1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

This forum is for the free exchange of ideas. It wasn't established for the belittling of individuals with whom you may have a personal grudge or with whom you have a disagreement. The facts you 'professional academics' live within the artificiality designed by whomever established the canon. That's cool. Go to your 'academic conferences' where you guys can speak for hours about these things. In this forum we allow for all ideas equal footing. I choose to have an interest in the possibilities which lie outside the 'separate gospels' and the 'forged epistles' of the Catholic canon. Like it or not I am here to stay. We are all equals in this collective. Prove your ideas if you can. Stop with the passive-aggressive insulting.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's start again.

Once upon a time there was a religion eventually called Christianity. It was invented by Paul.

The Catholic Church does not agree with this idea of the 'Pauline invention' of Christianity. But the Marcionites do. That's significant because the Marcionites have a worldview which is much more compatible with 'the facts.'

Professional academics don't 'want to take sides on the origins of Christianity.' They do their best to 'take a middle road.' They start with the ecumenism embodied in our present canon because ... that's what we're left with. Just like my dog figured out 'this is house is going to be my home.' After he was purchased from the breeder, reality taught him to just 'go with' his new reality.

The Pauline invention of Christianity is the best explanation for the religion. Unless of course you want to speak about 'a Holy Spirit' which 'spoke' through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Or various cobbled together explanations.

I am suggesting that Paul invented Christianity is the best explanation. That the gospel was his invention. All of what comes from the Marcionite position. That's my default position.

The fact that the Marcionite tradition saw all later developments within THEIR tradition as 'Judaizing' efforts is worth keeping in mind. As such it seems likely that they shared the opinion of the Haran Gawaitha and the Testimony of Truth that 'Judaizing' was inspired by the demons of the Jerusalem temple.

The Pauline letters do speak in terms of 'Judaizing' (albeit in watered down terms in our present canon).
I've offered a similar etymology of Bethsaida as a Jerusalem temple reference.

That I can't 'prove' these things the way you can SEEM to prove things with a presumably falsified canon is unfortunate. You will certainly get more fellow 'professional scholars' to agree with your way of looking at the problem. But let's face it. 'Professionals' act in the manner that is customary in their guild.

I am sure that blacksmiths were arguing for the virtual of horses because they happened to be in the business of making horseshoes.

Fax machine manufactures were likely speaking about the 'value' of fax machines into the 21st century.

Astrologers look up in the heavens and all see the same future.

Just because it is customary to speak and think in certain guilds in predictable ways doesn't mean it's right.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by spin »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:35 amWe have to read the entire passage 10:1-22 as a unit, which makes the reference to Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα intelligible.

I don't think the author intended to say either that Israel sacrifices to demons, or that pagans sacrifice to demons. The target of the citation of Deuteronomy 32:17 is the possible backsliders in the community of faith, those who are eating sacrificed meats at pagan feasts. By (a) attending pagan feasts and (b) sharing in the meat, they run the risk of becoming just like the idolators of old in the desert: "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were..." (10:7).
While the allusion to the Deut 32:17 is a good catch, which I'd never thought of before (& need to think about more), the notion of equating Israel with those who sacrifice to demons doesn't make any sense at all. Paul himself is a Jew, & by necessity practising, which allows him to be a Jew to Jews. Paul didn't need to use the backsliding Jews, when there are so many pagan tables he could point to. Israel was still the people of God, despite there serial failures.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken,

Just to focus on your interpretation of these texts,
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:27 pm There is an extremely plausible historical context in which this problem can be understood. Paul's converts are recent. They are Corinthians, and in all probability participated in the temple feasts in Corinth before Paul came and persuaded them to accept Christianity. For the poorer members of the church, the temple feasts (i.e, eating the sacrificial animals provided by rich donors) may well have been their main source of meat. They were also one of the major social occasions in the city, where the people of the city came together as a group. Paul had told the Corinthian converts that they did not have to withdraw from the larger society in which they lived and obey the Mosaic laws, dietary or otherwise.
I don’t know what text of Paul you are referring to. 2 Cor 6:14-18 says the exact opposite.
He told them food is just food and that idols are just material objects, not gods. Some of them clearly interpreted this to mean that they did not have to stop attending feats, because the food that is served there is just food and the idols are just inanimate objects. They inferred that attending the feasts could do them no harm.
You seem to be saying that in 1 Cor 8, Paul is giving the instruction that it’s OK to eat the meat, but that he leaves it open whether they should attend the feasts inside pagan temples. In fact, he gives the specific example of being seen by a weak brother to be eating at a feast, and that’s what he takes issue with.
This is actually a rational interpretation of what Paul had said about food and idols, but Paul had clearly not foreseen that his Christian converts would interpret what he said this way (some did not, which is why they wrote to him about it) and continue to take part in pagan feasts, which he considers to be worship, and he objects that those who participate in the feasts will harm both other members of the church (in chapter 8) and themselves (chapter 10).
But this is not the teaching of 10:1-22. Paul says nothing specifically about taking part in feasts as such. The teaching, rather, is that those who eat the meat thereby are sacrificing to demons. Eating the meat is tantamount to the idolatry he tells them to flee.
I submit that it makes more sense to interpret chapter 10 in the context of chapter 8 (I think Paul is making a single extended argument in chapters 8-10)
Your view that chapter 10 is a follow-up to chapter 8 does not fit what is specifically said in those passages. I realize you are offering a “plausible historical context,” but I suggest you’re veering a bit from what is actually said.

But the biggest problem with your analysis so far is that (IIRC) you have not addressed 10:23-33, which entirely undercuts both of the earlier teachings and sounds like the teaching of some entirely different person, a flaming liberal:

23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

Aside from these rather pedantic discussions of the late second century editions of Paul's letters it might be useful to peer beyond the falsifications into the greater context of Paul's original collection based on what Clement of Alexandria writes in the Instructor Book 2. Is it Jewish idolatry as I suggest or pagan idolatry that was originally meant.

Let's start with an Israelite context for food consumption. Ken began the discussion by noting that it would be a 'waste of time' to engage with me for various reasons (unspecified). But to some extent I feel the same way. For I don't think that Ken has a proper background in how traditional Israelite cultures consumed their food. From my time living among the Samaritans in Holon I know that ALL MEATS are consecrated are shared with the priesthood. There is no such thing as 'secular' meat. That is why Samaritans never eat meat that doesn't come from a Samaritan slaughterhouse. Indeed all meat consumed by any Samaritan is necessarily shared with the priesthood because of the Leviticus to give the Levites the fore leg of sheep and other livestock. There is a book on the subject which survives the Țabākh ('the Book of Meat') which explains all the details.

So already we start at two different starting points. Either the Christians were part of an Israelite community and tradition or they weren't. If they consumed meat we have to ask, HOW did they do so? On the one hand, there was no such thing as 'secular meat' for an Israelite. All meat passed through a process of being effectively consecrated to God. So this is explains my 'strange' fixation on an either/or with respect to PAGAN OR JEWISH idols. There is a tendency of ignorant people such as yourself to imagine that 'meat' could be consumed like at a McDonald's restaurant. The Christian community EITHER consecrated its meat to the 'Jewish god' and along came these pagan-Christians who decided to consecrated it to PAGAN idols (and for which I have said such Christians never existed) or - as I have noted - there were Christians consecrating meat to the Jewish god(s) and Paul was saying it's not good to eat food consecrated to idols - that is Jewish idols/demons.

Again we don't have the original letter but let's look at one early extra-Irenaean treatment of the material in Clement of Alexandria. Something eye-opening pops up immediately insofar as Clement assumes that 'the best Christians' were vegetarians. Paul as he understands it 'recommends' vegetarianism as he 'recommends' celibacy elsewhere. But the letters as they were passed on to Clement 'allow' for less perfect Christians. We read in full:
"For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate. We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God." "For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth." The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better," it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse." But it is inconsistent with reason, for those that have been made worthy to share divine and spiritual food, to partake of the tables of demons. "Have we not power to eat and to drink," says the apostle, "and to lead about wives"? But by keeping pleasures under command we prevent lusts. See, then, that this power of yours never "become a stumbling-block to the weak."

For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts; but we should use them, without undue attachment to them, as having command over ourselves. For we are enjoined to reign and rule over meats, not to be slaves to them. It is an admirable thing, therefore, to raise our eyes aloft to what is true, to depend on that divine food above, and to satiate ourselves with the exhaustless contemplation of that which truly exists, and so taste of the only sure and pure delight. For such is the agape, which, the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of. But totally irrational, futile, and not human is it for those that are of the earth, fattening themselves like cattle, to feed themselves up for death; looking downwards on the earth, and bending ever over tables; leading a life of gluttony; burying all the good of existence here in a life that by and by will end; courting voracity alone, in respect to which cooks are held in higher esteem than husbandmen. For we do not abolish social intercourse, but look with suspicion on the snares of custom, and regard them as a calamity. Wherefore daintiness is to be shunned, and we are to partake of few and necessary things. "And if one of the unbelievers call us to a feast, and we determine to go" (for it is a good thing not to mix with the dissolute), the apostle bids us "eat what is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake." Similarly he has enjoined to purchase "what is sold in the shambles," without curious questioning?

We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little destined to perish. "Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth." And a little way on he explains the reason of the command, when he says, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." So that the right food is thanksgiving. And he who gives thanks does not occupy his time in pleasures. And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint. "Have we not power to eat and to drink?" And "we know"--he says the truth--"that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But," he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ." Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;" neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons. "It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul. If one partakes of them, he does not sin. Only let him partake temperately, not dependent on them, nor gaping after fine fare. For a voice will whisper to him, saying, "Destroy not the work of God for the sake of food." For it is the mark of a silly mind to be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets, after the rich fare which is in the Word; and much sillier to make one's eyes the slaves of the delicacies, so that one's greed is, so to speak, carried round by the servants.
Paul is clearly advocating vegetarianism according to Clement. So there was let's say a priesthood of 'the true Israel' which neither ate meat nor drank wine etc. But clearly the Christians were living in a greater Israelite context where co-religionists were partaking in Jewish/Samaritan services where meat was sacrificed and consumed - or so Clement's letters attest. It is the only way to make sense of the letters. The reference to Gentile idolatry was added later.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

The section in the Instructor Book 2 examined in detail. In the lead up to the discussion Clement clearly imagines that there is a meal call 'the agape' which does not involve meat and is the Eucharist. It alone 'saves' humanity preparing it for life in the hereafter. We can imagine that it was introduced by Jesus to his disciples and passed on to Paul. Yet in some sense this meal was also 'Israelite' or pre-Christian because he imagines that Isaiah references it too:
Those the Holy Spirit, by Isaiah, denounces as wretched, depriving them [the Jews] tacitly of the name of love (agape), since their feasting was not in accordance with the word. "But they made mirth, killing calves, and sacrificing sheep, saying, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." And that He reckons such luxury to be sin, is shown by what He adds, "And your sin shall not be forgiven you till you die," --not conveying the idea that death, which deprives of sensation, is the forgiveness of sin, but meaning that death of salvation which is the recompense of sin. "Take no pleasure in abominable delicacies," says Wisdom. At this point, too, we have to advert to what are called things sacrificed to idols, in order to show how we are enjoined to abstain from them. Polluted and abominable those things seem to me, to the blood of which, fly "Souls from Erebus of inanimate corpses."
This reference to the Jewish slaughter of meat is immediately followed by 1 Cor 10:20 in the Instructor:
"For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," [1 Cor 10:20] says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate.
In other words, the juxtaposition between the 'meat sacrificed to idols' in 1 Cor 10:20 is clearly and absolutely juxtaposed with a tradition Israelite slaughter. There is no way around it. And it makes sense as I already noted because there were no 'McDonalds' or secular meat in ancient Israelite. All meat was necessarily consecrated to God.

So we continue with the Instructor. In what immediately follows Clement says:
We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God." "For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth." The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better," it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse." But it is inconsistent with reason, for those that have been made worthy to share divine and spiritual food, to partake of the tables of demons. "Have we not power to eat and to drink," says the apostle, "and to lead about wives"? But by keeping pleasures under command we prevent lusts. See, then, that this power of yours never "become a stumbling-block to the weak."
I have long argued that Clement had a different version of the Corinthians letter. Notice that the material in chapter 10 is now followed by chapters 8 and 9. As such chapter 10's discussion of the Golden Calf becomes a surprisingly libertine interpretation one that have wholly scandalized Jews. Basically Paul was saying 'I don't want you to eat Jewish meats as they are sacrificed to idols but then again idols are nothing.' That's why the material IMHO was jumbled. The new Christianity of the late second century wanted to keep the right to punish believers.

In any event Clement continues with a reference to the Prodigal Son parable:
For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts; but we should use them, without undue attachment to them, as having command over ourselves. For we are enjoined to reign and rule over meats, not to be slaves to them. It is an admirable thing, therefore, to raise our eyes aloft to what is true, to depend on that divine food above, and to satiate ourselves with the exhaustless contemplation of that which truly exists, and so taste of the only sure and pure delight. For such is the agape, which, the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of. But totally irrational, futile, and not human is it for those that are of the earth, fattening themselves like cattle, to feed themselves up for death; looking downwards on the earth, and bending ever over tables; leading a life of gluttony; burying all the good of existence here in a life that by and by will end; courting voracity alone, in respect to which cooks are held in higher esteem than husbandmen. For we do not abolish social intercourse, but look with suspicion on the snares of custom, and regard them as a calamity. Wherefore daintiness is to be shunned, and we are to partake of few and necessary things. "And if one of the unbelievers call us to a feast, and we determine to go" (for it is a good thing not to mix with the dissolute), the apostle bids us "eat what is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake." Similarly he has enjoined to purchase "what is sold in the shambles," without curious questioning?
Again there is no reference to pagan idolatry in any of Clement's discussion. It is rather a strange 'voluntary vegetarianism.' All meats are sacrificed to idols but idols are nothing so you can do what you want but it would better to choose eternal life, seems to be his point.

Then the last section:
We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little destined to perish. "Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth." And a little way on he explains the reason of the command, when he says, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." So that the right food is thanksgiving. And he who gives thanks does not occupy his time in pleasures. And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint. "Have we not power to eat and to drink?" And "we know"--he says the truth--"that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But," he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ." Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;" neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons. "It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul. If one partakes of them, he does not sin. Only let him partake temperately, not dependent on them, nor gaping after fine fare. For a voice will whisper to him, saying, "Destroy not the work of God for the sake of food." For it is the mark of a silly mind to be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets, after the rich fare which is in the Word; and much sillier to make one's eyes the slaves of the delicacies, so that one's greed is, so to speak, carried round by the servants.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

My assertion that all meats were consecrated in Israel is based on Deuteronomy 18:
The Levitical priests—indeed, the whole tribe of Levi—are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings presented to the Lord, for that is their inheritance. They shall have no inheritance among their fellow Israelites; the Lord is their inheritance, as he promised them. This is the share due the priests from the people who sacrifice a bull or a sheep: the shoulder, the internal organs and the meat from the head. You are to give them the firstfruits of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the first wool from the shearing of your sheep, for the Lord your God has chosen them and their descendants out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the Lord’s name always. If a Levite moves from one of your towns anywhere in Israel where he is living, and comes in all earnestness to the place the Lord will choose, he may minister in the name of the Lord his God like all his fellow Levites who serve there in the presence of the Lord. He is to share equally in their benefits, even though he has received money from the sale of family possessions.
Given that no Samaritan can consume ANY MEAT that doesn't give the proper portion to the priesthood THEREFORE all meat is consecrated meat, meat consecrated to the altar where the 'idols' stood.

The reason 1 Corinthians 10 makes reference to the golden calf incident before speaking of 'meats sacrificed to idols/demons' is because this was what happened in Jewish religion according to our Jewish sources
On Jeroboam's predilection for paganism ("the golden calves that Jeroboam made to be your gods" – Chronicles 13.8), the Bible says:

"The Levites even abandoned their pasturelands and property and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had rejected them as priests of the Lord when he appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat and calf idols he had made." 2 Chronicles 14-15

On why Jeroboam would push idolatry, the Bible says:

"If this people continues to go up to offer sacrifices at the house of Yahweh in Jerusalem, the heart of this people will also return to their lord, King Rehoboam of Judah… the king made two golden calves and said to the people: It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here is your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." – Kings 12

God's severe view of Jeroboam's faithlessness is described in the Book of Kings 13:1-5 which evocatively describes his punishment: a withered hand.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.pr ... -1.6612851
Paul then is just referencing Jewish religion as inherently corrupt and engaged in idolatry from Jewish sources.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

Given the fact that evidence suggests that the golden calf was incorporated into Israelite worship IN SOURCES WHICH WERE KNOWN TO PAUL I would argue that the 'Jewish demonic idolatry context' is more likely original. I know WE ARE USED TO the application of the passage to 'paganism/the Gentile world.' But the letter wasn't written for us.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Ken Olson »


Rev. 2.18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze:

19 “I know your works—your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. 20 But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. 22 Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call ‘the deep things of Satan,’ to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden; 25 only hold fast to what you have until I come.[box]

Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

So you take this is a 'factual reporting' about a church in Thyatira in the first century? Really? The "Alogoi" famously noted that the church in Thyatira did not exist during the life of John the Apostle. It's very rare that we get bullshit called in early Church documents but when we do hear it we should listen. If anything your citation argues for the reverse - i.e. that 'pagan idolatry' cited in Church documents are always made up the case of the non-existent church in Thyatira being a famous example.

I don't get why this is so obsessive with you? As far as I can see you have two published papers the most recent a decade ago both about forgery in Eusebius. Why did this interest you? Was it just a relatively 'easy way' to get a PhD or - as I would prefer - that forgery was rampant in early Christian documents? If it was the latter why is it such a stretch to assume that forgery - the kind you have investigated - extended to the writings of Paul WHEN WE HAVE OBVIOUS CONFIRMATION in the Pastoral Epistles and the Marcionite claims about shorter Pauline epistles in their possession which haven't yet succumbed to the 'Judaizing' effects of Catholic falsification.

I am sorry I think the holy scriptures of the Christian religion are soiled like toilet paper. I try to be respective of people and belief systems. But the evidence suggests to me that rather than having Paul's original gospel and epistles we have counterfeit texts. If that belief doesn't sit right with your belief systems or faith I will try to be less jarring with my references. I happen to be aware with comparisons of falsified scriptures to whores (Abu'l Fath كتاب التاريخ) and other humorous allusions. I think I am being clever but I acknowledge it might offend some people. I will try to be better.
Post Reply