Podcasts about Celsus

July 28th, 2025:  Bl Stanley Rother; Bl Mattia Nazarei; Pray with Confidence; Bl Archangel of Calatafimi; The Enemy Has Done This; Ss Nazarius, Celsus, Victor & Innocent

 9 And when you shall hear of wars and seditions, be not terrified: these things must first come to pass; but the end is not yet presently.Cum autem audieritis praelia et seditiones, nolite terreri : oportet primum haec fieri, sed nondum statim finis. 10 Then he said to them: Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.Tunc dicebat illis : Surget gens contra gentem, et regnum adversus regnum. 11 And there shall be great earthquakes in divers places, and pestilences, and famines, and terrors from heaven; and there shall be great signs.Et terraemotus magni erunt per loca, et pestilentiae, et fames, terroresque de caelo, et signa magna erunt. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake.Sed ante haec omnia injicient vobis manus suas, et persequentur tradentes in synagogas et custodias, trahentes ad reges et praesides propter nomen meum : 13 And it shall happen unto you for a testimony.continget autem vobis in testimonium. 14 Lay it up therefore into your hearts, not to meditate before how you shall answer:Ponite ergo in cordibus vestris non praemeditari quemadmodum respondeatis : 15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay.ego enim dabo vobis os et sapientiam, cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri. 16 And you shall be betrayed by your parents and brethren, and kinsmen and friends; and some of you they will put to death.Trademini autem a parentibus, et fratribus, et cognatis, et amicis, et morte afficient ex vobis : 17 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen meum : 18 But a hair of your head shall not perish.et capillus de capite vestro non peribit. 19 In your patience you shall possess your souls.In patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras.Nazarius and his disciple Celsus are two Milanese martyrs. They were beheaded A.D. 67. St Victor, successor of St Eleutherius, was martyred under Septimus Serverus A.D. 199.Having, like his contemporaries St Jerome and St Augustine, fought with his pen and his elegance for the teaching of Christ, St Innocent, the successor of St Anastasius, died A.D. 417.

Ad finem excerpti Celsi legimus quo in loco Celsus monet nos ne nimis consumamus.

Izmir, Turkey, stands as a gateway to both ancient history and modern energy, particularly known for its substantial contribution to Turkey's wind power, accounting for about 32% of it. As we explore this coastal city, we delve into its rich past, which includes influences from Greek, Roman, and Ottoman civilizations. The bustling streets of downtown Izmir offer a sensory immersion with local vendors, delicious street food, and a lively atmosphere that quickly captivates visitors. We also take a closer look at nearby Ephesus, home to remarkable ancient ruins like the well-preserved amphitheater and the iconic Library of Celsus, which echo the grandeur of its historical significance. For those seeking a slower pace, the charming cobblestone streets of Cesme and the nearby island of Chios provide idyllic day trip options, making Izmir a multifaceted destination for every traveler.

Eileen is joined by Fr. Celsus Tierney at Holycross Abbey for the St. Pio pilgrimage.  Fr. Tierney is involved in organising the event. L'articolo Interview with Fr. Celsus Tierney proviene da Radio Maria.

Sean is the host of @restitutio8765 . He is the pastor of Living Hope Ministries Internal ( @livinghopelatham ) He is also on the board of the Unitarian Christian Alliance ( @UnitarianChristianAlliance ). In this video we discuss his recent series on the history of Corinth the city and what that informs us about the epistles to the Corinthian church and early christianity more broadly. We mention Aquila, Augustus, Bacchus, Bruce Winter, Cayla Mayo, Claudius, Crispus, Cybele, Dale Martin, Dionysus, Gaius (Caesar), Gaius, Hercules, Homer, James Walters, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, Jesus, Job, Joseph Fitzmyer, Josephus, Julius Caesar, Juvenal, Celsus, Lucius Caesar, Mummius, Nero, Paul, Philo, Plato, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Plutarch, Priscilla, Sosthenes, Tiberius, Titius Justus, Trajan, Victor Gluckin, Will Barlow, Zach Mayo, Zephaniah and more. Corinthians series - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2PFMHm0Vd4JWrDPxW8Zvc8&si=gT9abVPqRy0sYn_Q

This week, we are wrapping up our Turkey trip recaps and Tamara fills us in on her visit to Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the lesser-known city of Izmir. Episode Highlights Izmir sits on the Aegean Sea and Ephesus is a popular cruise port for cruises visiting Greece and Turkey. There are also a number of religious sites that attract religious travelers and pilgrimages. One site near Ephesus you can visit what is believed to be the last house that Mary, mother of Jesus, lived in before she died. Bodrum is more of a beach resort but Izmir is a city based on the sea. You can fly into Izmir, which is about 1.25 hours from Istanbul airport and the airport is about 20 minutes outside of the city. Izmir is a good home base for exploring the region in a hub and spoke manner. You should plan to stay three to four days in this region. 1 day in Ephesus 1 day in Izmir 1 day in Urla (fishing village, small artsy town, and wine route) Ephesus is a UNESCO Heritage site that has Ancient Greek and Roman ruins. The site is immense and there is so much that isn't excavated. So much is very well preserved. The Library of Celsus is a highlight. It is worth paying extra to see the houses with mosaics and frescoes. It is recommended to visit Ephesus with a guide and you need at least two to three hours. There is a lot of walking so you need comfortable shoes and it can also get very hot so you want to go early or late and wear a hat and sunglasses. In the summer it stays open until 10 pm at night so you can visit while it is cooler. Selcuk is a cute town nearby where you can go for lunch. The Izmir Marriott is right on the waterfront and has a rooftop pool, restaurant, and nice rooms and location. In Izmir you can: Walk or bike along the promenade along the coastline Visit the Ancient Agora of Smyrna Spend an afternoon exploring the bazaar Should season is going to be better because the heat in the summer can be brutal Izmir is also known as a place to buy wedding dresses Read more about Tamara's time in Izmir and Ephesus: https://we3travel.com/izmir-turkiye-3-day-itinerary/ Related Episodes Istanbul Cappadocia

From ancient Mesopotamian love curses to the syphilitic nobles of the Renaissance Era, history proves that what happens in the brothel definitely doesn't stay in the brothel. STDs have shaped empires, inspired some truly terrifying "cures," and left their mark (sometimes literally) on history's most powerful figures. Tune in to Macabre: A Dark History Podcast, where we unwrap the itchy, oozing truth about history's most infamous infections—no penicillin required!

Di Mantell's journey is a masterclass in resilience and leadership. Starting as an intensive care nurse, Di's career took unexpected turns, leading her to become the CEO of a $2.2 billion healthcare company managing one of South Australia's largest infrastructure projects. At every step, she embraced challenges, made bold decisions, and stayed true to her values of authenticity, ethics, and kindness, which she credits for her success in building trust and strong relationships.Her story is about more than professional achievements—it's about courage. From relocating to rural towns to navigating male-dominated boardrooms, Di has always followed her instincts, proving that with confidence and the willingness to step into the unknown, remarkable growth is possible. She now mentors others to embrace change, believe in their potential, and build meaningful connections that drive impact.Highlights00:53 - Introduction - Hilary welcomes Di Mantell as a pioneering CEO and explores the theme of values-driven leadership and transformative career shifts.03:12 - From Nurse to Leader - Her journey from a registered nurse to managing one of South Australia's largest infrastructure projects, highlighting the power of resilience.06:31 - Embracing Life's Pivots - Moving away from traditional roles, navigating divorce, and embracing change to carve out a new career path.09:20 - Taking Risks and Building Confidence - The importance of trusting your instincts, taking risks in your career, and believing in your ability to adapt and succeed.12:47 - Leading with Authenticity - The value of authenticity, kindness, and ethical behavior in building trust and creating meaningful connections.14:56 - Representing Rural Communities - Di recounts her experiences advocating for rural health services in Australia, a role that broadened her leadership perspective and skillset.18:22 - Transition to CEO - Stepping into her role as CEO, managing a $2.2 billion company, and the challenges of leading large-scale infrastructure projects.23:19 - Mentorship and Legacy - Di's plans for the future, including transitioning to board roles and mentoring the next generation of leaders.25:47 - The Power of Female Connections - The importance of building a strong support network of women who uplift and hold each other accountable.27:31 - Overcoming Challenges in Leadership - Her most significant challenges she faced as a leader and how she turned them into opportunities for growth.About Our Guest:Di is an experienced Chief Executive Officer with a demonstrated history of working in the health and construction industries. Di has held several roles from ballroom and Latin American dance instructor to Executive Director of Nursing in Kalgoorlie, General Manager of the largest (hospital) services contract at Fiona Stanley Hospital to Chief Executive Officer of Celsus the 1st public private partnership in South Australia.Di is skilled in Negotiation, Business Planning, Operations Management, Facility Management (FM), and Administration. She is a strong operations professional with a Bachelor of Health Science focused in Health Service Management. Di Mantell loves to achieve the impossible and breakdown stereotypes.Di was a State Finalist Telstra Business Women's Awards 2020, as well as a Judge in Telstra Best of Business Awards 2022https://www.linkedin.com/in/di-mantell-b72a174a/ Connect with Hilary: Facebook...

Today's guest, Di Mantell, is a powerhouse of purpose-driven leadership and innovation in the Australian healthcare industry. Starting as a nurse unit manager in critical care at just 23, Di now serves as CEO of Celsus, where she oversees the largest infrastructure project in South Australian history—the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Under her visionary leadership, Celsus secured the world's largest sustainability loan of $2.2 billion, aligning healthcare with groundbreaking environmental and social practices.In this conversation, Di Mantell shares her remarkable journey of reinvention and leadership in the healthcare sector. Di discusses the importance of seizing opportunities, embracing change, and the value of continuous learning. She emphasizes the need for sustainability in leadership and reflects on her experiences, challenges, and aspirations for the future.Di was a State Finalist for the Telstra Business Woman of the Year Awards in 2021 a judge for the Telstra Best of Business Awards in 2022 and 2023, a former Mentor for the Australian Mental Health Leaders Fellowship Programs and currently a Mentor for Mentor Walks. Di is on the Health Week Australia Advisory Board, Adelaide Contemporary Experimental Development Committee, and Australian College of Health Service Management South Australian Council, is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and a Board Director.I wanted to talk to Di about her trailblazing journey, her commitment to sustainability, and the lessons she's learned about leadership, purpose, and creating impact. TakeawaysSeize opportunities when they arise, as they may not come again.Embrace change and be open to new experiences.Continuous learning is essential for career growth.Volunteer experiences can enhance your CV and skills.Mentorship can reveal strengths you may not see in yourself.Sustainability should be embedded in all organizational practices.Leadership requires a balance of personal and professional commitments.Reflect on your journey without regrets, focusing on growth.Being brave in your career can lead to unexpected paths.Giving back to the community enriches both personal and professional life.For more information about Di, check out these places;-Instagram:   Di MantellLinkedin: Di MantellHead to michellejcox.com for more information about the ONE QUESTION podcast, your host or today's guestsConnect with Michelle on Linkedin here:- @MichelleJCoxConnect with Michelle on Instagram here:- @michellejcoxConnect with Michelle on Facebook here - @michellejcoxAND, if you have a burning topic you'd love people to talk more about, or know someone who'd be great to come on the One Question podcast, please get in touch;- 

Good Christians, One and All Rejoice? In this episode, we read Origen's response to Celsus about whether or not Christians are detrimental or beneficial to society. Does the Church uplift or undermine culture? What part does faith play in living a virtuous life? SHOW NOTES:  Understandings of the Church by E. Glenn Hinson https://amzn.to/4iTKi6a  Anthony the Great https://www.1517.org/podcast-overview/2025-01-17 Collapse article https://open.substack.com/pub/thehonestsorcerer/p/collapse-will-look-nothing-like-in?r=3ly85t&utm_medium=ios An Atheist visits an Orthodox church https://youtu.be/F-WKseKOa9E   More from 1517: Support 1517 Podcast Network: https://www.1517.org/donate-podcasts 1517 Podcasts: http://www.1517.org/podcasts 1517 on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChDdMiZJv8oYMJQQx2vHSzg 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/1517-podcast-network/id6442751370 1517 Events Schedule: https://www.1517.org/events 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education: https://academy.1517.org/   What's New from 1517: Bible in One Year with Chad Bird: https://www.1517.org/oneyear Broken Bonds: A Novel of the Reformation, Book 1 of 2 by Amy Mantravadi: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1962654753?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_FCNEEK60MVNVPCEGKBD8_5&starsLeft=1  Junk Drawer Jesus By Matt Popovits: https://shop.1517.org/products/9781956658484-junk-drawer-jesus   More from the hosts: Donovan Riley https://www.1517.org/contributors/donavon-riley  Christopher Gillespie https://www.1517.org/contributors/christopher-gillespie   MORE LINKS: Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com   St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511  Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis: http://youtube.com/stjohnrandomlake  Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee   Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media     CONTACT and FOLLOW: Email mailto:BannedBooks@1517.org  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BannedBooksPod/  Twitter https://twitter.com/bannedbooks1517   SUBSCRIBE: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@BannedBooks Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1223313  Odysee https://odysee.com/@bannedbooks:5 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books/id1370993639  Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2ahA20sZMpBxg9vgiRVQba  Overcast https://overcast.fm/itunes1370993639/banned-books  TuneIn Radio https://tunein.com/podcasts/Religion--Spirituality-Podcasts/Banned-Books-p1216972/  iHeartRadio https://www.iheart.com/podcast/263-banned-books-29825974/ 

Marizelle Arce is a pioneering naturopathic terrain doctor, certified kinesiologist, and nutrition expert with a perspective on healthcare that is informed by her diverse upbringing and educational experiences. Upon attending conventional medical school for almost 2 years Dr. Arce left, disheartened by institutionalized thinking. She then discovered and attended Naturopathic medical school and graduated with a more holistic understanding of health. Since 2015, Dr. Arce has been the leader of the Westchester chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation. She specializes in nutrition and food education for degenerative diseases as well as biological health, and teaches those interested in Pleomorphism and ancestral medicine, two subjects that are not widely known. She conducts her own research, from which she draws on the works of Drs. Weston Price, Gunther Enderlein, and Royal Lee. Dr. Arce is a proponent of sustainable farming done without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, clean water and an unpolluted environment, the use of nontoxic building materials, and an adherence to traditional dietary principles; as well as of the avoidance of vacc!nes and pharmaceutical agents. She is a drugless practitioner and believes in the body's innate wisdom. *Keep an eye out for Mari's forthcoming book - and remember to follow her on Twitter and IG. Special Guest: Mari Arce.

How does one interpret the hidden meaning of a pagan myth? Some wise Platonist pagan authors help us to understand this, since they explained it in plain writing. One such author is Sallust aka Sallustius the neoplatonist, others include Emperor Julian and Plotinus. In this video I look at how Sallust's writing on the gods and the cosmos help us to understand not only myth, but also the meaning of rites and sacrifices and why they are so important for pagans. Originally recorded January 2019.This podcast depends on your support:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/survivethejiveSubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/survive-the-jiveTelegram: https://t.me/survivethejive

Delve into the intriguing history of vaginal pessaries and their use in treating pelvic organ prolapse. From ancient times to the modern era, discover the unconventional remedies and treatments that were employed, as well as advancements made through the centuries. If you or a loved one has dealt with pelvic organ prolapse, you'll love hearing the colorful history of vaginal pessaries! Key Moments in this episode: 01:16 What a pessary does and how we use it today 02:14 Origin of the word pessary 02:27 First recorded history of pessaries 02:55 Honey 03:21 Succussion 03:49 Hot oil and wool balls 04:40 Pomegrantes 05:29 Greek physician Soranus and "disagreeable odors" 06:41 Roman writer Celsus and bronze cones 08:33 Paulus Agena in the middle ages 10:05 Jonas Platerious 10:34 The first recorded vaginal hysterectomy 12:01 Perforated cork 12:35 The insane story of Faith Howard 13:49 18th and 19th century advances Read information on prolapse from AUGS here: https://www.augs.org/assets/2/6/POP.pdf Find out AUGS information on modern pessaries here: https://www.augs.org/assets/2/6/POP.pdf Follow us! Instagram @foundationskristinjacksonmd Website https://www.foundationsfl.com/ FB facebook.com/advancedurogynecology Loved this episode? Share with a friend.

Welcome to The Saint of the Day Podcast, a service of Good Catholic and The Catholic Company. Today's featured saint is St. Nazarius and St. Celsus. If you like what you heard, share this podcast with someone you know, and make sure to subscribe!

Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus testify of Him. Thank you for listening!

Even early opponents of Christianity acknowledged Jesus did miracles. Thank you for listening! Please leave a 5 star review, share and subscribe!

In this episode Matthew reviews an episode of Frank Turek's Cross Examined podcast, where he and Dr. Titus Kennedy discuss discoveries about Jesus that are outside of the biblical texts. 1) the original podcast episode https://crossexamined.org/the-top-20-discoveries-about-jesus-outside-the-bible/ 2) Biola University statement of faith https://www.biola.edu/about/theological-positions 3) Birthplace of Jesus https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3212-beth-lehem-judah https://theconversation.com/bethlehem-and-beyond-how-christianitys-earliest-sites-were-identified-151719 https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1433 4) Celsus on the Virgin Birth https://jamesbishopblog.com/2020/06/23/greek-philsopher-celsus-on-the-historical-jesus/ https://www.bluffton.edu/courses/humanities/1/celsus.htm#:~:text=%5BCelsus%5D%20accuses%20%5BJesus%5D%20of%20having%20%22%20invented%20his,by%20means%20of%20these%20proclaimed%20himself%20a%20God. 5) Herod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents 6) Peter's House https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade13-1-08#:~:text=While%20nothing%20found%20in%20the%20house%20proved%20this,pilgrims%20suggests%20they%20believed%20it%20was%20Peter%E2%80%99s%20house%21 7) rooster crowing commentary https://acts242study.com/before-the-rooster-crows/#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the%203%20a.m.%20and,Jesus%20used%20that%20same%20phrase%20to%20describe%20it. https://rsc.byu.edu/ministry-peter-chief-apostle/accounts-peters-denial-understanding-texts-motifs https://news.ag.org/en/articles/news/2016/05/sometimes%20a%20rooster%20is%20not%20a%20rooster 8) Caiaphas Ossuary https://cojs.org/ossuary_of_the_high_priest_caiaphas-_18-36_ce/ https://www.greatarchaeology.com/Caiaphas_ossuary.php https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/burial-cave-of-the-caiaphas-family/ 9) James Ossuary https://www.antiquities.org.il/default_en.aspx https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-troubled-return-of-the-james-ossuary/ https://www.livescience.com/50434-jesus-family-tomb-geology.html https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2023/04/20/weighing-the-evidence-is-the-james-ossuary-authentic/ 10) Caesarea Philippi https://www.bibleplaces.com/caesarea-philippi-banias/ 11) Justin Martyr https://archive.org/details/firstapologyofju00just/page/n9/mode/2up 12) Celsus (again) https://jamesbishopblog.com/2020/06/23/greek-philsopher-celsus-on-the-historical-jesus/#:~:text=On%20Christ%E2%80%99s%20miracles%2C%20Celsus%20argues%20that%20he%20worked,miracles%20are%20just%20fables%20invented%20by%20the%20disciples. https://readingacts.com/2010/10/20/the-historical-reliability-of-jesus-miracles/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/heyj.12161 13) The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled https://stellarhousepublishing.com/josephus/ 14) Sejanus https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/sejanus/ 15) Nazareth Inscription https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nazareth-inscription-origins-may-refute-ties-jesus-resurrection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth_Inscription https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/new-testament-era/4658-the-nazareth-inscription-proof-of-the-resurrection-of-christ https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/03/19/scholars-chair-interview-dr-clyde-billington/ To contact us, email: reasonpress@gmail.com our YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@reasonpress2901 Our Theme Music was written for us by Holly, to support her and to purchase her music use the links below: https://hollykirstensongs.com/ https://hollykirsten.bandcamp.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/still-unbelievable/message

waarin we, mijmerend bij oude ruïnes, zien hoe de antieke wereld grondig door elkaar wordt geschud en ons afvragen waarom het Romeinse imperium verdween.WIJ ZIJN: Jonas Goossenaerts (inhoud en vertelstem), Filip Vekemans (montage), Benjamin Goyvaerts (inhoud) en Laurent Poschet (inhoud).MET BIJDRAGEN VAN: Prof. dr. Jeroen Wijnendaele (expert Romeinse politieke geschiedenis), Prof. dr. em. Hans Hauben (specialist oudheidkunde, Hellenistische en Romeinse geschiedenis), Prof. dr. Sofie Remijsen (specialiste oudheidkunde, Romeinse en Hellenistische geschiedenis), dr. Valérie Weyns (specialiste Hellenistische geschiedenis), Jona Lendering (historicus, journalist, blogger), Laurens Luyten (stem Edward Gibbon en Romeinse auteurs).WIL JE ONS EEN FOOI GEVEN? http://fooienpod.com/geschiedenisvoorherbeginners. Al schenkt u tien cent of tien euro, het duurt tien seconden met een handige QR-codeMEER WETEN? Onze geraadpleegde en geciteerde bronnen: Beard, M. (2016), SPQR. A History of Ancient Rome. Profile Books. Londen. Beard, M. (2023), Emperor of Rome. Profile Books. Londen. Gibbon, E. (2010), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Everyman's Library. Londen. Goldsworthy, A. (2017), Pax Romana. Orion Publishing Group. Londen. Goldsworthy, A. (2010), How Rome fell. Death of a Superpower. Yale University Press. Yale. Wijnendaele, J. (2012), Romeinen en barbaren. De ondergang van het Romeinse rijk in het westen. Standaard Uitgeverij. Antwerpen. Heather, P. (2009), The Fall of the Roman Empire. A new History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Harper, K. (2019), The fate of Rome. Climate, disease and the end of an empire. Princeton University Press. Princeton.Beeld: Wikimedia CommonsOverzicht van de officiële keizers in de 3de eeuw: Alexander Severus (222-235), Maximinus Thrax (235–238), Gordian I en Gordian II (238), Philip the Arab (244–249), Decius (249–251), Trebonianus Gallus (251–253), Aemilianus (253), Valerian (253–260), Saloninus (260), Claudius Gothicus (268–270), Quintillus (270), Aurelian (270–275), Tacitus (275–276), Florianus (276), Probus (276–282), Carus (282–283), Diocletian (284–305)Overzicht van tegenkeizers en troonpretendenten in de 3de eeuw: Sallustius (c. 227), Taurinus (datum onzeker), Ovinius Camillus (mogelijk fictief), Magnus (235), Quartinus (235), Sabinianus (240), Iotapianus (248), Pacatian (248), Silbannacus (datum onzeker), Licinianus (250), Priscus (251–252), Valens Senior (datum onzeker), Ingenuus (260) , Macrianus Major, Macrianus Minor en Quietus (260-261), Regalianus (260), Balista (261), Piso (261), Valens (261), Memor (261), Mussius Aemilianus (261-262), Celsus (mogelijk fictief), Saturninus (mogelijk fictief), Trebellianus (mogelijk fictief), Censorinus (269–270) (mogelijk fictief), Sponsianus (datum onzeker), Domitianus (270–271), Felicissimus (271), Septimius (271) in Dalmatia, Urbanus (271) (mogelijk fictief), Firmus (273), Bonosus (280), Proculus (280), Saturninus (280), Sabinus Julianus (283-285), Amandus and Aelianus (285), Carausius: (286–293), Allectus: (293–296), Domitius Domitianus: (297), Aurelius Achilleus: (297–298), Eugenius: (303)Keizers van het Gallische keizerrijk (tijdelijk afgescheurd deel van het Romeinse Rijk): Postumus (260–269), Laelian (269, usurpator), Marius 269, Victorinus (268/69–271), Domitian II (271, usurpator), Tetricus I (271–274), Tetricus II (273–274), Faustinus (273-274, usurpator)Keizers van het Palmyreense keizerrijk (tijdelijk afgescheurd deel van het Romeinse Rijk): Vaballathus (267?-272), Zenobia (272-273), Antiochus (273)Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 240 – Jesus Beyond the Bible Part 2 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script Notes: Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. ... And Joseph also … to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. …while they were there… she [gave birth].” The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 6, English Revised Version ******** VK: Hi! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m here today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, and part-time health consultant. He buys the cough drops we keep in the studio for people to use during recording. Today on Anchored by Truth, as we approach Thanksgiving and Christmas, we want to continue our series where we focus on the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. And we want to continue listening to Crystal Sea’s epic Christmas poem The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion. Today we’re coming to part three of the poem where the action starts to get a little more intense. Is that a fair statement, RD? RD: I think so. For any listeners who weren’t able to be with us for our last couple of episodes we should tell them that The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion is a poem that is written in the style of some classic Christmas stories. It was also written using the model of the old-time movie serials that they used to play when I was a kid and you went to the theater on Saturday afternoons. Before the movie they’d give you the latest installment of an ongoing saga. Each episode would end with the heroes and heroines left in a precarious position so next week you’d come back and plunk down another quarter or two. So, to get ready for part three listeners need to know that the epic is all about a group of small koala bears who live in a valley in the arctic. A group of the bear’s ancestors settled in the valley because in the center of the valley is a golden tree that transforms the valley into a place where they can live and thrive. They’ve been there for several generations but in the current Christmas season an unexpected challenge has come to their valley, the tree, and their lives. Two of the town’s teenage bears, Koest and Kopaul had gone to a hill to look at the northern lights. While on the hill they saw a new, strange bear staggering through the snow. At first they weren’t sure if this new bear posed a danger but since the new bear was so close to death they brought him back to Koest’s home where Koest’s mother, Koray, began attending to the bear. But they still don’t know anything about the new bear. Where did he come from and why is he here? And what does he want? VK: Alright then. So, let’s continue with the story. Here’s part three of Crystal Seas’ Christmas epic poem: The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion – part three. ---- The Golden Tree: Eagle Enigma – Part 3 VK: Ok. As the old timers … RD: Like me... VK: Right… used to say, “the plot commences to thicken.” The bears who live near the Golden Tree have found out that they have distant relatives who don’t know about the Golden Tree or even the Great White Bear. But a couple who still did believe in the Great White Bear decided to attempt the quest that others had tried long ago. But now their quest is in danger because one of them has almost died and the other one is lost in a vast arctic wilderness – a wasteland for anyone who’s not near the tree. RD: Right. And sometimes those of us who live in today’s post-modern culture can feel that way – that we are living in a wilderness that has lost sight of our true Creator. That’s why it’s such a good idea for mature believers to listen to or read stories to the kids or grandkids because they can introduce those kids or grandkids to the real struggles that life contains and help prepare to them to be overcomers. And of course the best strategy for being an overcomer is to be so familiar with the truth that lies and deception become immediately identifiable. VK: And of course that’s why we do Anchored by Truth – to remind people that the Bible, in the words of Psalm 46, is a “very present help in time of trouble.” But people aren’t likely to turn to the Bible to help them in times of trouble if they aren’t confident that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy. So that’s why we focus on using evidence and logic to demonstrate that we have very good reasons for believing that the Bible is the very Word of God. RD: Yes. Everybody, at some point in their life, is going to ask the question, “Why am I here?” It’s one of the most obvious questions that arise from the human experience. But, whether most people realize it or not, the answer to the question, “why am I here,” is inexorably tied to three other questions. Is there a God? If there is a God, does He communicate with people – or said slightly differently, “Is the Bible the Word of God.” And, if there is a God and the Bible is His word, can I learn about my life, my needs, and my purpose by studying the Bible? Of course at Anchored by Truth we think that the answer to all three questions is a resounding “yes.” But we would just as quickly admit that, unless people are convinced that the Bible is more than just an aggregated collection of fairy tales and myths, they are unlikely to find the Bible relevant to their lives. VK: I notice that you said “study the Bible” not just “read the Bible.” What you’re observing is that understanding the Bible, confidently and contextually, demands effort. Right? I mean that sort of runs against the old method of letting the Bible fall open and then reading the first verse that comes to your attention. RD: Well, I wouldn’t try to restrict the Lord’s ability to communicate to any particular person any way He chooses. But randomly or haphazardly reading selected portions of the Bible isn’t likely to help people answer the question, “Why am I here?” I am fully persuaded that the Lord will reveal Himself to anyone and everyone who seeks to truly know Him. But our relationship with the Lord – who is after all first and foremost a person – is just like our relationship with others in our lives. The quality of our relationship will be dependent on the quality and quantity of time we spend with the Lord. And because the Bible was written in a different time and era we need to do some study on the times, customs, and cultures that form its setting. And, unfortunately, because so much misinformation circulates in our own culture today about what the Bible is or isn’t, contemporary Christians need to arm themselves by being able to respond to certain common errors. VK: Such as the erroneous assertion that Jesus wasn’t a real person. That he didn’t live a real life, eat, walk, and sleep like normal human beings. And that, despite being fully human, he didn’t also demonstrate that he was fully divine by rising out of a stone tomb after being killed by the most powerful empire on the earth at the time. So, that takes us back to our review of some examples that Jesus’ earthly existence is confirmed by sources outside the Bible. Last time we took a look at two examples of other ancient historians who mentioned Jesus in their histories: the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus. Both are considered reliable historians. Both wrote their histories within a relatively short period after Jesus’ earthly life. And both wrote accounts that confirmed some of the details in scripture. Where do you want to start today? RD: Well, let’s take a look at another Roman historian, Suetonius. Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD): “Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome].” (Life of Claudius, 25:4) This expulsion took place in 49AD. In another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result: “Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2) So from these quotes we can see that the awareness of Jesus had spread all the way to Rome less than 20 years after Jesus died. The awareness was so strong that the emperor had taken personal notice of Jesus’ followers and apparently felt the need to try to minimize their influence in the capital city. VK: And again, just to remind everyone of what we mentioned last time the fact that Roman historians and even Roman emperors would take notice of Jesus is remarkable. It wasn’t as if Jesus had led a conquering army that was threatening to lay siege to Rome or even one of his outlying provinces. And Suetonius’ observation that the Christians had a “new and mischievous religious belief” is particularly fascinating. When you think about the pantheon of gods with which the Romans were thoroughly familiar – not only their own gods but also the Greek gods and the gods of all the people they’d conquered – when you think about the vast variety of religious beliefs with which they were acquainted what could be considered “new and mischievous?” RD: Well, of course, many scholars believe that Suetonius was likely referring to the physical resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, the Romans were well familiar with various beliefs of life after death, but those belief systems never included a person – a flesh and blood man – walking around, talking, eating, and even touching other people after being crucified. That was new and novel. VK: Still is. I’ve never seen it though I thoroughly believed it happened. Who’s next? RD: Well, take a look at two sources who wrote about Jesus but for whom we don’t have any copies of their writings: Thallus and Phlegon. VK: Well, if there are no existing copies of their manuscripts how can we know what they wrote? RD: Because just like today, there were other writers who did read what they wrote and preserved some of their material by quoting it in documents they were preparing. Just like someone may not have attended a political event, but they can know part of what the speaker said by reading quotes in articles written by people who were there. In Thallus’ case, parts of his histories were preserved by Julius Africanus who wrote around 221 AD. In Phlegon’s case, not only did Julius Africanus record some of his material but so did Origen who was an early church scholar and theologian. VK: So what observation did Julius Africanus preserve from Thallus’ writings that pertain to Jesus? RD: Well let me read a quote from Julius Africanus: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1) So Thallus had written more than one book of history but in at least one of his books he took note of the darkness and earthquake that accompanied Christ’s crucifixion. This parallels precisely the account that Matthew gave us in Chapter 27 of his Gospel. VK: And Luke also wrote about the darkness. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 23, verses 44 through 47 say: “And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly, this was a righteous man.” So, it is very interesting that a secular historian like Thallus would mention the same detail that is present in Matthew and Luke. And if I remember correctly Thallus’ observations are particularly important because many scholars believe he wrote around 52 AD. In fact, he may have been the earliest secular writer to comment on the events surrounding the crucifixion. Well, what about Phlegon? RD: Well let me read three quotes. This first is one preserved by Julius Africanus and the second two were preserved by Origen: “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1) “And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33) “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59) So in these quotes we several things of significance. First, Phlegon confirms the darkness mentioned by Matthew, Luke, and Thallus. Second, he confirms that Jesus was crucified and he gives us a specific time reference: during the reign of Tiberius. And third, he confirms the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus including that he showed the marks of his crucifixion to those to whom he appeared. VK: Well, that’s even more amazing because now we know that the secular historians of the 1st and 2nd century AD were not only aware of Jesus’ life and ministry but they were also familiar with many of the details that surrounded his death and resurrection. But that does raise a question. Since Julius Africanus and Origen were both admitted Christians is it possible that they fabricated the quotes they attributed to Thallus and Phlegon? RD: It’s not impossible, but why would they have done that? VK: I think critics would say they would have fabricated the quotes to make their case for the truth of Christianity stronger. RD: Well, if they had attempted to do that it would actually have had the opposite effect in their day and time. First, remember that even though copies of the writings from Thallus and Phlegon are no longer extant today, they were in existence at the time Julius Africanus and Origen wrote and quoted from them. So if they had fabricated quotes or deliberately misquoted them their fraud or errors would have been easily detectable. Second, Africanus and Origen were writing at a time when there was substantial official opposition to Christianity. In other words they were writing in a hostile world. As such, they would have taken even greater pains to be sure that they wouldn’t be subject to easily refuted assertions. Third, Origen’s quotes of Phlegon came from a work entitled Contra Celsum or in English Against Celsus. So Origen was writing a work to refute the claims of Celsus who wrote a work entitled The True Doctrine. The True Doctrine was likely written under the authority of a Roman emperor was critical of Christianity. Since accuracy was essential to his refutation of Celsus’ book, most scholars agree that Origen is a reliable source for what Phlegon said. Why would Origen have handed his opponent an easy method for dismissing Origen’s criticisms? VK: That all makes a lot of common sense and it points to a broader implication of the extra-Biblical sources that you’ve been citing. None of the observers themselves, including Thallus or Phlegon, were friendly to Christianity. So theirs were essentially the observations of hostile witnesses. As such, when they confirm details of the Biblical account their testimony of Jesus’ life has even greater weight. If they thought that Jesus was a fraud or a fabrication it would have been very easy for them just to not mention him. RD: And one more point to note before we close. In these episodes we haven’t been able to cover all the extra-Biblical sources that there are that confirm Jesus’ life, ministry, and death. There’s a book called The Historical Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas that contains a much more exhaustive treatment of this subject. VK: And – again – we wanted to point listeners to all these resources, including the links we put on our podcast notes, to enable them to continue their own studies about the life and ministry of Jesus. As we said at the start of this episode, to answer the question “why am I here,” we need to understand why any of us are here. And how we got here. Those questions are directly related to what we think about God and Jesus. So let’s close with prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of the One who leads into a knowledge of truth, the Holy Spirit. ---- Prayer for Adoration of the Holy Spirit VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” We hope you’ll be with us next time as we continue our discussion of the reality of Jesus’ life. We hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. Also, we’d to remind listeners that copies of The Golden Tree: Komari’s Quest are available from our website. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the English Revised Version) The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 6, English Revised Version The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 23, verses 44 through 47, English Revised Version (Sources used for this episode or other in this series) https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/ https://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible/ https://crossexamined.org/why-should-we-trust-the-extra-biblical-references-to-jesus/

Scripture Reading: Acts 2:37 - 2:47 37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.Main ThemesTHE RESPONSERepentanceThe crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus' name in a baptism involving such repentance. God's promise to them is the Holy Spirit. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Similarly, in Acts 2 individuals need to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.The crowd is described as having a deep emotional response to Peter's message (“struck to the heart”), producing a favorable behavioral response. We need not assume exaggeration on Luke's part. He provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54). I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one's previous religious experience.Because God's “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.BaptismJust as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing repentance, so now does Peter. Jewish people traditionally applied immersion baptism only to Gentiles (more on this later). Peter here demands a conversion no less radical than that of a Gentile converting to Judaism, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel's God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus. After reading this passage in acts, we might ask: Is forgiveness tied to baptism or repentance? Are both required? “Forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus' final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is hardly dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus' followers used baptism as the initiation rite is actually quite unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Christian baptism seems a bit different, though. John's baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many. The closest Jewish parallel to John the Baptist's and early Christian baptism was proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Proselyte baptism provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte's Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.In Jesus NamePeter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus' name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord's name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus's name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert's new allegiance.We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus's name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer's calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke's writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms. The Promise of the SpiritLuke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.” By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus's name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah's language, Luke also reiterates the promise of the Spirit for the Gentile mission. By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.It will so happen thateveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,just as the Lord has promised;the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.SUMMARY AND EXHORTATIONVerse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke's narrative moves quickly to the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech's central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord's name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God's eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ. For Peter's hearers to save themselves from the generation's wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.Peter's term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter's point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.3,000We discussed baptism earlier, so I will not discuss the religious significance of 3,000 people being baptized. Nevertheless, we should briefly consider the mechanics of this. Could so many people even be baptized in a day? (The text could easily be understood to mean that 3,000 came to believe in Jesus, regardless of whether the actual baptisms would have taken several days to perform. But let's assume the harder, albeit simpler reading of the text.) To accommodate the thousands of worshipers the temple hosted daily, the Temple Mount had plenty of baptismal pools. Even the Roman historian Tacitus was familiar with the claim that the temple held many pools.“Baptizing” in this period involved mainly supervision while the people coming for purification immersed themselves. Like John the Baptist, the disciples could have supervised mass baptisms, without having to physically lay hands on each person. Once verbal instructions were issued, mass immersions in response to Peter's command could have occurred.One more question: is 3,000 converts in one day a believable number? At feast times such as Pentecost, Jerusalem could host as many as half a million people, with an estimated thirty thousand from the Diaspora. The Temple Mount was large enough to hold tens of thousands at one time, perhaps up to four hundred thousand (according to some of the larger estimates). Even if some of these estimates are too high (although they might be correct), thousands of hearers and a rapid mass movement of three thousand conversions are not at all implausible.Another reason to believe Luke's account of converts is that Luke seems quite honest about audiences' reactions to hearing the gospel. After each sermon in Acts, Luke reports people's acceptance or rejection (2:41; 4:4; 5:33; 7:54; 8:6, 36;10:44; 13:44, 48-50; 17:32; 22:22; 28:24, 29). Reporting rejections does not seem to fit a false narrative of ineffable success.The First ChurchVerse 42 begins a summary section describing the Jerusalem community of disciples, or what I may refer to as the first church. Before we discuss whether this first church is meant as a model for the rest of us, let's just focus on the text. What is the community engaged in? Prayer, learning from the apostles, signs, eating together, and sharing of possessions. Let's discuss these in further detail.SummariesAs a quick side note, what do I mean by a summary section? Speaking of situations in broad terms (i.e., summarizing) is typical of ancient historiographical works that were based on research and the use of sources. In other words, here Luke condenses a wider collection of information than he can afford space to narrate.The Ideal CommunityIn the ancient world, just like today, tales and dreams of ideal communities that shared all possessions were not unusual. The language employed by Luke is reminiscent of Hellenistic language for the ideal community. However, Luke and his audience are probably not thinking of Gentile sources. Instead, there is a nearly unmistakable connection between this first church and the Old and New Testament emphases on caring for the poor. For example, recall a passage like Deuteronomy 15:7-11:If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart or be insensitive to his impoverished condition. Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs. Be careful lest you entertain the wicked thought that the seventh year, the year of cancellation of debts, has almost arrived, and your attitude be wrong toward your impoverished fellow Israelite and you do not lend him anything; he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be regarded as having sinned. You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt. There will never cease to be some poor people in the land; therefore, I am commanding you to make sure you open your hand to your fellow Israelites who are needy and poor in your land. Deuteronomy 15:7-11Consider also the following verses in Deuteronomy:One must not take either lower or upper millstones as security on a loan, for that is like taking a life itself as security. Deuteronomy 24:6When you make any kind of loan to your neighbor, you may not go into his house to claim what he is offering as security. You must stand outside and the person to whom you are making the loan will bring out to you what he is offering as security. If the person is poor you may not use what he gives you as security for a covering. You must by all means return to him at sunset the item he gave you as security so that he may sleep in his outer garment and bless you for it; it will be considered a just deed by the Lord your God.You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant, whether one from among your fellow Israelites or from the resident foreigners who are living in your land and villages. You must pay his wage that very day before the sun sets, for he is poor and his life depends on it. Otherwise he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin. Deuteronomy 24:10-15There are countless verses about helping the poor in the Psalms. Broadly speaking, the psalmists express the idea that the one who helps the poor will be blessed (e.g., Psalm 41:1-2). Jesus spoke repeatedly about helping the poor and about their blessings to come.So, this first church is surprising and unsurprising. Surprisingly, it describes a nearly unbelievable setting filled with love and generosity. Unsurprisingly, this has been the goal Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus spoke about. One could hardly expect otherwise.If one believes that Pentecost was a sort of reversal of the curse at Babel, then the church's unity in these verses builds upon that reversal. TeachingThe apostles' teaching provides a crucially important link to Jesus' ministry. The early church devoted itself to the apostles' teachings, which is to say they devoted themselves to Jesus' teachings passed on by the apostles. Luke is emphasizing the continuity between the mission of Jesus and his church.What might this teaching have looked like? Moral teaching was not unusual in the ancient world. For example, we could picture the lectures in a philosophic schools. However, considering the Jewish background of the apostles and other (approximately 120) Jesus' followers that received the Spirit during the Pentecost miracle, the teaching probably looked like the Midrashic exposition familiar in the synagogues. Or, put even more simply, it would have looked like Peter's speech: lessons and admonitions expanding on scriptures.Fellowship (Koinōnia)The first church engaged in “fellowship,” the Greek word being koinōnia (κοινωνία). I mention this bit of Greek trivia because the Greek word often appears in churches and Christian college campuses to describe events and meeting places. It has become part of the modern Christian lingo. The word means exactly that, a partnership, community, or “sharing in” something. The term can refer to the sort of harmony created by shared purpose and working together. In a commercial context, the word could mean sharing profits.In light of early Christian teaching, much like sharing possessions, fellowship is not a surprising fruit of Pentecost. Remember what we read in the Gospel of John when Jesus prays for the believers:“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. John 17:20-23In verse 46, we read the believers met by common consent. The term translated as such is rare (appearing nowhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint). Although I do not want to read too much into it, I think it does show a strong form of unity.Breaking BreadIn the text, breaking bread and fellowship are side by side, giving the impression that fellowship included sharing meals. We may surmise that these common meals were at the expense of those who were sharing their possessions—those who could afford the food. More importantly, what do we mean by breaking bread? Certainly our modern experiences with the Eucharist or Lord's Supper (the wording will change depending on the Christian tradition) affects how we read this passage. We should, however, keep in mind that, as the most basic staple, “bread” could easily stand for food in general. The passage is probably conveying the idea of eating together, not exclusively the breaking of literal bread. Recall the original Lord's Supper (Luke 22), in which bread and wine were shared, but just like they were shared at other meals. They were notable components in a meal involving many other components. If anything, the bread and wine were special in the fact that they were not—they were the most basic and always-present elements of Jewish meals.One could read the text to say that the early Christians were simply taking bread together, like the sacrament with which we are so familiar. That is not the most likely reading. (I am not trying to make a broader point about the sacraments. I am simply trying to clarify what the text means.)As we read this text, we should remember that a host who shared a meal with guests was thought to have formed a bond of relationship that was not taken lightly. Providing food and partaking of what was provided were important social obligations. To eat with someone was, at least to some extent, to befriend them. Considering that this early church was made up of people from all over the known world, and rich and poor, this sharing of meals was nothing short of revolutionary.Prayer and WorshipPrayer was the prelude to Pentecost, but it did not stop there. At the end of chapter 2, we see that prayer is a continuing part of the Christian community life.On a related note, we find that they praise God together. The word Luke uses for praise is found many times in the Septuagint. It is almost always associated with praise carried out in the temple. Consider, for example:They brought the ark of God and put it in the middle of the tent David had pitched for it. Then they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God. When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord's name. He then handed out to each Israelite man and woman a loaf of bread, a date cake, and a raisin cake. He appointed some of the Levites to serve before the ark of the Lord, to offer prayers, songs of thanks, and hymns to the Lord God of Israel. 1 Chronicles 16:1-4What did that early worship look like? Again, considering the background of most of the people involved, it probably looked like (not necessarily the same as) the Jewish liturgy and reading of the Psalms. Nevertheless, early Christians would have rejected the idea that the Jewish liturgy in the temple was the required or even best way to pray and worship.SignsIn verse 43, we have one of many miracle summaries in Acts (e.g., 5:12; 8:7; 19:11-12; 28:9). We are also told how people reacted. “Reverential awe came over everyone . . . .” In the Greek, the imperfect tense is used. Awe (or fear) was coming over everyone. This suggests a continued phenomenon rather than a one time event.What is this “awe” or, literally, “fear” that they felt? The text suggests a newfound attitude of paying attention to God, his work, his commandments, and his very person (i.e., who he is).Meeting at the TempleUndeniably, homes became the dominant meeting places for Christians. Yet, notice that in this first church, they meet both in the temple and in homes. Some suggest that Christians used public meeting places to evangelize, but houses to disciple the converts. That very well could be the case, but in the case of Acts 2, worshipping at the Temple does not seem like a tactic. Instead, at this point, the temple serves a positive function—it right and proper to worship at the temple. The revival of spiritual temple worship here would evoke for Luke's biblically informed audience grand precedents. In the Old Testament, renewal of temple or tabernacle worship accompanied revivals in Israel's history. The early Christians thus had good reason to expect (and experience) a renewal of temple worship, whether or not the authorities saw fit to cooperate with their agenda. (Many Jewish people expected a new or renewed temple in this period.)Lessons for TodayI am going to do something a little unusual for this Bible study. Generally, I try to stay close to the text—focusing on the cultural and linguistic issues. My goal is to explain what the text really says—what it meant to the author and original audience. The implications of the text, particularly for our lives, I touch on lightly and briefly. As some have let me know (and there is nothing wrong with that), this has the effect of hiding the forest for the trees. I spend much of the time discussing details like grammar, and I never get to the “good stuff.”Well, today, I do want to pause for a brief moment and consider some questions. In particular, I have three in mind. First, does charity matter? Second, should we preach like “Acts 2 Peter”? Third, should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?Does Charity Matter?I do not wish to repeat myself, but the Old Testament and Jesus' ministry have a heavy emphasis on charity. Helping the poor is part of the Jewish law. The Psalms say that helping the poor will result in blessings. Jesus says that helping the poor will result in exaltation.Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.' Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, don't invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid. But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. Then you will be blessed because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:7-14It is this Bible-wide emphasis on caring for the poor that climaxes in the depiction of the first church. And, I think the undeniable truth is that this emphasis on the poor has been crucial for the vitality and expansion of the church. Listen how Craig Keener describes how early thinkers, Christian and pagan alike, noticed the early church's attitude towards the poor:Justin claims that former pagans, converted to Christianity, continue to share their resources in common and with the needy (Justin 1 Apol. 14). In the late second century, Tertullian remarks wittily that Christians readily share everything in common except their wives—the one thing, he complains, pagans were most willing to share (Tert. Apol. 39.11– 12). In antithetical contrast to the apologists' idealized portraits, Lucian ridicules worshipers of “the crucified sophist” as despising “all things indiscriminately” and reckoning everything as “common property,” hence easily cheated. Celsus critiqued Christians for their effective appeal to “the socially objectionable classes” as well as to “the unhappy and sinful.” Other sources also attest to Christians' continuing commitment to share their resources in the second century and beyond.In short, I think charity is both a means of blessing in this life (I mean for the giver, not the recipient) and one of the primary means by which we show the kingdom of God in this world. Regarding blessings, allow me to make a wildly inflammatory statement: the answer to many of our personal problems is a lack of charity. Are you experiencing depression? Go help the poor. Are you having trouble with your wife? Go help the poor. Are you dissatisfied with your job? Go help the poor. No, I am not saying that helping the poor will make your problems go away, but I am saying that helping the poor will provide you with a certain perspective and patience that will help solve them. Charity is simply that crucial and life-changing. And, do we want our churches to be lively and vibrant? We must help and welcome the poor. What are the limits to charity? Yes, a line must be drawn. My suggestion is we discuss that once we think we are getting close to the line.Should We Preach Like Acts 2 Peter?In Acts 2, Peter makes a perfect presentation of what we generally call “the gospel.” Peter stood up and told them (paraphrased), “Listen! The scriptures spoke of a day when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all people. As you can see and hear (because of the Pentecost miracle), that day is today. That also means that the end is near, call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Who is the Lord? Jesus. How do we know? He did miracles among you. Also, you killed him using dirty tactics but God raised him from the dead. The scriptures spoke of one who would not see decay—that's Jesus! The scriptures also spoke of a king who would reign forever, who would be exalted. That's Jesus! He has been taken up to heaven as King and Savior. He will not lose. Save yourselves! Repent!”Obviously, I do not disagree with Peter one bit. My question is not whether Peter is right. I believe he speaks of true things. My question is whether we should present that truth the same way, and whether his argument would be compelling today.If you are thinking I am about to start a discussion about how sensitive people are today, and how offended they would be by Peter's speech, do not worry. I am not convinced people have ever been different (e.g., more or less sensitive), but be that as it may, I am more interested in the argument itself.Peter's argument depends partly on the audience's personal experience with Jesus. It depends much more, though, on scripture that the audience believes to be true. Peter does not even need to argue that scripture is truthful.Would we find a similar audience today? In my opinion, yes and no. In the United States, we live in a time of great apostasy (or at least of many people leaving the churches). People are leaving the Christian faith by the hundreds of thousands. In 2007, religious “nones” were only about 16%. Now that number has nearly doubled (29%). Perhaps many of these people still believe the Bible to be true, much like Peter's audience, and we can call them back to God based on that. But about a third of Americans (coincidentally, also 29%) believe that the Bible is simply fables. What then?I have two suggestions. First, like we will read of Paul preaching in Athens, we must meet them where they (the audience) are. We must explain why the gospel is true and good. Second, and this will lead into my question of the early church, we must help them experience Jesus. How? The church is the body of Christ. I think that unbelievers should truly encounter Jesus in the community of his followers.Should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?Why do I ask this question? Partly because many churches claim to be Acts 2 churches. This is particularly common with nondenominational churches (this is not an attack, simply a statement of fact), but even some more traditional, denominational churches advocate for this.We must begin by asking what do we mean by an Acts 2 church. Here are some answers I found to get us started:Their Four KeysThe church in Acts 2 has four priorities: studying good teaching, hanging out, sharing meals, and praying (verse 42). That's a great start, but many churches today don't even do that, not really.Their MiraclesAmazing supernatural things occur. People are amazed (verse 43). Today, most churches don't encounter miracles or anything supernatural. They forgot how or never learned. And for many who do walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, their focus is on the experience, not on people's reaction. Their emphasis is backwards. The purpose of “signs and wonders” isn't to gratify themselves. It's to show God's power, pointing outsiders to him, not delighting insiders.Their FinancesThe kicker is that they pool their resources; they even sell their possessions to give to everyone in need. The church takes care of their own (verses 44 and 45). Too many churches today do not even care for the needs of their members; they expect government or some other organization to. And I've never encountered a church that shares all their material possessions. That's just un-American!Their PatternThey continue to hang out—every day—and share food. They are delighted (verse 46). I don't know of any church family that meets every day, but the Acts 2 church did.Their ResultsBecause of all this, others esteem them and they grow (verse 47). Too often today's churches don't have the respect of society but quite the opposite. Too many churches aren't growing; they're not even maintaining; they're dying. However, none of the things the church did in Acts 2 are commands for us to follow. The passage is descriptive; it shows what the church did and the outcome they enjoyed. It may be a viable model for us to follow.Unfortunately, many churches today don't even practice these four key actions; supernatural results are rare; and sharing everything is virtually nonexistent. Is it any wonder why churches aren't respected by society or growing? Perhaps they're doing church wrong and not more closely following the Acts 2 model.—Peter DehaanBeing an Acts 2 Church in the 21st CenturySome churches are known for their music programs, others for their children or youth ministries, while yet others for some sort of “niche” that appeals to a large audience. While all such ministries can be good and helpful for both reaching your community and encouraging the church, it's interesting to look back at what the first church devoted themselves to. In Acts 2, after Peter's Jewish audience heard the gospel proclaimed, they responded with repentance and faith, were incorporated into the church through baptism, and they devoted themselves to a common faith and a common life.It's no accident that the first devotion mentioned was to the apostles' teaching. We too should be devoted to the apostles' teaching. But what is their teaching? In Acts 2:22-26, Peter preaches the good news concerning Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and King. In Acts 4, Peter and John annoy the Jewish leaders because they were “teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (v.2). Then the Jewish leaders charged them not “to teach at all in the name of Jesus” (v.18). Then in Acts 5, the apostles' teaching is referred to as “the words of life” (v.20-21). But again, the Jewish leaders “strictly charged them not to teach in this name” (v.28). Nevertheless, after they were released, Luke says of the apostles:And every day in the temple and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching that Jesus is the Christ. (v.42)I trust you get the idea of what the apostles' teaching entails.Still, there is a little more going on in Acts 2:42 then first meets the eye. You see, faithful Jews were to be devoted to Moses' teaching. By devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, the early church understood that they were under a new authority—King Jesus, the new and better prophet than Moses. The apostles' teaching is nothing other than all of Scripture, now interpreted through the lens of Jesus. This is, after all, how Jesus himself viewed all of Scripture (Luke 24:44-49). All Scripture is inspired by God and points to Jesus.For this reason, we should want what we do together as a church to be Word-saturated (all of Scripture) and gospel-centered (interpreted through the lens of Jesus). In light of this gospel commitment, here are four areas in which we should encourage our church to be devoted to the apostles' teaching.Personal DevotionsIf our churches are to be devoted to the apostles' teaching, then our members need to be personally devoted to the apostles' teaching. . . .Sunday SchoolYour church may or may not have Sunday school. At High Pointe, we call it Life Classes, and we offer topic specific classes. . . .Small GroupsPerhaps your church has small groups that meet throughout the week. These groups should also be Word-saturated and gospel-centered. . . .Worship GatheringsIt is a great joy when God's people gather to declare our joint allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . .—LifewayChurch As It Was Meant To BeIn many respects, the contemporary church in America looks more like a large corporation than like anything described in the New Testament. Even church leaders sometimes bear a closer resemblance to CEOs and corporate executives than to humble, tender shepherds. Sadly, the good news — that a sinner can find forgiveness for sins before a holy God by placing his trust in and committing his whole life to Jesus Christ—is often eclipsed by “success”-oriented programs and an interest in the bottom line. As a result, many churches have become nothing more than entertainment centers, employing tactics that effectively draw people into the church, but are incapable of truly ministering to them once they come. …So, what's the blueprint? A logical place to start is at the beginning with the first church—the church at Jerusalem. It began on the Day of Pentecost . . . . Back to the Blueprint: Bible Study, Fellowship, and PrayerActs 2:42 gives the blueprint they followed: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Those are the vital elements that make up the actual function and life of the church— and all of that in just one verse! Here's an obvious starting point: A church built to the Master's plan will begin with the right raw material—a saved congregation. Verse 41 identifies the church as being made up of “those who had received [Peter's] word,” and “were continually devoting themselves.” The church at Jerusalem was filled with true Christians — those who continually adhered to apostolic teaching.…While the early church didn't have a New Testament, they had God's Word in the form of the “apostles' teaching.” The church at Jerusalem was committed to receiving that Word. Doctrine is the basis of the church—you can't live out what you don't know or understand. . . . Don't ever allow anyone to stand in the pulpit who isn't committed to leading the congregation through a deep, penetrating study of God's Word. The central focus of the early church's fellowship was the breaking of bread — the Lord's Table. It was the most fitting symbol of their fellowship since it reminded them of the basis for their unity—salvation in Christ and adherence to apostolic doctrine. . . .We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ's self-sacrificing love that took Him to the cross. In your fellowship, make it your habit to practice the same kind of love Christ demonstrated toward you. Practically speaking, you can always give your life to those God brings across your path. Do you habitually pray for fellow believers? Are you encouraging them, edifying them, meeting their physical needs? Do you love them enough to confront them when they are sinning? Those are the marks of true Christian fellowship. It is church as it was meant to be. Acts 2:42 says the believers continually devoted themselves to prayer. Sadly, the same devotion to prayer is often neglected today. Churches can pack pews by offering entertainment, but when a prayer meeting is held, only a faithful few trickle in. . . .Built to Scale: Wonder, Love, and JoyWhat happens when true believers remain under biblical teaching, in a spiritual fellowship, and in devotion to prayer? Acts 2:43 says, “Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe.” “Awe,” the Greek word for fear, speaks of a sense of reverence. It is reserved for special times when people are struck with wonder because of something divine or powerful that defies human explanation. Your church ought to be able to instill awe in your community. . . .—Grace to YouI think we can pick up on a couple of things. First, everyone picks and chooses. Some emphasize signs, some leave them out. (Of course, there are theological reasons for this.) In the second example I quoted, we see a nearly exclusive emphasis on learning—on words. Is that what we see in Acts 2?The community of believers in Acts 2 is the culmination of the salvation story, at least in this life. It has learning but it has has doing; it has giving and receiving; it has love and generosity. Whatever we decide we should carry forward to today's church, I think we cannot forget that the first church was like family.

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

“Criticism of Christianity has a long history which stretches back to the initial formation of the religion in the Roman Empire. Critics have challenged Christian beliefs and teachings as well as Christian actions, from the Crusades to modern terrorism. The arguments against Christianity include the suppositions that it is a faith of violence, corruption, superstition, polytheism, homophobia, bigotry, pontification, abuses of women's rights and sectarianism. In the early years of Christianity, the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry emerged as one of the major critics with his book Against the Christians, along with other writers like Celsus and Julian. Porphyry argued that Christianity was based on false prophecies that had not yet materialized.[1] Following the adoption of Christianity under the Roman Empire, dissenting religious voices were gradually suppressed by both governments and ecclesiastical authorities [2]—however Christianity did face theological criticisms from other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Islam in the meantime, such as Maimonides who argued that it was idolatry.[3] A millennium later, the Protestant Reformation led to a fundamental split in European Christianity and rekindled critical voices about the Christian faith, both internally and externally. In the 18th century, Deist philosophers such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were critical of Christianity as a revealed religion.[4] With the Age of Enlightenment, Christianity was criticized by major thinkers and philosophers, such as Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Paine, and the Baron d'Holbach.[5] The central theme of these critiques sought to negate the historical accuracy of the Christian Bible and focused on the perceived corruption of Christian religious authorities.[5] Other thinkers, like Immanuel Kant, launched systematic and comprehensive critiques of Christian theology by attempting to refute arguments for theism.[6] In modern times, Christianity has faced substantial criticism from a wide array of political movements and ideologies. In the late eighteenth century, the French Revolution saw a number of politicians and philosophers criticizing traditional Christian doctrines, precipitating a wave of secularism in which hundreds of churches were closed down and thousands of priests were deported or killed.[7] Following the French Revolution, prominent philosophers of liberalism and communism, such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, criticized Christian doctrine on the grounds that it was conservative and anti-democratic. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Christianity fosters a kind of slave morality which suppresses the desires which are contained in the human will.[8] The Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and several other modern revolutionary movements have also led to the criticism of Christian ideas. The contemporary LGBT movements have criticized Christianity for homophobia and transphobia. The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Philosophers like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas have been some of the most prominent defenders of the Christian religion since its foundation.” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.THE QUESTION: Why did the man Jesus come to earth? Why not a woman: the daughter of God—a female Messiah?JESUS CAME AS A SON NOT BECAUSE:Male is better -- Galatians 3:28 contradicts this.God is only analogically masculine, not sexually masculine. When we pray Our Father, it's not because God is male – since he isn't a sexual being. If this intrigues you, please hear the podcast on The Shack.Random genetics (50/50).LAMENTABLY, WOMEN WERE DISCOUNTED IN THE ANCIENT WORLDChristianity hadn't transformed attitudes towards minorities, the disenfranchised, foreigners, the needy, women--since Christianity did not exist yet. Jesus entered a Jewish world.Would be discounted in Roman eyes:“Only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts” -- Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsus, 3.49"...Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladiatorial shows: the only ones exempt from this rule being the Vestal Virgins… No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests…" -- Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44.Would be discounted by Judaism:"... happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females." -- Talmud Kiddushim 82b"But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, not let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul, since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment." -- Josephus Antiquities 4.8.15"Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women." -- Talmud Sotah 19a"Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid, also they are not valid [to offer]. This is equivalent to saying that one who is accounted by the rabbis as a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman." -- Talmud Rosh Hashannah 1.8Yet some Talmudic passages are more positive towards women, like Niddah 45 and Ketubot 2.6-7.(Compare to Islamic view: Female legal witness worth half that of a male “because of deficiencies of a woman's mind.”  -- Hadith of Bukhari, 3.826) BUT BECAUSE ONLY A MAN COULD FREE BOTH MEN AND WOMENLiberates males from stereotype (and rut) of maleness: "strong, dominating, independent, self-sufficient"Jesus taught Paul the important lesson, that "Christ's power is perfected in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9).Jesus taught, and lived out, servant leadership (Mark 10, John 13).Jesus was emotionally vulnerable (e.g. John 11:35).He was connected to others, not a lone wolf.Delayed his ministry till he was in his 30s—as oldest of 8 or more children and head male in a family.Worked with and through others. He knew men need friends, support. Jesus in this way is the paradigmatic male--showing us men how God meant for us to live all along.Doesn't just model it, but walks us through it.Women typically understand this better than men—they're more relational.Probably “macho” isn't the word you'd first apply to Jesus, but in a way he was far more masculine than most men today who are viewed as powerful.It takes strength not to go with the flow (get drunk at a party).Physical fitness – manual labor as stonemason or carpenter; then walking all over Palestine for 3 years!Jesus also showed great emotional strength:It takes strength to forgive (Luke 23).It takes strength to be patient when others repeatedly let you down.It takes strength to receive ugly censure without lashing back, or at least defending yourself.Jesus taught that true greatness doesn't lie in how others serve you, but in how you serve others.We need this message to sound out not only in our communities, in the government, and in the workplace, and evenin the church, where the charismatic alpha-male senior pastor paradigm is dominant!In short, women were expected to be nurturing, caring. One not expected to behave this way—namely, a man—was able to create a more subversively powerful example of love in action.Jesus frees women too, in several ways.He shows that gender doesn't determine worth or rank.Treated women with highest respect – unlike the world.Completely pure in how he viewed women: they were not objects, but subjects.Traditional way of blessing women depended on childbirth – Luke 11:27 – Jesus contradicts this.Discipleship:Luke 10 – called women to spend some time away from daily chores to sit at his feet as disciples. See also Luke 8.John 4 – the Samaritan woman is more the evangelist than the 12 apostles!CONCLUSIONOf course there's more to be said:We haven't even discussed the doctrine of the Trinity – how Jesus Christ was eternally the Son of God. (God couldn't send a "daughter" if he didn't have one.)or the scandal that would have surrounded an itinerant woman preacher gathering disciples…And we've only just begun to work through the implications for the current feminist controversy.I acknowledge the influence of Stanley Grentz's Theology for the Community of God, pp.289-292. For me his work was seminal, and helped me begin to think through this issue.In short, Jesus, in order to accomplish his mission, had to be a man.Not because men are better than women,but because otherwise life-bringing his message would have been:discounteddiluted or obscuredAnd the most effective modeling could only take place—in a patriarchal society—by a man.Hopefully this perspective will prove useful to you in your evangelism, in answering questions from outsiders but also from insiders.

We conclude our look at the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus, as part of the Justin Martyr Series. Host Chris Palmero looks at the common elements of these legends from the point at which Jesus appears to his disciples, all the way up to his ascension at the end. The versions of the Resurrection as told by Celsus, the ancient pagan critic of Christianity, as well as the lost book called the Preaching of Peter, are also explored. Finally, Justin Martyr's version of the Resurrection story is examined, to see whether he is in fact using the New Testament Gospels as his source.Anyone who listens to this episode of BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY can learn about the earliest evidence for Christians in the city of Rome; about why Jesus and the disciples are sometimes said to eat a meal during the Resurrection Appearance; about why Jesus invites the disciples to touch him in some stories; about how Celsus' story of the Resurrection clashes with that of the New Testament; about the Preaching of Peter and its possible links to Mark's Gospel; and about the true source of Justin's strange "account" of the Resurrection.Opening reading: the Roman poet Martial, from the turn of the second century, grumbles about his neighbor in the manner of Annette Benning from American Beauty.Support the showPatreon: www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcenturyWebsite: facebook.com/BornInTheSecondCenturyE-mail: secondcenturypodcast@gmail.comMusic: Pompeii Gray on Apple Music, Spotify, SoundCloud

And when you shall hear of wars and seditions, be not terrified: these things must first come to pass; but the end is not yet presently.Cum autem audieritis praelia et seditiones, nolite terreri : oportet primum haec fieri, sed nondum statim finis.  10 Then he said to them: Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.Tunc dicebat illis : Surget gens contra gentem, et regnum adversus regnum.  11 And there shall be great earthquakes in divers places, and pestilences, and famines, and terrors from heaven; and there shall be great signs.Et terraemotus magni erunt per loca, et pestilentiae, et fames, terroresque de caelo, et signa magna erunt.  12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake.Sed ante haec omnia injicient vobis manus suas, et persequentur tradentes in synagogas et custodias, trahentes ad reges et praesides propter nomen meum :  13 And it shall happen unto you for a testimony.continget autem vobis in testimonium.  14 Lay it up therefore into your hearts, not to meditate before how you shall answer:Ponite ergo in cordibus vestris non praemeditari quemadmodum respondeatis :  15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay.ego enim dabo vobis os et sapientiam, cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri.  16 And you shall be betrayed by your parents and brethren, and kinsmen and friends; and some of you they will put to death.Trademini autem a parentibus, et fratribus, et cognatis, et amicis, et morte afficient ex vobis :  17 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen meum :  18 But a hair of your head shall not perish.et capillus de capite vestro non peribit.  19 In your patience you shall possess your souls.In patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras.

This week Angie and Stevens finish “The Resurrection of Jesus, Myth?” with the 3rd and final part of the series where they conclude, providing the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus from non-Christian, haters of Christianity, and the source list below so that anyone else can verify the information for themselves. References:1. Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. (September 8, 2003)2. J, Warner Wallace. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. (January 1, 2003)3. Dunn, James DG., ed. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2003)4. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974)5. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, AD 93, chapter 36. A. J. Levine, D. C. Allison & J. D. Crossan, The historical Jesus in context, Volume 12, Princeton University Press, 2006. p 4057. British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,6588. Tacitus, Annals, AD 116, book 15, chapter 449. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13.10. Tertullian, Apologeticus, Chapter 21, 1911. Origen, Against Celsus, Book 2.3312. Celsus, Contra Celsum 6.3413. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 28114. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press Publishing Company, Inc.; 2011th edition (3 June 1996)15. Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, Part 2 of 2 (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company. 2000), pg. 162.16. F, Morrison. Who Moved the Stone?: A Skeptic Looks at the Death and Resurrection of Christ. (27 July, 1987)17. Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 1418. Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.1552. Wright, NT. The New Unimproved Jesus, Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p.2619. National Health Service of the United Kingdom, Hallucinations and Hearing Voices. NHS UK, accessed (1 October 2019) https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hallucinations.20. Charles Mackey. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London, Office of the National Illustrated Library, 1852).21. Lee Strobel. The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), p. 238.22. Ludemann, Gurd, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, 1995, pg. 8023. Kastensmidt, S. Truth Unearthed: Archaeology & the Bible. Examining the evidence: part 5. Reliability of the New Testament Scriptures. Rio Vista Community Church, 201624. Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Kregel Publications (May 9, 2006)25. Bart. D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. 2006 pg. 5526. Bart. D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. 2006 Appendix pg. 252–25327. Craig, W. Reasonable Faith. (June 9, 2008)28. Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Kregel Publications (May 9, 2006)29. Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (pp. 142-170). Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company30. James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, p. 55, 85531. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Easter - Myth, Hallucination or History? Christianity Today (March 15; 1974; and March 24, 1974)32. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michael Kregel, forthcoming)SUPPORT THIS PODCAST/MINISTRY at www.christalonenetwork.com/giveFeatured Ad: www.renewedmindsets.comQuestions/Suggestions: www.christalonenetwork.com/contactPrayer Request: www.christalonenetwork.com/prayerImmediate Contact: call/text 407-796-2881

This week Angie and Stevens finish “The Resurrection of Jesus, Myth?” with the 3rd and final part of the series where they conclude, providing the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus from non-Christian, haters of Christianity, and the source list below so that anyone else can verify the information for themselves. Please call/text for any questions, suggestions or prayer requests at 407-796-2881 or find us at www.linktr.ee/ChristAlone References: 1. Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. (September 8, 2003) 2. J, Warner Wallace. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. (January 1, 2003) 3. Dunn, James DG., ed. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2003) 4. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974) 5. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, AD 93, chapter 3 6. A. J. Levine, D. C. Allison & J. D. Crossan, The historical Jesus in context, Volume 12, Princeton University Press, 2006. p 405 7. British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658 8. Tacitus, Annals, AD 116, book 15, chapter 44 9. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13. 10. Tertullian, Apologeticus, Chapter 21, 19 11. Origen, Against Celsus, Book 2.33 12. Celsus, Contra Celsum 6.34 13. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281 14. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press Publishing Company, Inc.; 2011th edition (3 June 1996) 15. Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, Part 2 of 2 (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company. 2000), pg. 162. 16. F, Morrison. Who Moved the Stone?: A Skeptic Looks at the Death and Resurrection of Christ. (27 July, 1987) 17. Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 18. Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15 52. Wright, NT. The New Unimproved Jesus, Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p.26 19. National Health Service of the United Kingdom, Hallucinations and Hearing Voices. NHS UK, accessed (1 October 2019) https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hallucinations. 20. Charles Mackey. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London, Office of the National Illustrated Library, 1852). 21. Lee Strobel. The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), p. 238. 22. Ludemann, Gurd, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, 1995, pg. 80 23. Kastensmidt, S. Truth Unearthed: Archaeology & the Bible. Examining the evidence: part 5. Reliability of the New Testament Scriptures. Rio Vista Community Church, 2016 24. Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Kregel Publications (May 9, 2006) 25. Bart. D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. 2006 pg. 55 26. Bart. D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. 2006 Appendix pg. 252–253 27. Craig, W. Reasonable Faith. (June 9, 2008) 28. Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Kregel Publications (May 9, 2006) 29. Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (pp. 142-170). Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company 30. James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, p. 55, 855 31. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Easter - Myth, Hallucination or History? Christianity Today (March 15; 1974; and March 24, 1974) 32. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michael Kregel, forthcoming) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/christalone/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/christalone/support

Something that gets buried today is how the pagan or secular world treated people, and it's buried for a reason. We like to pretend the “Dark Ages” were full of witch-burning psycho priests but that pre-Christian societies were joy-filled lands where all joined hands and sang songs like the Whos in Dr. Seuss's Whoville. But nothing could be further from the truth. A good read on how much people have forgotten our Christian roots is a book by Tom Holland, titled: Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. We have forgotten how much Christianity has improved the lives of everyone in comparison to the “good old days” of paganism. We are so accustomed to hospitals, universities, libraries, and non-profit charities that we forgot where they all came from. They didn't come from Caesar or anyone in his time. People like to think there was some utopia before the “evils” of Christianity stamped out the fun. We will get to find this out soon, however, since we are lurching backward toward that “fun.” We forget things easily, not just over long expanses of time, but in single generations. The book of Judges illustrates this well, where each fall into sin has a savior, but within forty years, the people resume their errors and forget why they needed order. Our era is similar to that which preceded World War I when nations celebrated the beginning of the war, holding parades, cheering, wishing the boys well in their lovely uniforms and flags, only to find out a few years later that the war was a meat grinder of unprecedented levels, thanks to progress in technology and science. As we whisk God out of the public arena and out of our personal lives, we forget what the world was like before Jesus walked this earth, died on a cross, and rose from the dead to take away our sins, transform our suffering, and defeat the devil. One of the primary lies told today about the pre-Christian world is that women's lives were better without the Church imposing restrictions on them. But this is not true. It has never been true. It never will be true, no matter how many professors and bloggers keep writing about it. Disrespect of women was not a Christian doctrine or idea, but it was indeed a core doctrine of the secular powers of Rome, actually quite similar to the lyrics of Snoop Dogg. You could sum up the treatment of women by the wealthy of the ancient world in Snoop's hit song, “It ain't no fun, if the homies can't have none.” Women were objects, pure and simple. The interesting thing about reading the Old Testament treatment of women is that today we think it sounds barbaric, when in reality it was the most progressive treatment of women in the ancient world. We read with Western eyes, blinded by time, through which we are blocked from understanding, nuance, and history. With the Church, women achieved a radical leap forward, one that the pagan world mocked for centuries. Many of the women who fought against the old ways were martyred for it. Strange that they would be willing to die for such “oppression.” We are taught and bonked over the head repeatedly with this “Dark Age” myth in every university course. By design, we are not taught the reasons why Christian life appealed to so many women, because it undermines the sand foundation of modern life, which will ultimately undermine itself because it is spiritually dead.Here is a summary from Mike Aquilina of how women were treated before God revealed himself to us through Jesus. I should note that none of this was covered in my university history classes, nor was it ever mentioned in the Women's Studies class I had to take:Pagan and Christian sources agree that the Church grew at an astonishing rate in the first three centuries of its existence. The modern sociologist Rodney Stark estimates a steady growth rate of forty percent per decade during centuries of intermittently intense persecution when the practice of the Faith was a capital crime. Pagan and Christian sources agree that women made up the majority of converts.The most effective opponent of Christianity from this period, the Greek philosopher Celsus, mocked the Church for this. Around A.D. 178, he accused Christians of not daring to evangelize women when their sensible husbands and fathers were present but rather getting hold of them privately and filling their heads with “wonderful statements, telling them to pay no attention to their father and to their teachers.”What kind of statements were those? They no doubt involved the principle of equality of the sexes before God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” said St. Paul, “there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).The apostle wasn't denying sexual differences, nor was he claiming there should be no difference in the roles that men and women played. Rather, he was claiming for women—and slaves and foreigners—a dignity that no one in his world, not even a philosopher as brilliant as Celsus, could recognize.A woman in that world was seen as having little intrinsic value. She derived her identity from the males in her life—first her father, and then her husband, and then her sons. The law recognized little for her in the way of natural rights or protections. Women were not permitted to testify in a court of law because their testimony was considered unreliable. The law treated them like children.The value of their sex was nowhere more evident than on the day of their birth. Infanticide was common in the Greco-Roman world. It was practiced mostly for economic reasons, to limit family size and to maximize the future return on the father's investment in childrearing.Thus, children who were “defective” in any way—i.e., disabled—were usually drowned in a bucket of water at birth or left exposed at the town garbage dump. There they might be claimed as carrion by vultures and dogs or taken up by pimps to be raised as prostitutes. All the documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that the most common “defect” for which children were abandoned was femaleness.Nowhere is the matter expressed more shockingly than in a “love letter” found in the excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. The husband, Hilarion, closes his missive to his wife, Alis, by saying: “If you happen to be pregnant again, if it is a boy, leave it; if it is a girl, throw it out.”In the economy of antiquity, a girl was an expense, an economic liability in ways that a boy was not. A boy would one day be an earner. A boy might provide for his parents in their old age. He might even improve their status by his accomplishments.A girl, on the other hand, would need to be fed and clothed for more than a decade before she was married off—and upon marriage her father would have to pay a sizable dowry. For these reasons the Roman playwrights referred to girls and young women as “odious daughters.” It's likely that the dialogue in their works is an accurate reflection of common turns of phrase.The ideal daughter, for pagan Romans, was physically beautiful, for the beautiful would be married off the soonest. The typical age for her arranged marriage was twelve, theoretically at puberty, but many girls were given in marriage at eleven to a man much older. And the marriage, it seems, was consummated whether the girl was physically ready or not.It appears there was little expectation of a loving relationship. Adultery was common, as was divorce. Abortion was common, as was infanticide. Marriage was a transaction established for the continuation of the customs of family and society for another generation.A woman's role was to produce a son to be heir. If she suffered the misfortune of widowhood before bearing a son, she might live the rest of her life in poverty.The laws and traditions of the Greco-Roman world had been refined over centuries to communicate the value that society placed on women. It was very low.If not held back by faith and morals set on the rock of objective truth, people will treat women like objects and objects like women. (This is sin in a nutshell, by the way: choosing the wrong goods.) And there is no one more in danger of being treated like an object than the crown of creation, who is called woman. If you were rich and powerful in pre-Christian times, you could have as many objects called women as you could afford or capture, including the wives of those less powerful than yourself (see: every King that ever had a harem. Also see: David and Bathsheba, as well as Solomon's sex life with hundreds of wives. These are two Biblical falls from grace for this behavior, where sin is being narrated and not praised…notice that wherever there is polygamy, you have a mess, and that includes Abraham and Jacob. At least Isaac kept it together with Rebecca, and they are the true model of marriage in the Old Testament). We are moving back to that era now, as calls for the bad idea of polygamy have resurfaced. Utah is no longer the only place we associate with this term. This is just one form of sin that is being presented as a good today, as slippery salespeople twist truth into the shape of bad ideas that women finally escaped through faith in Christ and living the Christian life with Christian men. The arguments today are no different from the Romans and Greeks. Is your baby possible defective or just bad timing? Kill it. Abort. Marriage has a minor difficulty? Divorce. Want immediate pleasure instead of commitment, responsibility, and love that requires work and action? Porn. Got a mother-in-law you don't want to deal with? Park her in a home. The reality is that the only reason we have nice things at all is because of Christianity. And that is the spiritual struggle that we are in, where advertisers and intellectuals preach from the screens, telling us that progress means going backward to pre-Christian insanity, which always ends in “might makes right.” If you are not pursuing objective truth as your ultimate goal, as the end of all things, then the desire for power is the substitute. I don't care how you try to sugar coat it; when God is no longer the foundation of truth, you end up with “my truth” and that devolves into groups dictating “truth” by coercion, eventually at gunpoint. Whenever the church has gone astray, they fall into this same trap, of power politics mixing with the faith. The eye can never stray from Christ, who is the truth and foundation of all things. Nor can his words be twisted, as he says of the Commandments they are not malleable to fit the decade we live in:Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:17-20)To understand the difference between the pre-Christian era and the “Dark Ages” of Christianity, let's compare two buildings, arguably the two greatest buildings in the world, which happen to be in the same city, just a few miles apart.When people travel to Rome, they mainly visit two places. One is the Colosseum, where hordes of bloodthirsty fans got drunk, gambled, and watched men fight one another to the death. The other is St. Peter's Basilica, a Church, where a fisherman was crucified for telling people about a carpenter who was God incarnate. It's stunningly beautiful, but the real purpose is that St. Peter's is a place where the Sacraments take place: Baptism, Confession, Holy Matrimony, and the Eucharist. Holy Mass happens hourly, even while the tourists mill about. The purpose of St. Peter's, and any other church, is humility and surrender of your life to God. Do you see the difference? Both are architectural marvels, visually stunning, spectacles to the senses, but their purpose is in direct opposition to each other. Notice that America no longer builds beautiful churches. This should tell you something, as we build billion dollar stadiums for gladiator games. St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City was built in 1858 and dedicated in 1910. The rise of the modern stadium started in the early 1900s, and exploded after World War II. We are moving away from St. Peter's and back to the Colosseum, and so are our human relations. What I am getting at is: without humility before God, we see competition and strife as the great entertainment, the great game. Suffering is something to avoid and shun at all costs. Winning is all that matters, because winning removes suffering. We completely lose the point of redemptive suffering. This is because most of us don't really believe in the afterlife or eternal life any longer. We have no meaning in our lives, so we look for it in athletics, sex, money, and power. Our simple functions as fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters no longer excite us because we have traded eternal life for the plastic trophies of this world. One thing that always amazes me is that within three months after the Super Bowl or NCAA Tournament, I can't even remember who won, because it really doesn't matter. But I never forget Christmas or Easter or Pentecost or the Ascension days, because those matter immensely.Nothing angers unbelievers so much as the idea that you were made for a higher purpose, made by a living God who resides outside of time and space but speaks to us here. The purpose is to serve him and serve others, and the primary way we do that, if not married to Christ or his Church, is marriage between one man and one woman. Having a marriage and family is the great purpose of our earthly lives. Why is that message so bothersome? Because it doesn't allow us to follow our base instincts, which is to pleasure ourselves constantly. It requires abandonment to a higher power and a higher purpose, neither of which is the self. Sometimes we confuse this, thinking that our “sacrifice” for work or school is the offering we make to God. But those things are ultimately for the self, not God. Offerings to God expect nothing in return, because there is no transaction to be made when dealing with God, and if your offering is contingent on receiving something from God, you are actually talking to the devil. Yes, some people are not fertile, some will live a single life, some will adopt, some will never have children. Abandonment of the self means conforming your life to God's will, not despairing over what struggles he has given us, because we are all given struggles in order to draw us closer to him. Until you realize this, suffering will seem arbitrary and unfair. As for sex, the great call to chastity is pursuing a life of virtue whether you are married or single. They are both chastity, just different types. How can anyone understand the parable of the grain of wheat without looking at the formless void of creation and seeing that in order to fill it, it must be done in the right way, which is to fill this void in the form with families? God didn't say, “Subdue the earth and form a government, and have the government raise the children.” No, that's what Karl Marx said, and all of his flunkies that followed him, who now occupy your employer's human resources department and local school board. The form we are given by God is called marriage, between a man and a woman, and the void is filled with new life, called children. That sentence there is enough to get me fired, but the truth must be spoken and the truth will remain whether I say it or not. Because not only does marriage and family fulfill the physical form of this world, but it fulfills the heart. Dying to self means maturing into a greater purpose to serve God and others. Only then can we be spiritually reborn here. Then in physical death, if we choose God's will and not our own, we will we be brought back to union with God in eternal life. That's what we want, both here and hereafter. We don't want what HBO is telling us to want. We don't really want what Apple is selling. It's not just sex that we want. Not just career. Not a threesome. Not four wives. Not soullessness. We want God, as it is in heaven and on earth. Psalm 128 is the model for fulfillment. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house;your children will be like olive shoots around your table.Thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord. FYI: “Fear” of the Lord means wonder and awe, a healthy fear, not the kind of fear where you simply pay your taxes to avoid jail. This is a kind of fear that grows out of love, wonder, awe, reverence, and it all starts with knowing that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness, in need of a savior. Recognizing your status as a sinner will free you, because it sheds all the fig leaves we wear. Then once we have bore our souls before God, and become honest, open, and willing, then we can return to the faith of a child and let the ego wither away as it must. Recall that Jesus died naked on the cross. All was stripped away, and his death showed us the result of our sins, for what we did to Jesus we do to one another every day. This doesn't mean it's easy, but if you fear the Lord and are grateful for your daily bread and want nothing beyond the grace of God, only then will the blessings of a wife and children satisfy you, because you will share all of it with the Creator. And if some tragedy occurs, like in the book of Job, and all is taken away, even then you will still have the grace of God, as that is the rock of your life that can be clung to when everything else fades away. When your life becomes an offering to God, and God's endless offering of creation is accepted by you, then what more could you possibly want? Conforming your will to God's is how you level-up in this world, and you do this by praying. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.whydidpetersink.com

Irenaeus died around the year 200. In his final decades, pagan intellectuals first turned their sights on the Christians. The first was Celsus. Christians counter-attacked with more apologies. They also produced homilies, such as the 2nd letter of Clement.  Fans also produced some fanciful acts and gospels of the various disciples, and two biographies of the young Jesus: the Paidika, and the Protevangelium of James. I finish with a look at two accounts of local persecutions during the period, in Lyon and Scillium. Did they actually happen?

Plato scorned manual labor. Aristotle believed that “no one who leads the life of a worker or laborer can practice virtue.” Plotinus, Celsus, and Herodotus agreed that work was ignoble and contemptible. Pagan religion reflected these precepts of the philosophers. In such a world, Christianity seemed revolutionary. The churches were full of laborers, who worshipped a Laborer—and whose Scriptures preserved NOT the syllogisms of philosophers, but the stories of people who got jobs done. Implicit in the writings of the Fathers is a radical and new idea: a theology of work. LINKS Paul Veyne, A History of Private Life, Volume I: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium https://www.amazon.com/History-Private-Life-Pagan-Byzantium/dp/0674399749/ Jose H. Gomez, All You Who Labor: Towards a Spirituality of Work for the 21st Century https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol20/iss2/11/ Mike Aquilina, Work, Play, Love: How the Mass Changed the Life of the First Christians https://catholicbooksdirect.com/products/work-play-love-how-the-mass-changed-the-life-of-the-first-christians Mike Aquilina, How Christianity Saved Civilization ...And Must Do So Again https://catholicbooksdirect.com/products/how-christianity-saved-civilization-and-must-do-so-again Mike Aquilina's website https://fathersofthechurch.com Mike Aquilina's books https://catholicbooksdirect.com/writer/mike-aquilina/ Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed http://www.ccwatershed.org  

Star Wars nerds have an argument about Han Solo, and whether he fired his gun first in the bar scene of “A New Hope.” There are t-shirts that say, “Han shot first.” I am here to tell you of a similar argument, one that has far greater importance and consequence for anyone that believes Jesus is God incarnate, also known as the Creator of the Universe. This one matters immensely because your spiritual life may depend on how you answer it, and the truth about this matters much in the founding of Christ's Church. This question is about which Gospel was written first, and I am here to tell you: Matthew shot first. Matthew wrote the first Gospel. He wrote it in Hebrew first before it was translated into Greek. He wrote it before the year 70 A.D. And it was Matthew the Apostle that wrote it, not some random Matthew from Accounting. Why does any of this matter? Because for two centuries, people have been spending incredible amounts of ink to disprove this Tradition, because it undermines the Church. According to Sacred Tradition, from Papias and Irenaeus, to Ignatius of Antioch, all the way to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, Matthew was known to be the first Gospel. This is documented in various writings from the Church fathers. The whole tradition of the Church said so for nearly two millennia. For a terrific read on this, check out Brant Pitre's book The Case for Jesus which cuts through two hundred years of fog spewed from anti-Catholic scholarship and atheists. For anyone who attended college in the 1990s, brace yourself and be seated when reading this book. Much of what I learned in my freshman year of college turned out to be false, it's just unfortunate that I can't get a refund from Viterbo University for it. (Note: there's a video series on formed.org of Pitre's The Case for Jesus). Matthew happens to be the Gospel with the most pro-Catholic references. But that is not the reason I believe it is important to believe that Matthew shot first. Not at all. Rather, it is the overwhelming evidence of history and testimony of the early church that indicates that Matthew, the apostle, wrote a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel first, and no one batted an eye about this claim until 19th century scholars decided that Matthew a.) didn't write it all, and b.) wrote it much later, and c.) maybe didn't even exist. All of Christianity, for 1800 years, knew that the gospel of Matthew was written first, hence the ordering that we all learn as children: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Until the 19th century, in Germany's “culture war” (Kulturkampf) against the Catholic Church, Matthew shot first. Then, magically, by textual criticism, in mostly Lutheran academic circles, suddenly Mark became the first Gospel. You have to marvel at this sudden change, when you consider how much Catholics and other faithful talk about Jesus, and things related to Jesus, and anything that could possibly even relate to Jesus. People talk about Jesus and the Gospels like breathing air. But we are to assume that for 1800 years, no one had really thought about which Gospel was written first? And, stranger still, only when the Protestant era and Enlightenment humanism arrived did the topic finally come up? I find it difficult to imagine that the early Church members, from bishops downward to the lowliest lay person, didn't constantly discuss these things. Moreover, you have copies of Matthew scattered about the known world with “According to Matthew” written at the very top of the scrolls, indicating very clearly that the authorship was not in question. But suddenly in modern times, the question erupts: “Did Matthew really write Matthew?”There is literally no copy of Matthew that does not have his name written at the top. Zero. The only question of authorship comes from those who do not want it to be written by an apostle and an eyewitness of Jesus' life. Further, there is not a single argument in the writings of the early Church that dispute that Matthew was written first. When scripture first started being read in liturgy, the Church would still have been almost entirely oral tradition. In other words, spreading the word of Jesus was not done by handing someone a Gideon's Bible or leaving a pamphlet on the bathroom sink at the airport. No, the word, was all passed on by the spoken word, and through relationships. Anyone still remember relationships? This is hard to remember for us now, but relationships and human contact was a pre-Internet phenomenon when people got together and talked about things that really mattered to them instead of watching cat videos, sports, and porn by themselves. In the early church, there was no printing press, and most people were illiterate. So if you wanted to learn about Christ, you had to talk about Christ with others, listen, repeat, retell, and revisit. No podcasts were available, no wordy blogs like this one. Yet clearly the copyists and the Church fathers knew that Matthew existed, wrote the first Gospel, and wrote it first. This is what is called Tradition in the Catholic Church. It is beyond my ceiling of credibility to imagine that no one during the Apostolic era stopped to ask, or thought to discuss, or bent anyone's ear about which evangelist wrote first, or who wrote it. We are to believe that we had to wait some 1800 years for English and German Protestant scholars to come up with these questions. Now, I can watch just about any fantasy or science fiction movie and let my ceiling be raised to accommodate the director's or author's imagination, but I cannot imagine that no one said, “Hey guys, which Gospel was written first?” In addition, the one Apostle who most certainly knew how to write was the tax collector, Matthew, who worked in Jerusalem and would have obviously needed to know multiple languages to merely do his job. Yet, we plant this stamp of doubt upon it and ask, “Did Matthew really write Matthew?” as if no one ever asked that question. But there is good reason for enemies of the Church to argue that Mark shot first. There are extremely compelling reasons to take up this banner and fight against “Matthew shot first.”The motive to remove eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life is strong on the atheist side of the fence, because it increases doubt and alleviates their conscience for not believing. If you push Matthew out to 90 A.D., then a sixty year gap from Crucifixion to writing the Gospel makes it more of a legend than a biography. On the flip side, for Protestants, moving Matthew to a much later date elevates the argument against Peter as the first Pope. Matthew is full of references to Peter as the founder of Christ's Church, as well as the Sacraments of confession and marriage being defined exactly as the Church still teaches them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In both cases, the Church is attacked. This is nothing new, and every heresy and battle the Catholic Church ever faced comes from the same places, going as far back as Marcion, Pelagius, Arius, Celsus, and every other would-be Pope-slayer. But here's one of the funny things about all of those historical heresies: not one of them, not a single one, ever challenged the idea that Matthew shot first. This only came up relatively recently, starting in countries with kings and politicians that hated the Church, who were either Protestant or unbelievers. But most interesting is that in both writing the author as Matthew and declaring the order with Matthew first, the early church had no motive or reason to lie about any of this, because neither the specter of atheism nor the idea of future Protestantism in the 16th century would have occurred to them. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how every scribe in the world wrote “The Gospel according to Matthew” on top of the scroll, when as this thing was spread out it was like feathers flying out of a pillow from a rooftop. Yet, we are to believe that every scribe who caught a feather was somehow in on a conspiracy to mask the authorship of some random writer by tricking everyone into believing that the apostle Matthew wrote it. Perhaps more amazing is the minor, miniscule errors in copying that the scribes made as this document flew around the world. To follow this a bit more, we are to believe that those first Christians who were willing to preach in the streets and be martyred for proclaiming the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, had some kind of massive, Orwellian, bureaucratic memory-hole operation in place to bury any copy that could have unwound the conspiracy. This is beyond comprehension, because it assumes that rather than just trying to spread the word of Jesus, the apostles were master manipulators, like Machiavelli, or Iago from Othello, and somehow these fishermen cooked up a story so profound and so life-changing, that not only were they willing to tell it to everyone, but they were willing to be boiled, clubbed, beaten, stabbed, flayed, and crucified for it. The “synoptic problem” was not a problem until it was a problem for unbelievers and Protestants, especially kings who wanted to have their own form of religion and morality, like every mythological cult that ever got started. The problem with allowing kings and power into your religion is that in that very moment, that instant, you've lost your religion. This is, essentially, what paganism is. It's the hammering of God's law and natural law to fit the goals of the king or the State. And re-writing history to remove Matthew is one of those methods of “winning” that modern kings and governments and academics have attempted to use. But the motive of the Apostles motives was evangelism, as they were on fire with the Holy Spirit, literally, from Pentecost onward. Things were moving at a pace far too fast for creeping conspiracies, and the Word of God was spreading even without them, because as soon as they told someone, that person told the next, and the next, and the next. It's worth pointing out that the Apostles and early Church Fathers didn't have TV or YouTube, so they had immense amounts of time to ponder these things, and they knew the scriptures, not to mention Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, far better than anyone alive today. They lived far closer to the oral tradition and the texts themselves, and St. Jerome even wrote that he saw and read from the Hebrew version of Matthew in Alexandria. What scholars do with lines like that is find an error in the writing, unrelated to the claim, and then cast out the author as “unreliable.” Or they look to the motives and say, “This Church father was a propagandist for the Catholic Church.” This is classic hitman work, but if that is the case, then this cancel culture should be applied equally to modern scholarship, where if any error is ever made, the Ph.D. should be rescinded. As for who I would rather trust, I would take saints Jerome, Augustine, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Matthew himself over the 19th century anti-Catholics and 20th century atheists. After all, a lot of the Church Fathers and the Apostles died for their proclamations, and none of them, not one, cracked and cried out in the fires or at their beheadings, “You're right, I lied. We all lied! In the seven weeks between the Crucifixion and Pentecost, we came up with a grand conspiracy, and we would say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew first, and that he wrote it after the Temple was destroyed so that we could make it look prophetic, and actually Matthew didn't write it all, it was Matthew from Accounting - he wrote it! We hired a ghost writer, just please, please don't kill me!”No, they go to their deaths. They go boldly, without apostatizing or recanting. They die saying things much different than what I just imagined. "Eighty-six years have I have served him," Polycarp said on his way to the fire, "and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king and my savior?"Ignatius of Antioch, dragging his chains, spoke defiantly to the Roman emperor Trajan. He said, “You are in error, emperor, when you call the demons of your nation gods. For there is but one God who made heaven, earth, the sea and all that are in them. And one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.” Church tradition even holds that Ignatius was the actual kid that Jesus held in the Gospel stories. (Mt 18:1-5) In other words, guys like Ignatius of Antioch were alive when Christ was alive. He met Jesus. So here's the dilemma, the choice: am I to believe a 19th or 20th century scholar who spent all of his time in a library reviewing fragments of paper and letting his imagination soar, or am I to believe the testimony of Matthew, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine, and all the others, who lived and died in the era when the Church was forming and when many were being slaughtered by kings and governors in professing that Jesus is the son of God? I choose the latter. Sorry, C.H. Weisse. Sorry, Bart Ehrman. It requires more faith to believe anything that Ehrman claims than it does to believe in the Resurrection of Christ. Here's the thing: these scholars have sacrificed nothing and only sown doubt, and led millions to the death of their faith. It is not difficult to destroy faith. It is difficult to be in the counter-culture and live a life of faith. Ehrman and the others may be searching for truth, but they are doing so in the darkness, willfully choosing to reject God, which is what God allows us to do. Each of us has the choice to turn toward or away from God, and the effort of scholars to spurn God requires that they reject hard historical written evidence in order to produce and uphold their faith in nothing. But then of course they must do this - when all you have is this world, and no spiritual life, it's imperative that you recruit others to your worldview, because we all need our cheerleaders, and standing alone in the abyss without God is a lonely place to be. We get to choose our own hell, but some of us like Ehrman want others to choose it as well. St. Thomas, the doubting apostle, was told, “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.” (Jn. 20:29) This is, of course, the great test, the final test, the one we get to answer on our deathbed. It's the one that Ehrman and Dawkins have already answered, but could still change their mind. It's the kind of final exam you really don't need to study for, but you do need to prepare for it, because how you decide will crystallize your eternal state. Perhaps the most difficult thing for me to believe is that we have several different writings from Church Fathers which mention that Matthew first wrote a document in Hebrew, but because we cannot find that document today, we assume it doesn't exist. Here's a news flash for modern people: paper crumbles. Time decays paper. If you don't believe me, go find your grandmother's photo album and inspect it. There's this odd sense that if we don't dig up the original draft that it didn't exist, when we know full well that paper falls apart, and copyists had to copy and yes, even translate the texts. There is a reason scribes were called scribes, and that was to copy texts so they didn't disintegrate. Yet many deny a Hebrew writing by Matthew exists because we haven't found it. But this leads us to the best part, the most fantastic and ludicrous thing of all about 19th century German scholarship and 20th century atheist scholarship, which has even bled over into Catholic teaching at universities like the one I attended. You cannot make up the next part, except that they did make it up… Of all things that confound me, replacing this Hebrew version of Matthew, we have scholars who have invented a fictional document called “Q” for which there is no evidence, no scrap, not a letter of, but which is assumed to exist. So we have writings that mention Matthew's earlier writing in Hebrew, which is discarded for a hypothetical document that is not mentioned anywhere, has never existed, and will never exist, that takes its place. We even have St. Jerome saying that he saw a Hebrew version of Matthew in Alexandria. We have testimony of eyes on the Hebrew version of Matthew. However, this fairy Q document has nothing, but is treated as if it were the first Gospel. So the next time someone tells you that Matthew was written after 80 A.D., you should assume that they are referring to the Greek translation of Matthew, because there is clearly a Hebrew version of Matthew, of some kind, of some format, written long before that. Because if the scholars can “prove” that a Greek translation of Matthew was written after the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem, and that someone other than Matthew translated it, that's not a terribly big deal. The point of massive significance is that Matthew wrote first, that Matthew wrote a Gospel, and he wrote it first in Hebrew. He was the only apostle that certainly had to be literate because of his occupation as a tax collector, and even if he dictated it to a scribe, that's no different than any other author speaking to a secretary that types a memo. It should come as no surprise that copies and translations had to be made, and my New Testament college professor acted as if the Gospels had to a.) either fall from the sky, b.) or had to have the finger of God directing the hand motion on the paper, or c.) if neither of the above happened, then it was just a game of telephone that only academics and the Jesus Seminar unbelievers could decipher. To this day, I am stunned, really beyond stunned, that a Catholic University was teaching and guiding students to read the output of the Jesus Seminar from the 1990s. The same attack on Matthew has been done to the point of insanity on the books of Moses, with the same batch of motives, which is to reduce the sacred texts to “nation-building” lies, or worse, to deny the existence of Moses altogether. When things come up like this you have to look at the motives of the scholars. To quote the Dude in The Big Lebowski, who quotes Vladimir Lenin, before his stoner mind drifts off: “You look to the person who will benefit…and ah…”Walter Sobchak: The Dude: It's all a fake, man. It's like Lenin said: you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh, you know... Donny: I am the walrus.Who benefits from this scholarship that removes Matthew as author, as the first author, and pushes his writing back to 90 A.D.? It's quite simple. Protestants and atheists benefit, and they benefit in different ways. The Church's authority is undermined, which is what Protestants wanted, but funny thing about that, in their zeal for undermining Catholic authority, they undermined scripture altogether, because as soon as they finished their sprint around the track, atheists took the baton and ran so that today people don't even believe that Jesus existed. Now, I can go on for days about this railroading of Matthew, and I probably will, because one of the greatest attacks on the Church, sustained now for two hundred years, is this effort to force Matthew down from it's chronological position as the first Gospel. The goal is multi-faceted. The attack has various prongs, but first of all, his writing clearly elevates the Catholic Church, and most of the scholars on this topic truly hated the Catholic Church. They still do. Second, removing Matthew as an eyewitness account of Christ makes the miracles seem fishy. Hence, you get unbelievers like Ehrman calling it all a “telephone game” rather than eyewitness accounts of God in the flesh. What's funny is that there is a telephone game happening, but it's among academics starting in the 1500s right up until today in 2023. Third, pushing Matthew's writing to beyond the year 70 A.D. after the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem, makes the prophecy of Christ about the temple destruction seem more like a statement from Captain Obvious than the Son of God. Moving the goal posts on the chronology of the Gospel writers has a clear motive, which is to remove the eyewitness nature of the accounts and play up the “telephone game” nonsense. There's just one major problem with this, Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1)Peter and Paul were martyred before 70 A.D. So was this a vast conspiracy by Irenaeus and Papias and the various other writers to befuddle us all until we were blessed with Protestant German scholars and atheist academics? I think the QAnon people have a more plausible conspiracy theory than this one. So who are we to believe? Some random professor today? Or Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John, who stood at the Cross during the Crucifixion? Which of these two people are more likely to have known when and by whom the Gospels were written? Here's the pedigree of Irenaeus, who today's random professor has written off as unreliable:Polycarp was a bishop of the early church, a disciple of the apostle John, a contemporary of Ignatius, and the teacher of Irenaeus. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp “was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” He lived from the latter half of the first century to the mid-second century. Polycarp was martyred by the Romans, and his death was influential, even among the pagans. (from gotquestions.org) I choose Irenaeus. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.whydidpetersink.com

The second installment of BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY'S Montanism Trilogy examines the Christian reactions to this mysterious movement. Host Chris Palmero presents testimonies from Irenaeus, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Epiphanius, and of course, Eusebius. He also tackles a burning question: did Tertullian really convert to the New Prophecy, or was that illustrious fool merely participating in an elaborate LARP?Anyone who listens to this episode can learn about why Christians blow on the faces of their converts; whether Eusebius can really be trusted; the "Heretic's Journey;" whether the Catholics were trying to assassinate Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla; whether Irenaeus was a secret Montanist sympathizer; whether the Didache was originally a Montanist book; what the controversy between Christianity and the New Prophecy was really about; why Tertullian got involved in this movement; and how the pagan Celsus has taught us more about this "heresy" than any Christian commentator ever could. The host also shares a special time-saving technique that anyone can use when writing about Philip's Daughters.Opening reading: The Canons of the Council of Constantinople, from the late fourth century, look forward to the age in which Montanism eventually fades from the earth.Patreon: www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcenturyWebsite: facebook.com/BornInTheSecondCenturyE-mail: secondcenturypodcast@gmail.comMusic: Pompeii Gray on Apple Music, Spotify, SoundCloud00:48 - Reading: COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Canon 7.05:24 - OPENING Remarks.09:33 - Reading: FIRMILIAN, Epistle 74, to Cyprian.15:10 - A SAFETY Briefing before Reading Eusebius.18:41 - Testimony of THE ANONYMOUS. His Confused Origin Story for Montanus.22:14 - The Anonymous: The HERETIC'S JOURNEY.26:43 - The Anonymous: PROPHET-KILLERS.30:49 - The Anonymous: A Possible MATTHEW Reference.34:13 - The Anonymous: AMMIA and QUADRATUS.42:25 - Reading: EPIPHANIUS, Panarion, On the Quintillianists.45:38 - Testimony of IRENAEUS.54:29 - Testimony of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.54:58 - Testimony of COMMANDER SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.59:50 - Testimony of THE DIDACHE.1:02:30 - Testimony of EPIPHANIUS.1:09:11 - On the PARACLETE.1:15:21 - On JESUS.1:16:25 - On PHILIP'S DAUGHTERS.1:27:47 - Reading: WILLIAM TABERNEE, Prophets and Gravestones.1:28:45 - Tertullian as Montanist LARPER.1:45:47 - Testimony of CELSUS.1:49:52 - CLOSING Remarks.Support the show

Episode 188 – Jesus Beyond the Bible Part 2 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script Notes: Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. ... And Joseph also … to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. …while they were there… she [gave birth].” The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 6, English Revised Version ******** VK: Hi! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m here today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, and part-time health consultant. He buys the cough drops we keep in the studio for people to use during recording. Today on Anchored by Truth, as we approach Thanksgiving and Christmas, we want to continue our series where we focus on the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. And we want to continue listening to Crystal Sea’s epic Christmas poem The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion. Today we’re coming to part three of the poem where the action starts to get a little more intense. Is that a fair statement, RD? RD: I think so. For any listeners who weren’t able to be with us for our last couple of episodes we should tell them that The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion is a poem that is written in the style of some classic Christmas stories. It was also written using the model of the old-time movie serials that they used to play when I was a kid and you went to the theater on Saturday afternoons. Before the movie they’d give you the latest installment of an ongoing saga. Each episode would end with the heroes and heroines left in a precarious position so next week you’d come back and plunk down another quarter or two. So, to get ready for part three listeners need to know that the epic is all about a group of small koala bears who live in a valley in the artic. A group of the bear’s ancestors settled in the valley because in the center of the valley is a golden tree that transforms the valley into a place where they can live and thrive. They’ve been there for several generations but in the current Christmas season an unexpected challenge has come to their valley, the tree, and their lives. Two of the town’s teenage bears, Koest and Kopaul had gone to a hill to look at the northern lights. While on the hill they saw a new, strange bear staggering through the snow. At first they weren’t sure if this new bear posed a danger but since the new bear was so close to death they brought him back to Koest’s home where Koest’s mother, Koray, began attending to the bear. But they still don’t know anything about the new bear. Where did he come from and why is he here? And what does he want? VK: Alright then. So, let’s continue with the story. Here’s part three of Crystal Seas’ Christmas epic poem: The Golden Tree: The Frost Lion – part three. ---- The Golden Tree: Eagle Enigma – Part 3 VK: Ok. As the old timers … RD: Like me... VK: Right… used to say, “the plot commences to thicken.” The bears who live near the Golden Tree have found out that they have distant relatives who don’t know about the Golden Tree or even the Great White Bear. But a couple who still did believe in the Great White Bear decided to attempt the quest that others had tried long ago. But now their quest is in danger because one of them has almost died and the other one is lost in a vast arctic wilderness – a wasteland for anyone who’s not near the tree. RD: Right. And sometimes those of us who live in today’s post-modern culture can feel that way – that we are living in a wilderness that has lost sight of our true Creator. That’s why it’s such a good idea for mature believers to listen to or read stories to the kids or grandkids because they can introduce those kids or grandkids to the real struggles that life contains and help prepare to them to be overcomers. And of course the best strategy for being an overcomer is to be so familiar with the truth that lies and deception become immediately identifiable. VK: And of course that’s why we do Anchored by Truth – to remind people that the Bible, in the words of Psalm 46, is a “very present help in time of trouble.” But people aren’t likely to turn to the Bible to help them in times of trouble if they aren’t confident that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy. So that’s why we focus on using evidence and logic to demonstrate that we have very good reasons for believing that the Bible is the very Word of God. RD: Yes. Everybody, at some point in their life, is going to ask the question, “Why am I here?” It’s one of the most obvious questions that arise from the human experience. But, whether most people realize it or not, the answer to the question, “why am I here,” is inexorably tied to three other questions. Is there a God? If there is a God, does He communicate with people – or said slightly differently, “Is the Bible the Word of God.” And, if there is a God and the Bible is His word, can I learn about my life, my needs, and my purpose by studying the Bible? Of course at Anchored by Truth we think that the answer to all three questions is a resounding “yes.” But we would just as quickly admit that, unless people are convinced that the Bible is more than just an aggregated collection of fairy tales and myths, they are unlikely to find the Bible relevant to their lives. VK: I notice that you said “study the Bible” not just “read the Bible.” What you’re observing is that understanding the Bible, confidently and contextually, demands effort. Right? I mean that sort of runs against the old method of letting the Bible fall open and then reading the first verse that comes to your attention. RD: Well, I wouldn’t try to restrict the Lord’s ability to communicate to any particular person any way He chooses. But randomly or haphazardly reading selected portions of the Bible isn’t likely to help people answer the question, “Why am I here?” I am fully persuaded that the Lord will reveal Himself to anyone and everyone who seeks to truly know Him. But our relationship with the Lord – who is after all first and foremost a person – is just like our relationship with others in our lives. The quality of our relationship will be dependent on the quality and quantity of time we spend with the Lord. And because the Bible was written in a different time and era we need to do some study on the times, customs, and cultures that form its setting. And, unfortunately, because so much misinformation circulates in our own culture today about what the Bible is or isn’t, contemporary Christians need to arm themselves by being able to respond to certain common errors. VK: Such as the erroneous assertion that Jesus wasn’t a real person. That he didn’t live a real life, eat, walk, and sleep like normal human beings. And that, despite being fully human, he didn’t also demonstrate that he was fully divine by rising out of a stone tomb after being killed by the most powerful empire on the earth at the time. So, that takes us back to our review of some examples that Jesus’ earthly existence is confirmed by sources outside the Bible. Last time we took a look at two examples of other ancient historians who mentioned Jesus in their histories: the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus. Both are considered reliable historians. Both wrote their histories within a relatively short period after Jesus’ earthly life. And both wrote accounts that confirmed some of the details in scripture. Where do you want to start today? RD: Well, let’s take a look at another Roman historian, Suetonius. Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD): “Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome].” (Life of Claudius, 25:4) This expulsion took place in 49AD. In another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result: “Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2) So from these quotes we can see that the awareness of Jesus had spread all the way to Rome less than 20 years after Jesus died. The awareness was so strong that the emperor had taken personal notice of Jesus’ followers and apparently felt the need to try to minimize their influence in the capital city. VK: And again, just to remind everyone of what we mentioned last time the fact that Roman historians and even Roman emperors would take notice of Jesus is remarkable. It wasn’t as if Jesus had led a conquering army that was threatening to lay siege to Rome or even one of his outlying provinces. And Suetonius’ observation that the Christians had a “new and mischievous religious belief” is particularly fascinating. When you think about the pantheon of gods with which the Romans were thoroughly familiar – not only their own gods but also the Greek gods and the gods of all the people they’d conquered – when you think about the vast variety of religious beliefs with which they were acquainted what could be considered “new and mischievous?” RD: Well, of course, many scholars believe that Suetonius was likely referring to the physical resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, the Romans were well familiar with various beliefs of life after death, but those belief systems never included a person – a flesh and blood man – walking around, talking, eating, and even touching other people after being crucified. That was new and novel. VK: Still is. I’ve never seen it though I thoroughly believed it happened. Who’s next? RD: Well, take a look at two sources who wrote about Jesus but for whom we don’t have any copies of their writings: Thallus and Phlegon. VK: Well, if there are no existing copies of their manuscripts how can we know what they wrote? RD: Because just like today, there were other writers who did read what they wrote and preserved some of their material by quoting it in documents they were preparing. Just like someone may not have attended a political event, but they can know part of what the speaker said by reading quotes in articles written by people who were there. In Thallus’ case, parts of his histories were preserved by Julius Africanus who wrote around 221 AD. In Phlegon’s case, not only did Julius Africanus record some of his material but so did Origen who was an early church scholar and theologian. VK: So what observation did Julius Africanus preserve from Thallus’ writings that pertain to Jesus? RD: Well let me read a quote from Julius Africanus: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1) So Thallus had written more than one book of history but in at least one of his books he took note of the darkness and earthquake that accompanied Christ’s crucifixion. This parallels precisely the account that Matthew gave us in Chapter 27 of his Gospel. VK: And Luke also wrote about the darkness. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 23, verses 44 through 47 say: “And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly, this was a righteous man.” So, it is very interesting that a secular historian like Thallus would mention the same detail that is present in Matthew and Luke. And if I remember correctly Thallus’ observations are particularly important because many scholars believe he wrote around 52 AD. In fact, he may have been the earliest secular writer to comment on the events surrounding the crucifixion. Well, what about Phlegon? RD: Well let me read three quotes. This first is one preserved by Julius Africanus and the second two were preserved by Origen: “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1) “And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33) “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59) So in these quotes we several things of significance. First, Phlegon confirms the darkness mentioned by Matthew, Luke, and Thallus. Second, he confirms that Jesus was crucified and he gives us a specific time reference: during the reign of Tiberius. And third, he confirms the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus including that he showed the marks of his crucifixion to those to whom he appeared. VK: Well, that’s even more amazing because now we know that the secular historians of the 1st and 2nd century AD were not only aware of Jesus’ life and ministry but they were also familiar with many of the details that surrounded his death and resurrection. But that does raise a question. Since Julius Africanus and Origen were both admitted Christians is it possible that they fabricated the quotes they attributed to Thallus and Phlegon? RD: It’s not impossible, but why would they have done that? VK: I think critics would say they would have fabricated the quotes to make their case for the truth of Christianity stronger. RD: Well, if they had attempted to do that it would actually have had the opposite effect in their day and time. First, remember that even though copies of the writings from Thallus and Phlegon are no longer extant today, they were in existence at the time Julius Africanus and Origen wrote and quoted from them. So if they had fabricated quotes or deliberately misquoted them their fraud or errors would have been easily detectable. Second, Africanus and Origen were writing at a time when there was substantial official opposition to Christianity. In other words they were writing in a hostile world. As such, they would have taken even greater pains to be sure that they wouldn’t be subject to easily refuted assertions. Third, Origen’s quotes of Phlegon came from a work entitled Contra Celsum or in English Against Celsus. So Origen was writing a work to refute the claims of Celsus who wrote a work entitled The True Doctrine. The True Doctrine was likely written under the authority of a Roman emperor was critical of Christianity. Since accuracy was essential to his refutation of Celsus’ book, most scholars agree that Origen is a reliable source for what Phlegon said. Why would Origen have handed his opponent an easy method for dismissing Origen’s criticisms? VK: That all makes a lot of common sense and it points to a broader implication of the extra-Biblical sources that you’ve been citing. None of the observers themselves, including Thallus or Phlegon, were friendly to Christianity. So theirs were essentially the observations of hostile witnesses. As such, when they confirm details of the Biblical account their testimony of Jesus’ life has even greater weight. If they thought that Jesus was a fraud or a fabrication it would have been very easy for them just to not mention him. RD: And one more point to note before we close. In these episodes we haven’t been able to cover all the extra-Biblical sources that there are that confirm Jesus’ life, ministry, and death. There’s a book called The Historical Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas that contains a much more exhaustive treatment of this subject. VK: And – again – we wanted to point listeners to all these resources, including the links we put on our podcast notes, to enable them to continue their own studies about the life and ministry of Jesus. As we said at the start of this episode, to answer the question “why am I here,” we need to understand why any of us are here. And how we got here. Those questions are directly related to what we think about God and Jesus. So let’s close with prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of the One who leads into a knowledge of truth, the Holy Spirit. ---- Prayer for Adoration of the Holy Spirit VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” We hope you’ll be with us next time as we continue our discussion of the reality of Jesus’ life. We hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. Also, we’d to remind listeners that copies of The Golden Tree: Komari’s Quest are available from our website. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the English Revised Version) The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 1 through 6, English Revised Version The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 23, verses 44 through 47, English Revised Version (Sources used for this episode or other in this series) https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/ https://alwaysbeready.com/extrabiblical-historical-sources-corroborate-the-bible/ https://crossexamined.org/why-should-we-trust-the-extra-biblical-references-to-jesus/

„Pflege brennt“ – damit lässt sich die derzeitige Situation in deutschen Krankenhäusern gut beschreiben. Es fehlen fast überall professionelle Kräfte. In der Pandemie ist uns das zum ersten Mal richtig bewusst geworden. Doch statt Reformen von der Politik gab es Balkonklatschen, Lavendelbüsche und Schokolade. Auch die Streiks der Pflegekräfte für bessere Arbeitsbedingungen und mehr Gehalt haben bislang so gut wie nichts gebracht. Aber der sogenannte Pflegenotstand ist nicht neu in der Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Gibt es vielleicht sogar historische Gründe für die heutigen Probleme, die noch weiter zurückliegen? Und wie hat sich die Krankenpflege seit der Antike bis heute entwickelt? Gesprächspartner*innen: - Anja Katharina Peters - Monja Schünemann - Franziska Böhler - Fritz Dross - Christoph Schwamm **Literatur:** - Basilius von Caesarea. Mönchsregeln übersetzt und kommentiert von Karl Suso Frank, 155. Frage, S. 323f, Sankt Ottilien 2010. - Böhler, Franziska und Kubsova, Jarka (2020): I'm a Nurse. Warum ich meinen Beruf als Krankenschwester liebe – trotz allem. München, Heyne. - Celsus, Aulus Cornelius. De medicina- über die Arzneiwissenschaft. In acht Büchern, übersetzt und erklärt von E. Scheller (2. Auflage, Braunschweig 1906). - Genz, Katharina; Peters, Anja Katharina und Andrea Thiekötter (Hrsg) (2022): Pflege und Politik im Spiegel der Zeit. Hungen, Hpsmedia. - Nutting M. Adelaide; Dock, Lavinia L. und Agnes Karll (Übersetz.) (1910): Geschichte der Krankenpflege. Entwicklung der Krankenpflege-Systeme von Urzeiten bis zur Gründung der ersten englischen und amerikanischen Pflegerinnen. Bd. 1. Berlin, de Gruyter. - Rost, Achim (2007): Verwundet und versorgt – Indizien für Sanitätswesen auf dem Schlachtfeld in Kalkriese? in: Xanter Berichte, Band 16. - Schünemann, Monja (2022): Der Pflege-Tsunami: Wie Deutschland seine Alten und Kranken im Stich lässt. Hamburg, Edel Books. - Wilmanns, C. Juliane (1995), Der Sanitätsdienst im Römischen Reich, eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie zum römischen Militärsanitätswesen nebst einer Prosopographie des Sanitätspersonals. Hildesheim, Olms-Weidmann. - Wilmanns, C. Juliane (1995): Der Arzt in der römischen Armee der frühen und hohen Kaiserzeit, in: Ancient Medicine in Its Socio-Cultural Context, Volume 1. Brill-Verlag. **Internetlinks:** - https://www.regionalgeschichte.net/bibliothek/aufsaetze/militzer-rolle-spital-ritterorden.html#cLL5 - Deutscher Berufsverband für Pflegeberufe (DBfK) e.V.: https://www.dbfk.de/de/index.php - Sektion Historische Pflegeforschung in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pflegewissenschaft e.V.: https://dg-pflegewissenschaft.de/sektionen/pflege-und-gesellschaft/historische-pflegeforschung/ - Peters, Anja Katharina, „Conti, Nanna“ in: NDB-online, veröffentlicht am 01.10.2022, URL: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/126221146.html#dbocontent - https://medwing.com/DE/de/magazine/artikel/geschichte-der-krankenpflege/ - https://dg-pflegewissenschaft.de/ - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pflbg/BJNR258110017.html#BJNR258110017BJNG000200000 - https://assets.johanniter.de/Orden/Genossenschaften/Hessische_Genossenschaft/Dokumente/Hessische_Genossenschaft/Vortraege/HospitalordnungRogerDeMolins1181.pdf - https://www.regionalgeschichte.net/bibliothek/aufsaetze/militzer-rolle-spital-ritterorden.html - https://www.regionalgeschichte.net/fileadmin/Superportal/Bibliothek/Autoren/Knefelkamp/Knefelkamp_GL56_Endfassung-9.pdf - https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Politik/Knatsch-um-neue-Pflegekampagne-Ehrenpflegas-413698.html **Team:** - Moderation: Mirko Drotschmann - Sprecher*innen: Inga Haupt, Fabian Janssen, Andrea Kath, Marvin Neumann - Redaktion objektiv media GmbH: Janine Funke und Andrea Kath - Technik: Moritz Raestrup - Musik: Extreme Music - Fachliche Beratung: Daniela Ssymank - Produktion: objektiv media GmbH im Auftrag des ZDF - Redaktion ZDF: Katharina Kolvenbach

Readings for the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time Steadfast & Immovable | 18th Sunday of OT Fr. Brian Larkin Today's readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/073122.cfm Almsgiving—Store up grain, which is wealth in the ancient world Charity—Book about almsgiving (can be found in the church library) Ecc 1:2; 2:21-23 “I want the house to be clean when they tear it down.”—Goonies “Why clean your house if it's just going to get torn down?”—Fr. Brian Larkin “Why have I labored so hard? I'm just going to die. Jesus, thank you, that you have answered that riddle, and you brought it to fulfillment.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “Today's readings can give the impression that as Christians, we are men and women who abandon this world. This is a mischaracterization of Christianity, but some of us as Christians do this.” “Throughout Christianity, one of the main accusations of us is that we abandon this world for the next.”—Fr. Brian Larkin Year 248 Origen argues with Celsus: Book: Contra Celsus 1.24 https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/20237615.Origen_Contra_Celsus_1_24_transl_Henry_Chadwick_1953_ Nietzsche's Book: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Zarathustra was a pagan prophet) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51893.Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra “I adjure you, my brothers, remain true to the earth. And believe not those who speak to you of super earthly hopes.”—Nietzsche “Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy. But God died. And therewith, all those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the deadliest sin.”—Nietzsche “Today, Brothers and Sisters, Jesus refutes Celsus, Nietzsche, Marx, and he brings the hope of Qoheleth and of all of us to fulfillment, and it's all about the Resurrection.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “One of the things that you and I get wrong as Christians, and when we get this wrong, Brothers and Sisters, the world has a legitimate critique is about escapism. 'You're gonna die someday, so forget about this world and set your eyes on heaven,' but that's a misread—the paradigm is not escapism—it's that God invades, breaks into, redeems, and transforms this world.”—Fr. Brian Larkin Vanity/futility in Greek: mataiotēs Romans 8: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/8 Genesis 3: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3 When the curse that fell on Adam was shared with the earth. “Creation was made subject to futility, not by its own will, but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “Here's what we believe in: We believe in the resurrection, and the life of the world to come.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “Christians and Jews believe in resurrection, and no one else.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “Your soul will not just go to heaven. Resurrection means your soul will be reunited with your body in glory, and the whole point of that is that God doesn't give up on this world.”—Fr. Brian Larkin Gnosticism: A heresy “Here's where Nietszche gets it wrong. Christianity is not God calling us to abandon this world; it is Jesus Christ conquering this world and redeeming it from the inside out. That's Christianity. This will change your life.”—Fr. Brian Larkin N.T. Wright— Surprised by Hope—Completely changed FB's life. His teaching on the Resurrection is dead on. 1 Corinthians 15: The longest Treatment of the Resurrection in all the New Testament https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15 “Therefore my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord, your labor is not in vain.”—St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 “In this world, you are going to die, and that should bring you sobriety and wisdom.”—Fr. Brian Larkin “The work you do in the Lord will not be in vain.”—Fr. Brian Larkin

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues our look at the history of the persecution of the Church in the second century, but this time with the attacks on the faith that came from pagan writers, namely the Satirist Lucian, and Lucian's friend, Celsus. The texts alluded to in this episode can all be found under the notes for it at https://luxchristi.wordpress.com/

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues our look at the history of the persecution of the Church in the second century, but this time with the attacks on the faith that came from pagan writers, namely the Satirist Lucian, and Lucian's friend, Celsus. The texts alluded to in this episode can all be found under the notes for it at https://luxchristi.wordpress.com/

In this episode Dr. Jenkins continues our look at the history of the persecution of the Church in the second century, but this time with the attacks on the faith that came from pagan writers, namely the Satirist Lucian, and Lucian's friend, Celsus. The texts alluded to in this episode can all be found under the notes for it at https://luxchristi.wordpress.com/

Or Pair-a Seltzers, Stabber Imir, Star Boogie, Large Serpent, Wizard Mallet, Reassuring Specter.

The rise of Christianity in the first few centuries AD is one of the most significant stories in world history. But it's also an incredibly turbulent one. It's a story filled with (in)famous episodes of conflict with the Roman state. It's a story of co-existence, but also one of intolerance and of violence.From martyrdom to monasticism; from Celsus to Hypatia; from the Emperor Constantine hedging his divine bets to early Christians burning down one of the greatest architectural wonders of the ancient Mediterranean World. In today's episode Tristan chats to author and journalist Catherine Nixey about the rise of Christianity and the sometimes-violent interactions that early Christians had with the Classical World.This episode contains mentions of religious violence.For more Ancients content, subscribe to our Ancients newsletter here.If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today!To download, go to Android or Apple store. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Sam and Hank continue the church fathers dialogue series with our third episode on Origen of Alexandria. We look at his book "Against Celsus". We particularly focus on the topics of Celsus's attacks on Christianity, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the relationship between Paganism and Christianity, and more insights into Origen's theology. We mention Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Martin Luther, Jordan Peterson, Edmund Husserl, C.S. Lewis, and more. Jacob on Supercessionism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LYXd050knU Sam and Hank's First Convo on Origen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1awPZQ4VXQ Sam and Hank's Second Convo on Origen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4JnmsLQ4hA&t=936s

These martyrs contested for the faith in Milan, and were beheaded under the Emperor Nero. Many years later, their relics were discovered by St Ambrose through a vision, and were given honorable burial.

In this episode, Alex reaches out to the unbeliever and shares the Gospel. many people have been hurt by the church in times past, and that is tragic. There is no excuse for it, yet I want the unbeliever to know that even if the church hurt them, it was not Jesus who hurt them. Jesus is the perfect standard; we are not. We need Jesus, not religion. There is a difference between having religion and having Jesus. Having Jesus gives you hope, having religion gives you condemnation. Having Jesus gives you life, having religion gives you death. Religion says says that we can work ourselves to Heaven, Jesus says that HE is the only way to Heaven. He is the way, the truth, and the life... nothing else. Christ is enough. Religion says, "I can do it." Jesus says, "I already did it." Maybe you are a skeptic. You aren't sure about your faith. History points to the resurrection of Christ. Most historians believe Jesus walked this earth, yet they don't believe He resurrected. History and extra-biblical accounts point to the resurrection of Christ. Notable historians who wrote about Christ were Talmud, Phlegon, Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Josephus, and many more. There is evidence for the resurrection of Christ from the grave. I invite you into a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. Religion hurts you, Christ heals you. God bless. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/alexander-stone/support

The general introduction to BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY, and a reading of the infamous Fragment of Quadratus.Anyone who listens to this episode can learn about all the difficult problems that come from viewing Christianity as a religion that began after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth around 30 AD. Host Chris Palmero presents an alternative view: the Special Paradigm. The theory that Christianity was born out of a mélange of clashing religious ideas nearly 100 years later.A key piece of early Christian history is examined and found to be spurious: a fragment from a lost book by Quadratus, which claims that some of the people who were resurrected by Jesus lived on into the following century.Opening reading: Celsus, in the Logos Alethes, describes the MLM-like conversion tactics of Christians in 180 AD.Patreon: www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcenturyWebsite: facebook.com/BornInTheSecondCenturyE-mail: secondcenturypodcast@gmail.comMusic: Pompeii Gray on Apple Music, Spotify, SoundCloud00:46 - Reading: CELSUS, Logos Alethes.05:02 - OPENING Remarks.11:34 - Historical BACKGROUND of Early Christianity.22:00 - Problems with the NEW TESTAMENT Being Dated too Early.36:53 - Conspicuous Lack of Mention of CHRISTIANS by Ancient Sources.46:27 - The SPECIAL PARADIGM: the Theory of the True Origin of Christianity.52:08 - Problems with the CONVENTIONAL View of how Christianity Began.1:02:40 - The Fragment of QUADRATUS.1:15:27 - CLOSING Remarks.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcentury)

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast, Hank opens with a question he received in an email from George. He wants to know if Christianity stole the Virgin Birth, death, and Resurrection of Jesus from ancient pagan mystery religions. As stated by Hank, this proposition has become catastrophically popular in the broader post-Christian culture. In recent decades there have been lots of books, movies, and television specials in which Jesus and the true origins of Christianity are barely recognizable. In a book Hank co-authored with historian Paul Maier titled The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?, they call this “The Jesus Game.” This game has been played ever since the pagan philosopher Celsus first articulated the narrative a hundred or so years following the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord. And it's been played with great enthusiasm ever since.Hank also answers the following questions:I have concerns about the way my daughters are dressing; are there any guidelines in the Bible for how women should dress?I'm having issues getting into the Pauline corpus. Do you have any suggestions?

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (08/05/20), Hank opens with a question he received in an email from George. He wants to know if Christianity stole the Virgin Birth, death, and Resurrection of Jesus from ancient pagan mystery religions. As stated by Hank, this proposition has become catastrophically popular in the broader post-Christian culture. In recent decades there have been lots of books, movies, and television specials in which Jesus and the true origins of Christianity are barely recognizable. In a book Hank co-authored with historian Paul Maier titled The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?, they call this “The Jesus Game.” This game has been played ever since the pagan philosopher Celsus first articulated the narrative a hundred or so years following the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord. And it's been played with great enthusiasm ever since.Hank also answers the following questions:Why did Jesus wait to visit Lazarus?My non-Trinitarian friend claims that the Bible does not speak of the Holy Spirit as a person, but merely as God's energy. Are there any arguments from Scripture that could convince him that the Holy Spirit is indeed a godly person?

In “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon blames Rome's demise, at least in part, on Christianity. He wrote, “The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged, and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister [and] a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion . . .” Gibbon was making the same argument that the pagan critic Celsus made more than 1,500 years earlier. Arguments which most historians have largely rejected. Still, like zombies in “The Walking Dead,” the idea that Christianity destroyed the classical world and ushered in the “Dark Ages” is a notion that refuses to stay dead. In fact, a recent book, “The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World,” by Catherine Nixey resurrects this notion that the “Triumph of Christianity” was really the “annihilation” of the classical world,  including its literature, philosophy, science, and art. In the book, Nixey not only depicts Christianity as a “savage tyrant,” she insists on the goodness of the Roman civilization it had “annihilated.” Historical silliness abounds in this book. For example, Nixey claims, “For two and a half centuries the Roman imperial government left Christianity alone.” All those stories of Christian persecution? Well, according to Nixey, those are “less that the Romans wanted to kill -- and more that the Christians wanted to die.” Nixey even claims that “Christian belief, if anything, led to a lowering of moral standards in the community.” So let me get this straight, the ideas of Roman philosopher Seneca, that “Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weak or abnormal,” is morally superior to the Christian author of the Didache, who wrote that one should “not murder a child by abortion, nor kill it at birth.” Throw in Roman slavery and the absolute subjugation of women, regardless of social class, and an obvious question I have for Nixey is whether she would really prefer to live in the classical world whose passing she laments, or the one we live in now that's been shaped by Christianity. Another important but less obvious question would be, “How do we know so much about the lamented classical world?” The answer is “Christianity.” As a prime example of the “savage tyranny” of Christianity, Nixey points to the murder of a fifth-century pagan philosopher Hypatia by a Christian mob, which was an outrage and a black mark against the Christian faith. That's not just Nixey's opinion. The Christian Emperor Theodosius launched an investigation into her murder. And most of what we know about Hypatia comes from sympathetic Christian sources. The same is true of the above-mentioned Celsus. The only reason we know of his scathing criticisms of Christianity is because they were faithfully preserved by the Church Father Origen. While some Christians did destroy pagan art and repress pagan literature, they came nowhere near to destroying the Classical World. On the contrary, Christianity preserved its greatest achievements, not only in philosophy but also in science and literature. As Jeremiah Johnston documents in his book, “Unimaginable,” Christianity made the world that we all take for granted today possible. It wasn't always pretty, and certainly there was plenty to regret in Christian history. But thank God Christian morality did supplant classical pagan morality. The very idea that human beings are created equal, that we share a common dignity, that we possess “inalienable” rights would have been laughable to the ancient Romans. These ideas owe their cultural existence only to Christianity. The fact that people think otherwise only proves that the real zombies out there are arguments and historically-revised assertions.

In the second century, a Greek writer called Celsus criticised Christianity as a religion of women, children and slaves - that is to say, a religion not to be taken seriously. There are echoes of this sentiment in contemporary critiques of Christianity, and religion more broadly. For example, the idea of women being more religious than men, on the whole, can be seen as something that discredits religion as irrational. However, Christianity is much more likely to be condemned today, no for being a religion of women, but a religion against women – this despite evidence of a strong thread of gender equality in the early Church.  “In its inception Christianity set before women a true possibility of complete transformation on equal terms alongside men,” says Professor Sarah Coakley who has written extensively on gender theory and the philosophy of religion. “But at the same time it very quickly accommodated itself into existing religious and cultural mores - and you could say that that tension has been played out since then.”  In this episode, we'll hear from Coakley and a host of other scholars – Judith Lieu, Rodney Start and Beverley Gaventa – about the role Christianity has played both in the flourishing, and the oppression, of women. --- This is Part III of our four-part series featuring interviews from our forthcoming documentary, For the Love of God: How the Church is Better and Worse Than You Ever Imagined. To catch up on Parts I and II, and to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series, subscribe to Life & Faith on iTunes: http://bit.ly/lifeandfaithpodcast.