from an original text which identified Man and Church as being born from Life (compare Irenaeus's statement in Adv Haer 1.1 about the Valentinians "By the conjunction of Logos and Zoe were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia"). It would be interesting to see if 2 Clement quotes from the Gospel of John.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

And I am not the first to notice the Valentinian language in chapter 14 of 2 Clement - https://books.google.com/books?id=TE4-T ... an&f=false. Always reassuring when someone else has picked up on something you've noticed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Clive »

Man and Church
Is there an underlying debate here about the one and the many? One man or a type of mankind?

Is salvation individual or communal?

So the perfect man for us all to follow together, holding everything in common, loving one another, sharing all things, creating the new heaven and earth together using rituals like the eucharist, becomes slowly individualised into each soul seeking their own salvation?

Maybe this did not start with protestantism, but the heresy of the individual Jesus is very early, and is an existing fault line between on one side the orthodox, nestorian and coptic churches, and on the other, Roman Catholicism and its heretical offshoot protestantism and the myriad splinter groups.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

1. Justin Dialogue 128
"And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said." Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of IC, and continued: "And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears strayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels."
The common way of reading 'the name of IC' is as a reference to Moses giving the name Joshua to Hoshea. Yet this ignores the fact that 'the book of Exodus' is explicitly referenced immediately before it. Is this a reference to Exodus 15:3?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:1. Justin Dialogue 128
"And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said." Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of IC, and continued: "And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears strayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels."
The common way of reading 'the name of IC' is as a reference to Moses giving the name Joshua to Hoshea. Yet this ignores the fact that 'the book of Exodus' is explicitly referenced immediately before it. Is this a reference to Exodus 15:3?
Looks a lot more like Exodus 3:2.
And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
cf. Justin
appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush
that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of
There is also a reference to Genesis 19, not said to be in Exodus, as the vision in the bush is.
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ...

15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. 17 And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.” 18 And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. 19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die. 20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!” 21 He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
It might seem problematic that the Exodus story of the burning bush doesn't have the name "man" in it.

It's possible that the story of Lot was thought to prove that there were two "lords" from heaven, not just one. A father-son duo as it were.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote:It is also intriguing that 2Clement (with its frequent use of a non-canonical gospel) also seems to echo the "Man and Church" concept of the Valentinians (cf Irenaeus Adv Haer 1):
Wherefore, brethren, if we do the will of God our Father, we shall be of the first Church, which is spiritual, which was created before the sun and the moon; but if we do not the will of the Lord, we shall be of the scripture that saith, My house was made a den of robbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of the Church of life, that we may be saved.

And I do not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our IC also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us.

Now the Church, being spiritual was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and defile her not, he shall receive her again in the Holy Spirit: for this flesh is the counterpart and copy of the spirit. No man therefore, when he hath defiled the copy, shall receive the original for his portion. This therefore is what He meaneth, brethren; Guard ye the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit.

But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such and one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. So excellent is the life and immortality which this flesh can receive as its portion, if the Holy Spirit be joined to it. No man can declare or tell those things which the Lord hath prepared for His elect.
I don't think we are that far here from an original text which identified Man and Church as being born from Life (compare Irenaeus's statement in Adv Haer 1.1 about the Valentinians "By the conjunction of Logos and Zoe were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia"). It would be interesting to see if 2 Clement quotes from the Gospel of John.
Good point. All the Valentinian aeons appear to be pairs of masculine and feminine nouns.

Image
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply