Tertullian Accepts Paul had a Written Gospel, Matthew (!)

[Stephan Huller]

Here is the circular logic that evangelicals like TedM engage when confronted with the mystery of Paul:

Originally, the Greek word referred to a truth into which someone had been initiated. Indeed it came to be used of the secret teachings of the heathen mystery religions, teachings which were restricted to initiates. esoteric 'mysteries' reserved for a spiritual élite. On the contrary, the Christian 'mysteries' are truths which, although beyond human discovery, have been revealed by God and so now belong openly to the whole church. http://books.google.com/books?id=c8iuAw ... 22&f=false

But why is it so certain that (a) there was no elect and (b) that the 'mystery' held openly among the initiated was somehow excluded from outsiders? Clearly we have evidence dating to the mid-second century that this was held to be true by even Catholics (Clement of Alexandria, Alexandrian tradition and others). Why do we disqualify the obvious answer (i.e. one which confirms the natural meaning of the term mystery) merely in order to appease evangelicals like TedM. The obvious answer is usually the right answer.

Indeed even otherwise normative Christians (i.e. non-gnostics) like the Phrygian enthusiasts i.e. those who considered themselves 'Catholic' embraced the idea that Paul spoke of a 'spiritual elect.' The only way you completely demolish any trace of support for the ritual context for 'Christian mysteries' is to embrace an extreme minority position - i.e. that there were no 'elect' within the Church who could have been shaped by knowledge of the full mystery revealed by Christ to the apostles and Paul. I can't off hand think of a single early witness who denies that a 'mystery' was revealed by Jesus to an elite. The only difference between Irenaeus and the gnostics was likely who the 'elect' were defined as.

I think the difference between the Pauline Church and the rest of Christianity was that the former while acknowledging that Jesus revealed a 'mystery' to the apostles, they said that the mystery was only completely understood by Paul (or at least Jesus chose Paul the 'Paraclete' to reveal the mysteries again or in some other forum which the apostles could not understand). Those who held fast to the holiness of the apostles found this insulting. But I am not sure that any chasm exists between the mystery religion setting understood by let's say Justin and any of his gnostic contemporaries. Clearly all the building blocks for a mystery religion are there. I am not even sure that Irenaeus denies that Christianity was a mystery religion.

As I have said many times here TedM's understanding wasn't even established until Luther. The idea again was that Jesus came (a divine being). He announced a mystery that became the basis to the mystery religion that was the Church. For the Pauline Church Peter was chosen as head custodian of that mystery. For the Pauline Church it was Paul. In some form rather early in the Roman Church Peter and Paul sit next to one another as the twin thrones of the tradition. In due course Paul's authority disappeared in the Roman tradition and the see became exclusively identified as 'of Peter.' But the leadership of the Roman Church to this day is understood to have received the divine pronouncements of this 'god-man.' The mystery that is preserved by the Church necessarily sees that 'mystery' as going far beyond what TedM thinks it was and embraces Jesus establishing a new mode of worship and salvation = a mystery religion.

[TedM]

Here is the circular logic that evangelicals like TedM engage when confronted with the mystery of Paul:

Originally, the Greek word referred to a truth into which someone had been initiated. Indeed it came to be used of the secret teachings of the heathen mystery religions, teachings which were restricted to initiates. esoteric 'mysteries' reserved for a spiritual élite. On the contrary, the Christian 'mysteries' are truths which, although beyond human discovery, have been revealed by God and so now belong openly to the whole church. http://books.google.com/books?id=c8iuAw ... 22&f=false

None of that is much different than what someone would call a religious mystery now though. You are treating the word like it really was different back then. I don't see any difference. And you still haven't come up with another word to represent what we mean by it now. I don't think there is one because it means essentially the same thing now as it did then, and is used essentially in the same ways. Ask David Karesh or Jim Jones.

But why is it so certain that (a) there was no elect and (b) that the 'mystery' held openly among the initiated was somehow excluded from outsiders?

That isn't the position. Believers are the 'elect'. You don't get it still. Outsiders don't believe. If they believe, then they become insiders. Get it?

I looked at this 'mystery' 10 years ago to respond to the same kind of crap that Doherty was spewing about 'revelations' and such: {later edit when less frustrated: Doherty has a lot of great ideas, I just didn't agree with him on this one}

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrika/d ... 0/id5.html

[Stephan Huller]

TedM has inherited the now antiquated evangelic dislike of the Catholic Church and its 'mysteries' (= sacraments). If he can't even meet me halfway that the Catholic Church more faithfully preserves the original understanding of Paul especially with respect to Christianity being a mystery religion it is apparent we will never get anywhere - not only in this discussion but any discussion. Luther may not have liked the Catholic 'mystery religion' (or at least is perceived to have been opposed to it) but obviously it represents an older and more faithful understanding of the Pauline revelation than that which was constructed by northern European 'protestants' and their descendants in the last 500 years. That much should be obvious.

At least acknowledge TedM that while you and your co-religionists might find the Catholic 'sacraments' distasteful they are closer to the 'mystery religion' that Paul was revealing to his Mediterranean co-religionists.

[Stephan Huller]

And not just the 'Roman Catholic.' Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Christian, Nestorian, Ethiopian Orthodox all share this same inheritance from the pagan 'mystery religions.' The evangelical community represents an abandonment of the original Christian understanding rather than the correct understanding. It was a 'white' revaluation because Germans and other northern people had nothing comparable with the Mediterranean 'mystery' cults. They weren't convinced by the underlying premise of 'mystery' worship. They wanted 'order' it would seem rather than 'mystery' and so systematically misrepresented Paul.

[TedM]

TedM has inherited the now antiquated evangelic dislike of the Catholic Church and its 'mysteries' (= sacraments).

Actually I think they are fine for those that like that kind of thing. You really gotta stop saying stupid stuff. You don't know me.

If he can't even meet me halfway that the Catholic Church more faithfully preserves the original understanding of Paul especially with respect to Christianity being a mystery religion

The problem is you have nothing of any substance with regard to the mysteries, just as you have nothing of any substance with regard to Paul having a written gospel. 0 + 0 = 0. Sure, Paul MAY have had a hidden gospel, and it MAY have contained mystery practices that only the elite were initiated with. But, your evidences for these things is weak. If it wasn't you would have presented it, but instead you are like John Nash who when he was losing his mind spent all of his time in a shed full of papers and maps pasted all over his walls and full of lines connecting the vast conspiracy that only he would unravel, thus becoming admired by all.

Big picture: We have Paul's epistles. He tells us what the mystery is. He leaves no stones unturned with regard to the mystery. He doesn't reference a written gospel as such, and he never quotes from it nor alludes to the recipients of his epistles as receiving a mystery that he doens'nt preach to others, or as not being privy to other mysteries that he makes privy to other people. All of your 'sources' for your conspiracy theory are too late and too influenced by later generations to have much credibility on the issue. The upshot? You can't see the big picture because it is too close to you, so you turn and look elsewhere and all the fuzzy images you see become whatever you wish to imagine them to be, thus forming imaginary connections in order to support your conspiratorial pre-disposition against orthodox and authority figures.

Maybe you should take a vacation Stephen. I'm going to. I pop in every now and then and interact and question, etc.. but I can't live here everyday like you do. It's not healthy--at least not for me. Go ahead and do what you want with your conspiracy. You know it will never end though right? That's because your foundation is simply too slippery to grip onto anything and move forward. So, I predict that 5 years from now I will come back and see the same stuff that I'm have seen from you in the last 5 years, despite your having read 100 more books. Hope not.

[Stephan Huller]

The problem is you have nothing of any substance with regard to the mysteries, just as you have nothing of any substance with regard to Paul having a written gospel.

I have more than enough. You can't wear blinders and then say it's not sunny outside. Let's start with the entire Christian tradition before Luther. Why don't you address that - my latest - piece of evidence. The explicit testimony from Basil and the implicit testimony of Clement is that the Christian liturgy and sacraments (= Gk mysteria) developed from the μυστήριον of Paul. Why doesn't that count as a piece of evidence? Why do you have the last word on what Paul meant? Why is your opinion superior to the Church Fathers? You live an insular word of evangelical belief. As I said, why doesn't the Catholic, Orthodox and Nestorian tradition count? What do you have against that interpretation of Paul's use of μυστήριον?

I've already demonstrated that there isn't a single Church Father who denied that Paul knew a written gospel. You call that 'nothing.' It seems you value your own opinion too highly and those in your religious congregation.

[Stephan Huller]

and I've been patiently wading through the stupidest arguments on your part. You recognize that Paul didn't write in English, right? So it isn't "obvious" what is meant here for you. You rely on a translation with built in assumptions about what Paul could or should be understood to be saying by this or that word or phrase. So the fact that native Greek speakers took Paul to mean "mystery religion" or "things related or pertaining to mystery religion(s)" matters. Language matters. Context matters. You are arguing from your familiar English translation against the.Greek. That's abysmally stupid.

[TedM]

whatever. I've given you the opposing view. It could be wrong. You may be right. I don't find Basil or your language arguments to be anywhere near conclusive and all the positive evidence that we do have (Paul's writings and those in the generation surrounding Paul) seem to be more in favor of the orthodox view than your view. Carry on without me. I'm exceedingly bored at this point with this discussion.

[Stephan Huller]

Actually I found the conversation quite illuminating. I learned a number of things - or indeed remembered or thought more deeply - about things I have previously learned. One of the overriding 'lessons' of this discussion is how German Protestant theologians like von Harnack essentially 'co-opted' Marcion to be something like a proto-Luther. I think it is unfortunate that most of the academics in the field of early Christianity come from a Protestant background. But I also started thinking about Paul in a number of different ways thanks to our continued discussion. Thanks for that.

[Stephan Huller]

Now if we continue for a moment. If - as many early Christians would have it - Paul had a written gospel either which he himself wrote (Marcion) or written by another (Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome) the concept of 'mystery' discussed here at length means at once that Jesus spoke about the 'mystery of the kingdom' of God or heaven' and then Paul himself ascended up to the third heaven and experienced a post-resurrection 'revelation' which included another mystery. Were the two mysteries deemed to be one and the same? Tertullian says yes, Marcion says no. It is hard to imagine though how - given the language Paul uses to describe his experience - how this could have been the same. Jesus spoke in parables to the apostles but then also makes reference to speaking plainly after the resurrection. How was this justified by Paul? Why did Jesus speak in riddles initially but later plainly?