GakuseiDon wrote: Giuseppe wrote:
Yes, "Christ", NOT "Jesus".
I insist: you can do this distinction (between ''Christ'' and ''Jesus'') only as you are a modern living person in the year 2017.
The ancient Christians didn't do that distinction, therefore we cannot do it, too.
But they did make that distinction, as per my post on the last page where I actually quoted from other early texts on this matter.
For example: The character Paul, in "Acts of the Apostle", Ch 17:
- 17.1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4. And some of them believed...
Only the Jews could be interested about the right definition of Christ, but the Philadelphians (addressed by Ignatius) were gentiles.
Another example: Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE in his First Apology:
- For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man
Don't those quotes indicate a distinction between 'Jesus' and 'Christ'?
To be 'Christ' is not equivalent to be ''the first-born of the unbegotten God''.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation.
Surely I disagree with you since I think that the 'archives' quoted by ignatius were historical records
“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them : It is written (in the Old Testament) they answered : ‘ That is the very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
Therefore we have evidence of gentiles who doubted about the entire Gospel since they didn't find Jesus in the historical records. Ignatius pointed them to the Old Testament, and the objector answered: 'that is the very question', meaning that just because the Old Testament is ambiguous as source
, they did need of a historical source in the archives
confirming the historicity of Jesus. It would do no sense for Ignatius to point them again to the same source
, if the archives firstly
used by them were the same Old Scriptures.
Therefore the dialogue between Ignatius and the objector is the following:
If I do not find (a certain thing) in the (historical) archives, I do not believe in the Gospel
It is written (in the Old Testament)
‘ That is the very question.’
But for me the (historical) archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”
In conclusion, Peter is wrong when he says that the 'archives' are the Jewish Scriptures.