Why Is the Gospel So Bad at Proving Jesus is Son of God?

[Secret Alias]

Thank you Peter. In Book 3 another 30 or so references but the vast majority are now citations of Paul. The highlighted ones are scriptural citations:

1. So they should not wear the name of Christ as a cloak, live more licentiously than the most intemperate of the pagans, and bring ill-repute upon the name. [Chrestos would be a logical choice for the nomen sacrum here]

2 The followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes think that wives should be held in common. 16 It is through them that the greatest ill-repute has accrued to the name of Christ. [Chrestos is a logical choice here]

3, 4 Two citations follow back to back - "That is not how you have learned Christ, if you have been told of him, if you have learned your lessons in him, as the truth is in Jesus Christ – to leave on one side your former way of life, to put off the old human nature, which is deluded by its lusts and on the road to destruction. (3) Be made new in mind and spirit. Put on the new human nature, created in God’s way, in the righteousness and holiness which truth demands, following the likeness of the divine." 95 (4) "Become imitators of God, like dear children, and set your course in love, as Christ loved you and gave himself up for us as an offering and sacrifice to God producing a pleasing fragrance. (5) Fornication, indecency of any kind, the profit motive, coarseness, trivial talk should never even be mentioned among you as is right for God’s people."

5. They forget that the upper parts of the body call out for food, and in some people show lust. They contradict Christ’s statement to the Pharisees that the same God made our outer and our inner man.

6. Scriptural citation. "When you go to court with an opponent, try and achieve an amicable reconciliation." 122 (2) So they will either reject Christ’s recommendation and remain in opposition to their opponent, or they will become friends and drop their suit against him.

7, 8, 9, 10 Scriptural citations back to back "You have been circumcised in Christ with a circumcision not performed with hands in stripping yourselves of your fleshly body, that is, in Christ’s circumcision." "So if you are risen together with Christ, look for the things above, fix your mind on them, not on earthly things. For you are dead, and your life has been buried in God together with Christ"

11. Scriptural citation "Now many antichrists have come, from which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but were not of our company: if they had been, they would have stayed with us."

* Through them the name of Christian comes into bad repute." We already know that Clement derives 'Christian' from Chrestos (see Book 2)

12. Then how can they hunger and thirst and suffer the flesh and all the other things from which the person who has attained through Christ the fullness of the expected resurrection will be free?

13. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will. We have learned not "to pay attention to physical desires," "walking decorously as in the light of day" – that is, in Christ and the shining conduct of the Lord’s way – "not in drunken carousing, sexual promiscuity, or jealous quarreling."

14, 15 Scriptural citations almost back to back So they have not understood, 236 it seems, that "we must all appear before Christ’s tribunal, where each must receive what is due to him for his physical conduct, good or bad," 237 that is, where a person may receive recompense for what he has done by means of his body. (2) "So that, if a person is in Christ, he is recreated"

16. Scriptural citation "What have righteousness and lawlessness in common? What fellowship is there between light and darkness? Can Christ agree with Beliar? (3) What have the faithful to do with the faithless? Can there be a compact between the Temple of God and idols?"

17, 18, 19 Scriptural citation "I shall speak out. Christ will now and always be glorified in my body, whether through my life or through my death. For to me life is Christ, and death is gain. But if life in the flesh means for me some fruitful work, I do not know what to choose. I am torn two ways. I have a desire to weigh anchor and to be with Christ; that is far better. But I feel a deeper constraint to remain in the flesh for your sake."

20. Scriptural citation Who are the " two or three who gather in the name of Christ with the Lord in their midst?"

21. The Law and the prophets are brought together with the gospel too, in the name of Christ into one true knowledge

22. Scriptural citation "My zeal for you is God’s zeal. I betrothed you to Christ, with a view to presenting a chaste virgin to her one and only husband."

23. Scriptural citation "But as the serpent in his wicked cunning deceived Eve, I am afraid that your thoughts may be corrupted so that you lose your singlehearted

24. Scriptural citation "But as the serpent in his wicked cunning deceived Eve, I am afraid that your thoughts may be corrupted so that you lose your singlehearted devotion to Christ."

25, 26 Scriptural citation "You are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. (3) So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God."

27. Scriptural citation "The Apostle says bishops should be appointed from those who have learned by practice in their own home the charge of the whole Church. So each person should fulfill his service by the work in which he was called, so that he may be free in Christ and receive the appropriate reward for that service.

28. Scriptural citation But we "have died to the Law through Christ’s body with a view to belonging to another, the one who was raised from the dead," the one who was prophesied by the Law, "so that we may bear fruit for God."

29, 30 Scriptural citations back to back Accordingly, the Apostle points this mystery in the direction of Christ and the Church. 335 (3) just as "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" 336 not just in the process of birth but in its education. So "the children are holy," 337 objects of delight, when the Lord’s words have brought the soul to God as a bride. (4) Anyway, there is a distinction between fornication and marriage, as great as separates the devil from God. "So you too have died to the Law through Christ’s body with a view to belonging to another, the one who was raised from the dead."

31. Scriptural citation The man who said, "I have married a wife and cannot come" 369 to the dinner offered by God was an example to expose those who were apostates to God’s command for pleasures’ sake; for on this argument neither those who were righteous before the coming of Christ nor those who have married after his coming will be saved, even if they are apostles.

32. Scriptural citation Then he does violence to Paul, in suggesting that he says that birth was constituted out of deceit. He is interpreting the words "My fear is that, just as the snake deceived Eve, your thoughts may be corrupted and diverted from a simple commitment to Christ."

33, 34, 35 Scriptural citation hat is why Paul says in his letter to Galatians, "My little children, I am going through the pains of childbirth with you a second time until Christ is formed in you" 405 (3)Yet again in writing to the Corinthians he says, "You may have thousands of tutors in Christ but only one father. I am your father in Christ through the gospel."

36, 37 Scriptural citation back to back "Through the Law," he says, "I am dead to the Law in order to live to God. I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who am alive" in the way I used to live, lustfully – "but Christ who is alive in me,"

Come on, that is pretty incredible! Almost no references to Christ (especially if we assume the text was rewritten at least once by a later hand).

[Ben C. Smith]

fwiw, a reminder:

http://peterkirby.com/a-table-of-christ ... itles.html

These texts have no term "Christ" in them:

Dialogue of the Savior
Gospel of Mary
Second Apocalypse of James
First Apocalypse of James
On the Eighth and Ninth
Eugnostos the Blessed
Athenagoras of Athens
Epistle to Diognetus
Shepherd of Hermas
Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs
Tatian’s Address to the Greeks
Theophilus of Antioch
3 John
Authoritative Teaching
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul

I've done no survey of relative frequency.

I have perused that table before and find it very helpful.

It is tempting to use patterns of the various titles in the various works to trace how the personage we know as Jesus Christ was viewed in different circles, and I certainly would never discourage it, but it also seems to me that a caution may be in order: it might not be any huge thing for a scribe to add titles. A great degree of variation in the titles can be found, for example, amongst the main codices containing the Pauline epistles. Very frequently "Jesus Christ" in one manuscript will become "Christ Jesus" in another, and there are quite a few instances in which one manuscript will bear only "Jesus" or "Christ" where others combine both titles. It is interesting that, for example, Vaticanus and Boernerianus actually disagree on the precise order (Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus) more often than they agree in the epistolary greetings. We can discern this variation in the NT because we have so many NT manuscripts at our disposal. But what about a text such as the Didache, which we know directly from only one tiny fragment of century IV and one (probably) nearly complete manuscript of century XI? Your table shows the Didache as containing the names/titles Jesus, Christ, Lord, and Son; but most of those names/titles are confined only to very limited parts of the manuscript, and who is to say for certain that, for example, Didache 9 had Jesus Christ right from the beginning? What if it originally had only Jesus (like the similar eucharistic prayer in Didache 10), and Christ was added at some point? Or only Christ, and Jesus was added in order to make clear that the two figures were the same person? No textual evidence for or against such a proposal exists, since the Didache is preserved so tenuously. But, if the titles in the Pauline epistles are any guide, we ought to admit that such a proposal is at least possible, tending to compromise arguments from patterns of titles.

This consideration may mean different things, too, depending upon whether a title is present in or absent from a text. It may be significant, for example, that the Shepherd of Hermas never names either Jesus or Christ; on the other hand, to press this information means using an argument from silence to some extent (there is a difference between saying that the Shepherd never bears those names, which is a matter of textual record, and claiming that Hermas did not know or acknowledge the names, which is where the argument from silence begins). I am not saying such an argument ought not to be employed, but it is something to bear in mind. And it may not be significant that some texts contain both names/titles, or even additional ones (like Son), if scribes have expanded the text at all as I have suggested as a possibility above. In either case, arguing from titles alone seems hazardous to me, and I think we ought to bolster our observations with other data if at all possible when we go in that direction. Just my idle thoughts on the topic.

[Secret Alias]

Thank you Ben. For my purposes in the thread I am trying to explain how Celsus had access to Christian manuscripts but never once makes a reference to the title Christ in association with Jesus. He is always for Celsus 'the Son of God' it seems. I think the 'Jew' is responsible for some of this (he explicitly identifies Jesus as 'the Son of God.' But surely the manuscripts of Church Fathers he used seems to point in the direction of an Alexandrian provenance for Celsus. At least that's my guess right now. But could Alexandrian Christianity have originally avoided the epithet 'Christ' for Jesus? It's all very speculative but I am working my way through Clement to at least begin to explain Celsus.

[Secret Alias]

A curious thing I discovered when checking Against Celsus. The discussion turns to whether or not a sign from heaven could have heralded Christ although the name does not come up in Origen. First Origen's reference to Celsus:

After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel, says that Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne. See now in this instance the blunder of one who cannot distinguish between Magi and Chaldeans, nor perceive that what they profess is different, and so has falsified the Gospel narrative. [1.58]

Then his follow up:

It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars are wont to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars, or the happening of such circumstances as may cause commotions upon the earth. But we have read in the Treatise on Comets by Chæremon the Stoic, that on some occasions also, when good (χρηστοῖς italics in the original) was to happen, comets made their appearance; and he gives an account of such instances. [1.59]

My point here is that even though the name Christ does not appear in Celsus there appears to be a deeper layer to Origen's text which understood the following of the star by the magi to be related to 'chrestos' appearing.

[Secret Alias]

delete

[outhouse]

It all goes to why was he deified in the first place.

Well yes sort of. I guess I am wondering if the gospel needs God to be on the Cross, and I think it does, wouldn't it have been just as easy to call Jesus 'God' assume the Jews only had one - or alternatively that the Jews didn't know this god (if you're a heretic) - rather than introduce this additional layer of confusion about a god who is a Father and another god who is his Son all of whom 'fit' in traditional Judaism? Why even introduce this more complicated layer to an already strange story.

I think we had a perceived sacrifice of such a magnitude that only gods son could have been so pure in spirit. And I still stick behind the Roman title "son of god" compiled in, as much as what was plagiarized out of the OT text.

I don't think god had to be on the cross. I think they perceived the sacrifice as hole and one they were all in, they had to apply the theology to the events they had to work with based on what they were learning coming back to the temple every year before it fell.

Were getting their mythological retelling of what they found valuable on theological grounds.

I guess my point is if the Emperor was "son of god" and he was a corrupt crazy politician, son of god was not that big of a deal or title to them.

[Secret Alias]

So your point would be that 'son of god' would be self-explanatory? So the demons and crowds were hailing him as the Emperor or cosmic Emperor?

[outhouse]

So your point would be that 'son of god' would be self-explanatory?

Yes in a way, it was just a special relationship with god in context. A pious man who died for his beliefs.

So the demons and crowds were hailing him as the Emperor or cosmic Emperor?

As a gentile introduced to Christianity for the first time, you were forced to worship the corrupt politician as son of god, or you could worship the common pious man who unlike the Emperor, sacrificed himself.


SO going out on a limb here. INRI could have started from his Roman beatings, before crucifixion. I think he tried to use the Passover crowds, fire them up to use the hundreds of thousands there to overthrow the corrupt temple sects. Despite his complete failure his actions seemed as pious and pure of heart as one could get. Romans state oh you want to be king of the Jews, well here you go [continued beating] INRI as king of the Jews could have been evidence to the first followers that plagiarized the OT text right from the beginning as "son of god" in relationship to "king of the Jews". We know the Christian authors used many parallels to the Emperor all through the gospels. Only Hellenist who never wanted to be a Jew but wanted monotheism found value in this first movement that took baby steps away from Judaism by creating a "son of god" completely out of normal Jewish context.

Sorry looking at OT parallels for son of god found in only Judaism to see how he was deemed divine before the movement evovlved.

[Garon]

The Aramaic teachings of Rocco Errico are plain and simple as to the meanings of sayings like " Son of man," "Son of God.' King of the Jews." Raymond E. Brown Roman Catholic Scholar. explains "Only Begotten Son" as a UNIQUE one, not the only one. Now that goes against Roman Catholic doctrine completely.

Son of man means an ordinary human being. Son of God means a pious person or God like.( Adam or Humankind was son of God" or as Errico would say "A chip off the old block." King of the Jews means counselor or teacher.

Attempting to use modern English language symbols to define ancient sayings from other languages will continue to have threads like this one pop up every fines months. IE Three days in the belly of a fish in modern English language would mean, the person has a dilemma or is in a pickle.
Remember the ancients wrote in colorful exciting language to explain their stories. We talk in blunt plain talk. Oh he is nuts or crazy. They would say that poor man was filled with demons and only one with the power of God can help him/her. We would say go to a shrink.

Some of the threads in here are harder to believe then any Christian belief system I've ever heard. LOL

[outhouse]

Son of God means a pious person or God like

Exactly, but the new term in context was perverted as the movement evolved.

Also Jesus was "son of god", his followers "sons of god".