The strangest silence of them all: Eusebius on the Pentecost

[Clivedurdle]

I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...

And that of course was originally written.....

Do we have another example of someone looking for fulfilled prophecies to justify their theological system and picking on an ecstatic behaviour as evidence?

Exactly what Pentecostals do now?

Midrash?

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by aa5874

Chrysostom's statement has very serious historical implications. How could it be that the assumed close associate of PAUL who supposedly wrote the Gospel of Luke, travelled and preached all over the Roman Empire and was a physician be not known to have written Acts of the Apostles?

And how could it be at the end of the 4th century, Acts of the Apostles is not even known to have existed?

Supposedly since, the 2nd century, a writer called Irenaeus appears to know of Acts of the Apostles. The writer using the name Irenaeus made reference to the day of Pentecost when the disciples received the Holy Ghost.

Against Heresies 3.12.1


Acts of the Apostles 2:14-17

Earlier, Justin Martyr wrote NOT a single thing about the day of Pentecost, the single most important event after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

But it is even more significant or troubling to note that the Gospel writers, who supposedly wrote AFTER the day of Pentecost Holy Ghost event, AFTER the disciples supposedly talked in tongues, did NOT put any words in the mouth of their Jesus about this extremely important event where the disciples were to wait in Jerusalem and would be able to speak in tongues or become multi-lingual instantly by the Holy Ghost of God.

Jesus taught his disciples that he would resurrect on the third day, but did not teach them that they would ALL become multi-lingual instantly by the Holy Ghost.

The talking of tongues appears to be late, after the Gospels. And who talked in tongues the most?

PAUL!

1Corinthians 14:18 -

Chrysostom seems right, not even the authors of the Jesus stories knew about Acts or the day of Pentecost when the disciples ALL became multi-lingual.

The Pauline writer and Acts are all after the Gospels, not even Jesus in the Gospels taught his disciples they would be instantly multi-lingual during the single most important event after the resurrection and ascension on the day of Pentecost.

AA, I see this as just another piece of evidence for Marcion's priority, re: Paul.

[andrewcriddle]

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But might that not lead to accusations of heresy by Trinitarians?

Eusebius of Caesarea was accused of heresy over his doctrine of the Godhead (although not primarily over his doctrine of the Holy Spirit). Andrew Criddle

[gurugeorge]

Originally Posted by Solo

There is a brilliant film about contemporary Sufi ecstatics by the Turkish director Ozer Kiziltan released in 2006 and widely acclaimed in Europe. It is called Takva (via: amazon.co.uk) ("Man's Fear of God" is the official rendering of the title although, the term I am told is something closer to "God's (Sometimes Frightening) Omnipresence in Man's Life"). It is a profound, very funny, and moving account of a change in the life of Muharrem, a humble brother in a Sufi lodge, come as a result of his spiritual leader's following God's command received in a dream to appoint him as property manager. The movie provides great insights into the mindset of an ecstatic religious order "absorbed in God". Even admittedly it is a contemporary setting and the Sufi mystics ideas are not a replica for what is known of Qumran and Jerusalem ages ago, it is still telling of the ins and outs of faith, and living a life. Warmly recommended.

Jiri

Yes, this is where the meat of it is: the first Christians must have been ecstatics - either in the HJ or the MJ scenario, but it's much more fitting for the MJ scenario. (For the HJ scenario, one has to say that they're so ecstatically passionate about their teacher that they see him as an incarnation of God, or something like that; it's either that, or the (I think somewhat even more implausible) alternative, that his crucifixion led to a cognitive dissonance that could only be assuaged by the notion that he had resurrected.)

Thanks for the pointer, that film looks fascinating!

Re. the OP: in one of Ehrman's books recently, I read that there was a certain period when prophecy, the revelation of new texts, etc., was outlawed by the orthodoxy. The kind of thing "Paul"'s congregation indulged in (prophecy, inspired babble), and no doubt the kind of practice that led people to write down their visions as "gospels", later became frowned upon, as the canon was solidified, and orthodoxy said "enough is enough".

Perhaps Eusebius is simply down-playing ecstatic and mystical experience by omission.

[No Robots]

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

(For the HJ scenario, one has to say that they're so ecstatically passionate about their teacher that they see him as an incarnation of God, or something like that; it's either that, or the (I think somewhat even more implausible) alternative, that his crucifixion led to a cognitive dissonance that could only be assuaged by the notion that he had resurrected.)

These two actually go hand-in-hand, and are more than plausible. The great leader left an indelible impression on his followers that continued to grow after his execution. It was only natural for them to make a link to God, as Spinoza points out:

[A] man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation.

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by dog-on

...AA, I see this as just another piece of evidence for Marcion's priority, re: Paul.

The evidence is showing that it is highly likely that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles were written after gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and the writings of Justin Martyr also that all writings containing, the day of Pentecost when the disciples spoke in tongues, or the gifts of the Holy Ghost were later than the 2nd century.

Now, the version of gMark that was canonised appears to be later than Act of the Apostles since it contains information about talking in tongues, not even gJohn after dedicating two chapters to the post resurrection wrote a single thing about the most important PROMISE for the disciple, the day of Pentecost when the disciples should received the POWER of the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues.

In gJohn, after the resurrection Jesus was more interested in cooking and eating fish than teaching his disciples about talking in tongues and the POWER of the Holy Ghost.

Paul talked in tongues after the author of gJohn wrote his gospel.

[aa5874]

From where did the authors of Luke and the Pauline Epistles get their tongues-talking story?

Jesus in the NT is not recorded to have spoken in tongues.

[Solo]

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yes, this is where the meat of it is: the first Christians must have been ecstatics - either in the HJ or the MJ scenario, but it's much more fitting for the MJ scenario. (For the HJ scenario, one has to say that they're so ecstatically passionate about their teacher that they see him as an incarnation of God, or something like that; it's either that, or the (I think somewhat even more implausible) alternative, that his crucifixion led to a cognitive dissonance that could only be assuaged by the notion that he had resurrected.)

A historical Jesus, an unknown preacher from the north, had an ecstatic episode right in the Temple precinct, was arrested and handed over to the Romans. The ecstatic brotherhood of James, which had some political pull in the city was outraged by the treachery of the Sanhendrin and his murder by the Gentile dogs, adopted Jesus' small entourage to proclaim him a martyr of the last days. Then one of the saints in the James congregation connected Yeshu of Galilee to Zechariah 3 vision and proclaimed him a high priest in heaven. The Nazarenes did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus: they proclaimed him a just man unjustly treated who ascended to God and was rehabilitated by him.

Came to me on a ticker tape....

Jiri

[gurugeorge]

Originally Posted by Solo

A historical Jesus, an unknown preacher from the north, had an ecstatic episode right in the Temple precinct, was arrested and handed over to the Romans. The ecstatic brotherhood of James, which had some political pull in the city was outraged by the treachery of the Sanhendrin and his murder by the Gentile dogs, adopted Jesus' small entourage to proclaim him a martyr of the last days. Then one of the saints in the James congregation connected Yeshu of Galilee to Zechariah 3 vision and proclaimed him a high priest in heaven. The Nazarenes did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus: they proclaimed him a just man unjustly treated who ascended to God and was rehabilitated by him.

Came to me on a ticker tape....

Jiri

Yup, that's viable, along with a few of the other HJ scenarios; but to me it just seems to be neater if you think of it as "ecstatics all the way down". One cult among many pullulating around at the time had a variant Messiah idea (time-reversed and value-revalued), and "saw" him in visionary experience. His biography later got filled in over time.

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yup, that's viable, along with a few of the other HJ scenarios; but to me it just seems to be neater if you think of it as "ecstatics all the way down". One cult among many pullulating around at the time had a variant Messiah idea (time-reversed and value-revalued), and "saw" him in visionary experience. His biography later got filled in over time.

You idea also points to Marcion, in my opinion.

[Solo]

Originally Posted by dog-on

You idea also points to Marcion, in my opinion.

Guys, there is no doubt in my mind, that the name Jesus was the personification of gnosis, one acquired through contemplation and interpretation of the "cosmic" peaks of ecstatic transports. The issue is here is though, how did the earliest group agree on that name if, as it appears, they argued just about everything else ?

Jiri

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by Solo

Guys, there is no doubt in my mind, that the name Jesus was the personification of gnosis, one acquired through contemplation and interpretation of the "cosmic" peaks of ecstatic transports. The issue is here is though, how did the earliest group agree on that name if, as it appears, they argued just about everything else ?

Jiri

Jiri,

I wish I knew the answer to that question. It has been pointed out that the name Jesus would have appeared numerous times in the LXX and that this may have provided the impetus for the name, itself.

In actuality, I would consider this simple issue to be one of the better reasons to consider a case for an historical founder, by that name.

[Clivedurdle]

Maybe it wasn't a name originally, but a vague concept - saviour-messiah. Completely in line with gnosticism.

Over time with Chinese Whispers and little children asking mummy mummy tell me about this annointed saviour, we move from jesus christ to Jesus Christ, and the name above all names is part of the process.

Actually, the way xians pray in the name of Jesus is classic abracadabra magical thinking.

What would the LXX look like with jesus and christ all over the place?

And is Paul talking about Jesus Christ or a jesus christ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

And Paul is not consistent - it switches, christ jesus to jesus christ. Surely clear evidence of a vague concept.

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Maybe it wasn't a name originally, but a vague concept - saviour-messiah. Completely in line with gnosticism.

Over time with Chinese Whispers and little children asking mummy mummy tell me about this annointed saviour, we move from jesus christ to Jesus Christ, and the name above all names is part of the process.

Actually, the way xians pray in the name of Jesus is classic abracadabra magical thinking.

What would the LXX look like with jesus and christ all over the place?

And is Paul talking about Jesus Christ or a jesus christ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

Very good point.

[Clivedurdle]

Keeping quiet about the ecstatic roots would then be part of the process of transforming jesus christ into Jesus Christ.


Well, Emperor Jesi do not go around being ecstatic!

http://www.goarch.org/resources/clip.../image_preview


(Emperor Christ)

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by dog-on

Jiri,

I wish I knew the answer to that question. It has been pointed out that the name Jesus would have appeared numerous times in the LXX and that this may have provided the impetus for the name, itself.

In actuality, I would consider this simple issue to be one of the better reasons to consider a case for an historical founder, by that name.

Jesus is probably the most important name in the LXX besides Moses. Jesus is a prophet like Moses or maybe some saw him as more important than Moses since "[YHWH's] name is in him" (Exodus 23:21), and Jesus was also the first high priest when the 2nd temple was dedicated upon the Jews' return from exile.

Odd that "Jesus" or "Joshua" only starts becoming a popular name after the exile. Where are all of the famous prophets/Judeans/Israelites named "Jesus" prior to the exile? Is it because the Jesus name (or Jehoshua) itself was an invention of the Judaean/Persian elites who crafted the story once back from the exile?

[Clivedurdle]

Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice;(Y) do not rebel against him,(Z) for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
22"But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then(AA) I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

23(AB) "When my angel goes before you and brings you(AC) to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, 24you shall(AD) not bow down to their gods nor serve them,(AE) nor do as they do, but(AF) you shall utterly overthrow them and break their(AG) pillars in pieces.

Umm, what has this to do with Jesus?

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Umm, what has this to do with Jesus?

Maybe that was the angel's name as well!

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Umm, what has this to do with Jesus?

Who is the person that leads the Jews into their promised land and kicks the ass of all of the native peoples there?

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Who is the person that leads the Jews into their promised land and kicks the ass of all of the native peoples there?

Joshua... aka Jesus...

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by dog-on

Joshua... aka Jesus...

Of course. It only makes sense in Hebrew that "[YHWH's] name is in him" when you realize that Joshua (or Jehoshua) has YHWH's (Jehovah's) name in his name.

Hebrew illiterate, Greek speaking people would have thought that the name "Jesus" was just special without knowing why.

"Why does god say that his name is in Jesus?"
"Who knows... it's a mystery"
"It must be a really special name... maybe the most important name ever!"

Thus if anyone is going to be a savior, their name had better be Jesus.

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Of course. It only makes sense in Hebrew that "[YHWH's] name is in him" when you realize that Joshua (or Jehoshua) has YHWH's (Jehovah's) name in his name.

Hebrew illiterate, Greek speaking people would have thought that the name "Jesus" was just special without knowing why.

"Why does god say that his name is in Jesus?"
"Who knows... it's a mystery"
"It must be a really special name... maybe the most important name ever!"

Thus if anyone is going to be a savior, their name had better be Jesus.

Well I suppose I now have to cross off the last good reason for a case for the historical founder of Christianity needing to be a Jew named Jesus.

Doesn't really leave me with much to go on...

[Clivedurdle]

But Joshua and Jesus were not Angels!

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But Joshua and Jesus were not Angels!

Are you sure? I heard that Jesus could fly!

[Clivedurdle]

Is the reference to an angel here evidence that this is written post exile, once they had been in contact with Zarathustran thinking?