St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[BuddhaRhubarb]

interesting thread. I know very little about this stuff. But, it's interesting.

[Berkut]

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.

As I recall the impetus for this question was:

"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34

I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.

[crazy canuck]

I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian.  I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction.  The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic.  Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.

You are correct that the Goths were not universally Arian but not for the reasons Wiki says.  The Goths were like the rest of the Empire in the sense that the true nature of Christ was a debate that raged through their community as well.  Its just that the majority of Goths did continue to follow the teachings of Arius even when they became a Heresy.  Some didnt of course.

Again, I need to point out that there was no Pope during this period of time (in the way we think of it) nor was there such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church.  That was a later creation.  During the period of time that the Goths were converted there was just one fractious Church largely centered in the doicese in the Eastern Med. I am repeating myself here but the importance of Rome slowly evolved over time.

[Caliga]

I looked at Wiki for the chapter/verse for that quote, and the article states that the Docetic (I have been calling them 'Donatists' for the whole thread  ) translation of that line was "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me!" .... which, given the Docetic Christological position, makes perfect sense. 

[alfred russel]

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.

As I recall the impetus for this question was:

"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34

So essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)

[Caliga]

You are correct that the Goths were not universally Arian but not for the reasons Wiki says.  The Goths were like the rest of the Empire in the sense that the true nature of Christ was a debate that raged through their community as well.  Its just that the majority of Goths did continue to follow the teachings of Arius even when they became a Heresy.  Some didnt of course.

Again, I need to point out that there was no Pope during this period of time (in the way we think of it) nor was there such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church.  That was a later creation.  During the period of time that the Goths were converted there was just one fractious Church largely centered in the doicese in the Eastern Med. I am repeating myself here but the importance of Rome slowly evolved over time.

I know that, but there was someone in Rome with the title of 'Pope' from which Benedict XVI's power descends, even if at that time he was a tertiary contemporary to the Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  I think that if the Goths, say, had been universally Arian and had forced their religion on the Romans successfully, the history of the Catholic Church would still have been drastically different, regardless of the position of the Roman pontiff in relation to the other patriarchs.

[crazy canuck]

I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.

Not sure why you think it was with little thought.

As Cal points out that particular line, and others from the same gospel provided the ground work for the Christ as human argument.  Erhman points out in his Book "Misquoting Jesus" that that particular line and the lines around it also went through various iterations and translations depending on the theological bent of the translator.

But I do agree with you about all the intellectual time and energy that was spent on the issue but as Sask pointed out, at the time, these questions were loaded with political and economic importance.  If you were on the winning side of the debate there was a big pile of gold at the end of that rainbow.

[Caliga]

So essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)

That's always been my interpretation of it, yeah.  God the Father is God the Son, but in creating the Son aspect God apparently gave his Son some degree of autonomy while still remaining inextricably fused to him, and the differing aspects reuinted once God the Son was Resurrected.

Of course, some of the Christological differences are so vanishingly minor I may well be stating another position entirely.  One of the other stances (Nestorianism?) essentially states God possessed a mortal vessel through which he worked, and discarded it when his mission was done.  To me that's practically saying the same thing, but again people would have gotten killed over it back then.

[crazy canuck]

I know that, but there was someone in Rome with the title of 'Pope' from which Benedict XVI's power descends, even if at that time he was a tertiary contemporary to the Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  I think that if the Goths, say, had been universally Arian and had forced their religion on the Romans successfully, the history of the Catholic Church would still have been drastically different, regardless of the position of the Roman pontiff in relation to the other patriarchs.

There was no one in Rome with the title of Pope during that time.  The whole notion that the Pope can trace his line from Peter in Rome is all revisionist propoganda. 

I agree with the rest of what you said.  I was disagreeing with the reasons you stated for why the Goths were not universally Arian.

[Caliga]

Not sure why you think it was with little thought.

Well, more simply since we don't actually know who wrote the Gospel of Mark (or any of the Gospels) we don't know how little thought they put into them.  My guess is that they indeed put far less thought into them than the early Church fathers did, but there may have been quite a bit of debate about what exactly to write down.  Indeed it seems unlikely to me that the Gospels were EVER one unified body of documents from which later interpretations descended.  I think the prevailing theory is that the Gnostic gospels were probably compiled contemporaneously, but by a different group of followers.

[Berkut]

I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.

Not sure why you think it was with little thought.

Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?

Granted, once it did exist, it was necessary to make it "fit" and certainly different translators would be happy to tweak it to make it fit more or less in their particular flavor. But none of them could, really, just make it go away.

Well, actually some of them did in fact make lots written about "Jesus" just "go away", but you know what I mean.

It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...

[crazy canuck]

Well, more simply since we don't actually know who wrote the Gospel of Mark (or any of the Gospels) we don't know how little thought they put into them.  My guess is that they indeed put far less thought into them than the early Church fathers did, but there may have been quite a bit of debate about what exactly to write down.  Indeed it seems unlikely to me that the Gospels were EVER one unified body of documents from which later interpretations descended.  I think the prevailing theory is that the Gnostic gospels were probably compiled contemporaneously, but by a different group of followers.

It is true we do not know who wrote Mark.  But we do know that whoever wrote it had a particular agenda.  I dont think you can separate the gospel writers from the early church leaders.  I think it more logical to think they are one and the same.  The Gospels didnt create the church.  The Gospels were written to teach the members of an already existing Church.  I dont think it is logical to think that, in those circumstances, little thought went into the writing of the Gospels.  Rather, they were very profound documents meant to teach a particular view of Christianity.

Remember, at that time there were many "gospels".  Only four became accepted.

[crazy canuck]

Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?

I see what you mean.  I agree.  The biggest problem for Christianity is that it isnt coherent for the very reason that so many people contributed to the formation of what became the Bible and it took centuries to come to any agreement on what would be accepted as orthodox and even then there were significant disagreements amongst those works.

[Caliga]

I think it's instructive to mention Secret Mark here.... this is the gnostic gospel that described Jesus as a homosexual, or at least heavily implied it by adding the story of the 'youth in white linen' who Jesus laid with.

The early (Catholic) Church Fathers acknowledged the existence of this gospel but attributed it to the Carpocratians, who were accused of blatant homosexuality as well as tons of other stuff, as supposedly their peculiar gnostic philosophy required them to commit every sin known to man in order to avoid reincarnation.  The thing is, since no writings from the Carpocratians themselves (other than possibly Secret Mark) survive, it's impossible to know if these were really their beliefs, or if it was mere slander designed to discredit them.

When Secret Mark was apparently rediscovered in the 20th century, people accused its discoverer of actually forging the text of it entirely because HE was a closet homosexual and thus wanted to portray Jesus as the same (in order to validate himself?)

So I think that's a good illustration of the kinds of things that went into shaping the contents of the Bible on two counts.

[alfred russel]

I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.

Not sure why you think it was with little thought.

As Cal points out that particular line, and others from the same gospel provided the ground work for the Christ as human argument.  Erhman points out in his Book "Misquoting Jesus" that that particular line and the lines around it also went through various iterations and translations depending on the theological bent of the translator.

When Luther made his first translation of the bible, some noticed that he translated a letter, maybe from Paul actually, that discussed salvation through faith as salvation through faith alone. When justified himself by saying it was his translation.

But I guess Martin Luther and his political situation is perhaps more accessible and relatable to us: through his theological arguments, he became a leader of a very successful secular movement that remade europe.