#gospel of the ebionites
Text
John the Baptist's Wilderness Vegetarian Diet Explained - Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast
Not A Caveman Fixated on Bugs and Bees After All: John the Baptist's Wilderness Vegetarian Diet - Locust Beans Not Bugs - An Exploration of Early Christian Writings and Scholarly Texts Today on This Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast.
Nevermind the old Sunday school notion of John the Baptist being some weird caveman dude dining on bugs! John may have a tarnished caveman reputation of eating locusts and honey out in the wild, but this is really a story about copyists mistranslating a Greek word as "locust" ('a-k-r-i-d-e-s') instead of "carob" ('e-g-k-r-i-d-e-s'). (Henry Ford: "Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young." Albert Einstein: "Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.")
Since my original research on this topic, a couple more early Christian apocryphal writings have come to light, have been made available in English. These add to the surprisingly large collection of vegetarian references in early Christian writings regarding the diet of John the Baptist. New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. III, by Tony Burke was published and some John the Baptist books are included. In one of the earlier volumes there was a John the Baptist text made available for the first time in English that has a vegetarian passage regarding John's diet in the wilderness. Included in the third volume are, The Birth of Holy John the Forerunner, and, The Decapitation of John the Forerunner, both containing plant-based passages about John's diet consisting of "locusts from the tree" (in the Middle east called "the Saint John's Tree", and "Carob Tree") and "wild honey", also "an abundance of bread and wild honey dripping from a rock". Clearly there was an understanding in early Christianity that this was referring to locust beans (carob pods), not insects. Carob pods do look a bit like locusts hanging from tree branches, hence the name. Locust beans can be ground up and used to make a kind of Middle eastern carob flour flat bread. There's a "cakes dipped in honey" reference in the Gospel of the Ebionites. The wild "honey" was not from bees but sticky desert fruit of some kind. So, as you'll hear being documented during this pod...cast, there are all these plant-based references to John's diet coming from many different sources, and scholars have noticed and discussed these: "Probably the most interesting of the changes from the familiar New Testament accounts of Jesus comes in the Gospel of the Ebionites description of John the Baptist, who, evidently, like his successor Jesus, maintained a strictly vegetarian cuisine." (Professor Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew) "His [John the Baptist's] food was wild honey that tasted like manna, like a cake cooked in olive oil." (The Other Gospels, Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament, by Bart Ehrman)
John the Baptist was a prophet with large number of followers in Israel and Transjordan regions. After his passing, several of his successors headed what became various rival Nasoraean (Nazorean) sects, one of those being Jesus and the Jesus movement. "Again Jesus said to his disciples: Truly I say to you, among all those born of women none has arisen greater than John the Baptizer." (Matthew 11:11, George Howard's translation of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, described as "the oldest extant Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew")
John the Baptist's Wilderness Vegetarian Diet Explained - Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast - Listen and/or Direct MP3 Download @:
https://traffic.libsyn.com/spiritualawakeningradio/John_the_Baptists_Wilderness_Vegetarian_Diet_Explained.mp3
@ the Podcast Website With Buttons That Go To All the Popular Podcast APPS - Wherever You Follow Podcasts:
https://SpiritualAwakeningRadio.libsyn.com/john-the-baptists-wilderness-vegetarian-diet-explained
@ Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-the-baptists-wilderness-vegetarian-diet-explained/id1477577384?i=1000635517078
@ Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0lMU46P0Tm9uugwN7IRgC5
@ Audible:
https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Awakening-Radio/dp/B08K561DZJ
@ Google Podcasts:
https://podcasts.google.com/search/spiritual%20awakening%20radio
& @ Wherever You Subscribe and Follow Podcasts - At Your Favorite Podcast APP Just Do a Search for "Spiritual Awakening Radio" - (Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon, Audible, PodBean, Podcast APP, Overcast, Jio Saavan, iHeart Radio, Podcast Addict, CastBox, etc...):
https://linktr.ee/SpiritualAwakeningRadio
May the Blessings Be,
James Bean
Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcasts
Sant Mat Satsang Podcasts
Sant Mat Radhasoami
A Satsang Without Walls
https://www.SpiritualAwakeningRadio.com
#prayer of thanksgiving#go vegan#vegan thanksgiving#john the baptist#new testament apocrypha#vegan#veg#veganism#vegan christian#christian mysticism#christian mystics#vegetarian christians#early christianity#john the baptizer#gospel of matthew#gospel of the ebionites#gospel of the hebrews#hebrew gospel of matthew#jesus#vegan jesus#happy vegan thanksgiving#spiritual awakening radio podcasts
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Podcast and YouTube: Vegan and Veg Passages From Unexpected Sources (Middle East, and Christianity)
Explored today: a vegan poem from the Syrian philosopher Abu al-'Ala' al-Ma'arri; a vegetarian saying of Jesus from an early Aramaic manuscript of the Gospel of Luke; an observation about the vegetarian ethics of John the Baptist and Jesus made by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman in his highly influential book, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew; a very pro-vegetarian quote from Saint Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible no less; also from Saint Basil the Great; Discussion about the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites; The Golden Verses of Pythagoras on why spiritual paths that seek to rise above body-consciousness advocate vegan or vegetarian ethics; The Sattvic Diet 2.0 For the 21st Century: How the Vegetarian Movement is Upgrading to Vegan Including in Sant Mat and Radhasoami; a mystic-poem of Darshan Singh from Love's Last Madness on the upward pull of evolution and compassion that seeks to reduce human and animal suffering in the world; and an amazing ancient Ode from the Ebionite Jewish-Christian Book of Acts (Recognitions of Clement) praising those in India, kindred souls of faith and gnosis: brothers and sisters "in the Indian countries" following the Way of the Saints (Path of the Masters).
Listen @ YouTube:
https://youtu.be/pkV4cvAwG8g
@ Listen, Download, Subscribe @ the Podcast Website:
https://SpiritualAwakeningRadio.libsyn.com/website
@ Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vegan-and-veg-passages-from-unexpected-sources-middle/id1477577384?i=1000588282328
@ Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/5kqOaSDrj630h5ou65JSjE
@ Google Podcasts:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5saWJzeW4uY29tLzIwNzIzNi9yc3M/episode/MTEyZDgwN2UtYmQ2Ny00ZWRmLTg3ODUtZTlkMjFkMTMyMjJl?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiY5-vpmNj7AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ
& @ Wherever You Subscribe and Follow Podcasts (Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon, Audible, PodBean, Overcast, i Heart Radio, Podcast Addict, Gaana, CastBox, etc...):
https://linktr.ee/SpiritualAwakeningRadio
In Divine Love, Light, and Sound, Peace Be To You,
James Bean
Sant Mat Satsang Podcasts
Spiritual Awakening Radio
Vegan and Vegetarian Section of the Free Sant Mat E-Library Online:
https://SantMatRadhasoami.blogspot.com/2019/01/vegan-and-vegetarian-ahimsa-non_8.html
#vegan#vegetarian#vegetarianism and christianity#christianity#vegan christians#yeshua#jesus#podcasts#youtube#ebionites#gospel of the hebrews#syriac#syriac gospels#aramaic#spiritual awakening radio
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
Beelzebub - Wikipedia
Hebrew Scriptures
The source for the name Beelzebub is in the Books of Kings (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16), written Ba'al-zəbûb, referring to a deity worshipped by the Philistines. The title Baal, meaning "Lord" in Ugaritic, was used in conjunction with a descriptive name of a specific god. Opinions differ on what the name means.
In one understanding, Ba'al-zəbûb is translated literally as "lord of (the) flies".[2][3][4][5] It was long ago suggested that there was a relationship between the Philistine god, and cults of flies—referring to a view of them as pests, feasting on excrement—appearing in the Hellenic world, such as Zeus Apomyios or Myiagros.
This is confirmed by the Ugaritic text which depicts Ba'al expelling flies, which are the cause of a person's sickness.[6] According to Francesco Saracino (1982), this series of elements may be inconclusive as evidence, but the fact that in relationship to Ba'al-zebub, the two constituent terms are here linked, joined by a function (ndy) that is typical of some divinities attested to in the Mediterranean world, is a strong argument in favor of the authenticity of the name of the god of Ekron, and of his possible therapeutic activities, which are implicit in 2 Kings 1:2–3, etc.[7]
Alternatively, the deity's actual name could have been Ba'al-zəbûl, "lord of the (heavenly) dwelling", and Ba'al-zebub could have been a derogatory pun used by the Israelites.[8][9][10]
The Septuagint renders the name as Baalzebub (Βααλζεβούβ) and as Baal muian (Βααλ μυῗαν, "Baal of flies"). However, Symmachus may have reflected a tradition of its offensive ancient name when he rendered it as Beelzeboul.[11]
Testament of Solomon
In the Testament of Solomon, Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says[12] that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was[13] associated with the star Hesperus (the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Aphrodite, Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. Beelzebul claims to cause destruction through tyrants, to cause demons to be worshipped among men, to excite priests to lust, to cause jealousies in cities and murders, and to bring about war. The Testament of Solomon is an Old Testament pseudepigraphical work, purportedly written by King Solomon, in which the author mostly describes particular demons whom he enslaved to help build Solomon's Temple, with substantial Christian interpolations.[14]
Christian Bible
In Mark 3:22, the scribes accuse Jesus Christ of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. The name also appears in the expanded version in Matthew 12:24,27 and Luke 11:15, 18–19, as well as in Matthew 10:25.
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
—Matthew 12:25-28
It is unknown whether Symmachus the Ebionite was correct in identifying these names. Zeboul might derive from a slurred pronunciation of zebûb; from zebel, a word used to mean "dung" in the Targums; or from Hebrew zebûl found in 1 Kings 8:13 in the phrase bêt-zebûl, "lofty house".
In any case, the form Beelzebub was substituted for Beelzeboul in the Syriac translation and Latin Vulgate translation of the gospels, and this substitution was repeated in the King James Version, the resulting form Beelzeboul being mostly unknown to Western European and descendant cultures until some more recent translations restored it.
Beelzebub is also identified in the New Testament as the Devil, "the prince of demons".[15][16] Biblical scholar Thomas Kelly Cheyne suggested that it might be a derogatory corruption of Ba'al-zəbûl, "Lord of the High Place" (i.e., Heaven) or "High Lord".[17]
In Arabic translations, the name is rendered as Baʿl-zabūl (بعلزبول).[18][19]
3 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Epiphanius of Salamis' book the Panarion is the main source of information regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites.
#Gospel of the Ebionites#the poor#the poor fellows#sons of light#sons of the widow#ebionites#gospel#apocryphal#apocrypha#art#medieval#panarion
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS: Hidden Truths About Jesus?
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS: Hidden Truths About Jesus?
INTRODUCTION Early Gospels
[a-pok’-ri-fal gos’-pels] The introduction to the third canonical Gospel shows that in the days of the writer, when the apostles of the Lord were still living, it was a common practice to write and publish accounts of the acts and words of Jesus. It has even been maintained (S. Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, xxiii, London, 1874) that at the close of…
View On WordPress
#Apocryphal Gospels#Canonical Gospels#Gospel According to the Hebrews#Gospel of Marcion#Gospel of Peter#Gospel of the Ebionites#Gospel of the Egyptians
0 notes
Quote
My Take on the Gospel of THOMAS: "If you are searching, you must not stop until you find. When you find, however, you will become troubled. Your confusion will give way to astonishment. In wonder you will reign over all things, and enter into heavenly rest." (Yeshua, Gospel of the Hebrews) And there's a virtually identical verse, a parallel, in the Gospel of Thomas, saying 2, making me suspect there's a relationship between those two documents of antiquity. The Gospel of Thomas was a favorite of some Gnostic Christians, yes, but Gospel of Thomas, saying 12, pays homage to James the Just, leader of the Ebionites, in other words, the Hebrew Christians (who also liked the Gospel of the Hebrews). Sayings from the Gospel of Thomas, or "Thomasonian" sayings attributed to Jesus -- sayings mainly associated with the Thomas stream of Jesus quotes -- turn up in many sources in the ancient world. Even Saint Augustine quotes Thomas-Jesus sayings on a couple of occasions. Different branches of Christianity quoted Thomasonian sayings familiar to those who study the Gospel of Thomas, from Rome to Syria and Persia, to Egypt. (See the book, Extra-canonical Sayings of Jesus, Resources for Biblical Study, Paperback, 1989, by William D. Stroker). But before later denominations and spiritual movements, in the earliest of days were the Ebionites (Christianity-Before-Paul), and saying 12 of the Gospel of Thomas allies the book with James the Just: "The students said to Yeshua, We know you will leave us. Who will be our leader? Yeshua said to them, Wherever you are, seek out Yaakov the just. For his sake heaven and earth came into being." Other translations say "James the Just" not "Yaakov", but I really like this particular version of the Gospel of Thomas translated by Marvin Meyer that has a slightly more Aramaic-Syriac flavor to it. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom-meyer.html
Agochar (James Bean)
6 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Barnabas' version of events
The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (the known manuscripts dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries), also promotes a non-death narrative. The work claims itself to be by the biblical Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles; however, text of this Gospel is late and pseudepigraphical. Nonetheless, some scholars suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier, apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic,Ebionite,or Diatessaronic), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original.
According to the Gospel of Barnabas it was Judas, not Jesus, who was crucified on the cross. This work states that when Judas led the Roman soldiers to arrest Jesus in an effort to betray him, angels appeared to take Jesus out a window and up to the heavens. As Judas entered the room, his appearance was transformed to that of Jesus, and the Romans arrested him and brought him to be crucified. The narrative states this transformation of appearance not only fooled the Romans, but the Pharisees, the High Priest, the followers of Christ, and his mother Mary.
The Gospel of Barnabas then mentions that after three days since burial, Judas' body was stolen from his grave with rumors spreading of Jesus being risen from the dead. In following with Islamic lore, when Jesus was informed in the third heaven about what happened he prayed to God to be sent back to the earth, and later descended and gathered his mother, disciples, and followers and told them the truth of what happened. He then ascended back to the heavens, with the narrative continuing Islamic legend mirroring Christian doctrine of returning at the end of times as a just king
Transfiguration of Jesus is an event where Jesus is transfigured and becomes radiant in glory upon a mountain. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36) describe it, and the Second Epistle of Peter also refers to it (2 Peter 1:16–18)
#crucified#kemetic dreams#jesus#jesus christ#roman#romans#pharisess#high priest#christ#mary#transfiguration#transfiguration of jesus
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Quran: Revelation or Forgery?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Did Muhammad Exist?
Before we embark on a brief criticism of the Quran, it’s important to note that there is “very little biographical information” (Wiki) concerning the historicity of its founder, Muhammad:
Attempts to distinguish between the
historical elements and the unhistorical
elements of many of the reports of
Muhammad have not been very successful
(Wiki).
(see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_secular_historians).
Of course, this opens up the possibility of whether or not the unknown author of the Quran invented the Muhammad tradition to bolster his credibility. In order to determine the answer to this question, it is crucial to consider the evidence of *intertextuality* in the Quran, that is to say, the literary dependence of the Quran on earlier texts and sources.
——-
How historically reliable is the Quran?
Firstly, with regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works that were written hundreds of years after the purported events and which claim to be legitimate Christian gospels but are not. Case in point, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is thought to
be Gnostic in origin. . . . Early Christians
regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as
inauthentic and heretical. Hippolytus
identified it as a fake and a heresy in his
Refutation of All Heresies, and his
contemporary Origen referred to it in a
similar way in a homily written in the early
third century. Eusebius rejected it as a
heretical ‘fiction’ in the third book of his
fourth-century Church History, and Pope
Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical
books in the fifth century. While non-
canonical in Christianity, the Infancy Gospel
of Thomas contains many miracles and
stories of Jesus referenced in the Qur'an,
such as Jesus giving life to clay birds (Wiki).
So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as canonical or as “inspired” either by Jews or Christians. Thus, at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious.
Secondly, in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?
Thirdly, the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world as well as the most scrutinized book in history, and one which has a critical edition. By contrast, the Quran has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner, nor does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence or textual discrepancies or omissions, such that “(some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39) or that (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817).
Fourthly, Orientalists have often questioned the historical authenticity of the Quran by charging Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) of consigning variant copies of the Quran to the flames during his reign.
Fifthly, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original. Hence its textual integrity is seriously compromised. By contrast, in the case of the New Testament, for example, since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the documents. In the case of the Quran, however, the text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, it would have been extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner. For example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrates textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy.
In conclusion, the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed!
——-
The Quran is Based on Dubious Sources
Besides the numerous and traceable Judeo-Christian apocryphal works that the author used within the Quran itself, he also got a lot of his ideas from a group that was an offshoot of the Ebionites called the “Sabians,” variously known as Mandaeans or Elcesaites. The Sabians followed Hermeticism and adored John the Baptizer:
Occasionally,
Mandaeans are called
‘Christians of Saint
John’ . . . the ‘Sabians’
are described several
times in the Quran as
People of the Book,
alongside Jews and
Christians (Wiki).
According to Origen and Eusebius, the Sabians used an extra-biblical book that they claimed was given by an Angel (maybe another idea adopted by Muhammad?) to deny portions of Scripture as well as the writings of Paul! So, this idea of challenging Christianity and claiming to have received a new revelation from an angel is quite common in ancient times. It is not unique to Islam. Others had made similar claims. Thus, without completely rejecting the possibility of *revelation* in at least some portions of the Quran, the majority of its theological narratives are largely based on dubious and questionable sources, derived from spurious texts that were under the radar of heresiologists across the ancient world!
——-
Two Apocryphal Works Employed by the Quran to Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus
//Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text. Instead Seth is thought to reference the third son of Adam and Eve to whom gnosis was first revealed, according to some gnostics. The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance”// (Wiki).
//The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, this one also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
He whom you saw on the
tree, glad and laughing,
this is the living Jesus.
But this one into whose
hands and feet they
drive the nails is his
fleshly part, which is the
substitute being put to
shame, the one who
came into being in his
likeness. But look at him
and me// (Wiki).
This is attested in the Quran:
That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ
Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified
him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of
doubts, with no [certain] knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto
Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,
Wise (Sura 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali).
——-
A Possible Forgery: Is Muhammad Copying Augustine?
Muhammad (570 – 632 CE) seems to have modelled his conversion on Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE), who was without a doubt the greatest theologian and philosopher of his day! Case in point, in 386 CE, Augustine converted to Christianity from the pagan Machanean religion. Similarly, in 610 CE, Muhammad converted to Islam from the “Jahiliyya" religion, which worshipped Allah as the creator god as well as the Kaaba in Mecca. About 224 years earlier St. Augustine had heard a voice that told him to “take up and read,” a line which became very famous and reverberated through the centuries:
As Augustine later told it, his conversion
was prompted by hearing a child's voice
say ‘take up and read’ (Latin: tolle, lege).
Resorting to the Sortes Sanctorum, he
opened a book of St. Paul's writings (codex
apostoli, 8.12.29) at random and read
Romans 13: 13–14: Not in rioting and
drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying, but
put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no
provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof (Wiki).
By comparison, Muhammad appears to have used a similar line to claim that he, too, heard an Angel’s voice repeatedly say to him: “Read.” Given that Muhammad was presumably familiar with Judaism and Christianity (and especially with the foremost leading authority of his day, the African Augustine of Hippo), it seems very likely that he modelled his conversion on the latter. And, if true, that would certainly constitute a forgery!
——-
Are Allah’s Oaths Self-contradictory in the Quran?
The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.
——-
Is Muhammad the Prophesied False Prophet of Revelation?
During the Early Middle
Ages, Christendom
largely viewed Islam as a
Christological heresy
and Muhammad as a
false prophet (Wiki).
In short, following the Arab conquest of the Middle East and due to the *military expansion* of Islam into Europe and Central Asia since the 700’s (toppling one country after another), Muhammad was increasingly seen as a possible candidate for the office of the *false-prophet-of-Revelation* (cf. Rev. 16.13; 19.20; 20.10): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Christian_views_on_Muhammad
——-
Conclusion
Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious!
Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!
——-
#muhammad#talmud#the infancy gospel of Thomas#intertextuality#Battle of Yamama#hafiz#Umar#Bukhari#Uthman ibn Affan#Uthmanic Revised Standard Version#Sabians#Second Treatise of the Great Seth#The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter#Surah 4:157-158#quran#Yusuf Ali#augustine of hippo#allah#false prophet of Revelation#plagiarism#forgery#Sanaa manuscript#apocrypha#gnostic#source criticism#historical reliability of the Quran#islam#eli Kittim#christian apologetics#textual criticism
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
About 309 Corinthus building
In the kerrang! 'Art print' this address is seen: 309 Corinthus Building, Calvary
There is a church called Calvary Southampton seen on Google maps:
The crucifixion of christ is suspected to have happened at Calvary
Cerinthus ( fl. c. 50-100 AD) was an early gnostic Christian, who was prominent as a heresiarch in the view of the early Church Fathers.
Contrary to the Church Fathers, he used the Gospel of Cerinthus, and denied that the Supreme God made the physical world.
In Cerinthus' interpretation, the Christ descended upon Jesus at baptism and guided him in ministry and the performing of miracles, but left him at the crucifixion.
Similarly to the Ebionites, he maintained that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was a mere man, the biological son of Mary and Joseph.
Source: wikipedia
The green book seen in the picture is Communion: A True Story by American ufologist and horror author Whitley Strieber that was first published in February 1987.
The book is based on the experiences of Whitley Strieber, who experiences "lost time" and terrifying flashbacks, which hypnosis undertaken by Budd Hopkins later links to an alleged encounter with aliens
Source: wikipedia
The black book is Chariots of the gods? By Erich von Daniken, a swiss author that was first published in 1968. It is the first part of a series about extraterrestrial influences on early human civilisation.
Erich was the first author to introduce the theory that early earth was visited by aliens, linking nazca lines in Peru, Egyptian and Incan pyramids and other ancient sites.
He believed that the humans were descended from extraterrestrials and that fallen angels referenced in the books of enoch (and other books) were these aliens that visited earth.
Source: my mum
309 in the Dewey decimal system has been unassigned since the 10th edition (1919) but falls under social sciences.
Source: Dewey decimal system
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
youtube
The Jerusalem community of apostles and disciples lead by James the Just (the folks Paul was arguing with about vegetarianism and about not eating meat sacrificed to idols.) The Forgotten Christians: Who Were the Ebionites? Prof. James Tabor.
#christian vegetarianism#james tabor#gospel of the hebrews#gospel of the ebionites#james the just#Youtube
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Vegan and Veg Passages From Unexpected Sources (Middle East, and Christianity)
Image Above: Abu al-ʿAlaʾ al-Maʿarri (973–1057) Vegan, Secular Philosopher, Born in Syria:
“Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up,
And do not desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,
Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught
for their young, not noble ladies.
And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking eggs;
for injustice is the worst of crimes.
And spare the honey which the bees get industriously
from the flowers of fragrant plants;
For they did not store it that it might belong to others,
Nor did they gather it for bounty and gifts.
I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I
Perceived my way before my hair went gray!”
Vegetarian Saying of Jesus from An Early Aramaic Manuscript of the Gospel of Luke
There’s a very old Syriac-Aramaic manuscript of the Gospel of Luke that even predates the Syriac Peshitta called Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. It contains some “textual variants”, differs from the Greek gospel manuscripts, and the now standardized, conformist approach used by most New Testament translators. There are two surviving editions of Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, the Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels as well as the Sinai Palimpsest, also known as The Old Syriac Gospels. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe represents a translation and “one of the earliest witnesses”* of an even older collection of gospel manuscripts that no longer exist but once were “in circulation between the second and the fifth centuries”*.:
“Now beware in yourselves that your hearts do not become heavy with the eating of flesh and with the intoxication of wine and with the anxiety of the world, and that day come up upon you suddenly; for as a snare it will come upon all them that sit on the surface of the earth.” — Yeshua, Luke 21:34
*Note: Page xviii, “Peshitta New Testament, The Antioch Bible English Translation”, Gorgias Press, discussion from the Preface about the history of the early Syriac-Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels.
“Probably the most interesting of the changes from the familiar New Testament accounts of Jesus comes in the Gospel of the Ebionites description of John the Baptist, who, evidently, like his successor Jesus, maintained a strictly vegetarian cuisine.” (Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, pp. 102, 103)
“The consumption of animal flesh was unknown up until the great flood. But since the great flood, we have had animal flesh stuffed into our mouths. Jesus, the Christ, who appeared when the time was fulfilled, again joined the end to the beginning, so that we are now no longer allowed to eat animal flesh.” (St. Jerome, Latin name Eusebius Hieronymus, 345–420 A.D., Christian monk and scholar whose outstanding work was the production of the Vulgate, the principal and official Latin translation of the Bible)
Jerome knew about the Gospel of the Hebrews and early Ebionite Christian sects who were vegetarians. He embraced their views about ethical vegetarianism.
For More About Vegan and Vegetarian Ethics Among the World Religions, including Christianity by the way, see the Vegan Section of my E-Library: https://santmatradhasoami.blogspot.com/2019/01/vegan-and-vegetarian-ahimsa-non_8.html
“The steam of meat meals darkens the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one enjoys meat meals and feasts. In the earthly paradise [Eden], no one sacrificed animals, and no one ate meat.” (Saint Basil the Great)
VEG/VEGAN Podcasts
PODCAST: Vegetarian Sayings of Jesus:
https://youtu.be/tg6c14De__s
PODCAST: The Vegetarian Apostles and Scriptures of the Original Jesus Movement...& Prayers for a Vegan World:
https://youtu.be/LfuezdWESNo
PODCAST: Loaves Without The Fishes in Early Christian Writings (Loaves Before the Fishes Got Added to 2nd Century Greek Manuscripts):
https://youtu.be/wUwVahvj3sU
PODCAST: The Karmic Law of the Vegetarian Diet by Hazur Baba Sawan Singh... Simran Practice... and Sach Khand:
https://youtu.be/jqJkO_sxbxI
PODCAST: The Ebionites Recognized Those in India Who Worship the One God, are Vegetarians, and Follow Ahimsa:
https://youtu.be/L3aNyo_XUdM
PODCAST: The Vegetarianism of Guru Nanak and the Sikh Scriptures:
https://youtu.be/wx7oM5j5n-U
PODCAST: Vegetarian Sayings of Jesus, Rumi, Rabia & Bawa Muhaiyaddeen in Sufi Islamic Sources:
https://youtu.be/PTW5XN5Sqls
PODCAST: World's Oldest Passages Referring to Being VEGAN:
https://youtu.be/UzwluCLITX4
#vegan#veganism#veg#vegetarian#vegetarianism#middle east#christianity#lost christianities#found christianities#veg rumi#veg jesus#ebionites#vegan philosophy#vegan podcasts
24 notes
·
View notes
Photo
First Century AD—Zacharias, Father of John the Baptist
Unfortunately, the confusion between these two Zechariahs was not limited to Matthew 23:35. The matter became further entangled in the second century AD, when much Christian literature came forward to satisfy the early Christians’ hunger for more details about Jesus’ early life. One of these pieces, the noncanonical Protevangelium of James, elaborates on the miraculous birth narratives of Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Portions of this book may date to AD 150, although the section on Zacharias emerges later. Although the book claims the name and authority of one of the biblical Jameses, Apocrypha scholar Wilhelm Schneemelcher regards it as “pious fancy . . . ignoran[t] of Palestinian geography and of Jewish customs. Another authority on the Protevangelium of James, J. K. Elliott, sees it as an “elaboration of the canonical infancy narratives” and attributes it to the “doctrines of Mariology. The oldest titles of the book included “Birth of Mary” and “Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God. In the sixteenth century, publishers first printed it with the name Protevangelium, or “pre-Gospel,” to imply that the events supposedly occurred prior to those recorded in the four Gospels of the New Testament. According to Schneemelcher’s analysis, later versions of the Protevangelium developed a story which further misconstrued the identity of the Zacharias in Matthew 23:35. These later versions contended that the Zechariah slain near the temple altar was neither the ninth-century high priest “Zechariah, son of Jehoiada” nor the sixth-century prophet “Zechariah, son of Berechiah,” but a first-century Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. The Protevangelium incorrectly introduces the priest Zacharias, husband of Elisabeth, as the reigning high priest: “And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies. . . . And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out. Following his vision, the text unfolds his murder. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under. And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elisabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country. . . . And Herod searched for John, and Herod was enraged, and said: . . . [Zacharias’] son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent . . . [to the temple] again, saying: Tell the truth; where is thy son? for thou knowest that thy life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God’s martyr, if thou sheddest my blood; for the Lord will receive my spirit, because thou sheddest innocent blood at the vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak . . . [his] clotted blood beside the altar . . . turned into stone. . . .The priests consulted as to whom they should put in his place; and the lot fell upon Simeon. For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh. This apocryphal text interpreted the Matthew 23:35 phrase “Zacharias son of Barachias” as a reference to John the Baptist’s father, who shared the same name, but not the same paternity or priesthood position. This additional confusion compounds the problem of separating the sixth-century prophet from the ninth-century martyred high priest in Matthew 23:35. In addition to this misinterpretation of the Zacharias in Matthew, this excerpt from the Protevangelium also contradicts the Lucan and Matthean nativity narratives in at least five other ways. First, Luke 1:5 introduces Zacharias as a priest “of the course of Abia,” which was one of the twenty-four courses of Aaronic priests that David organized. The course of Abia included hundreds of priests who rotated between the twenty-four Aaronic courses for their five weeks of temple service each year. Joachim Jeremias (a Second Temple scholar), estimated that eighteen thousand common priests and Levites lived in Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth. Luke portrayed Zacharias as one of these common priests, not as the one reigning high priest—which office had deteriorated to a short-term, arbitrary political appointment made from among the chief priests. Furthermore, the common priests received the honor of lighting the incense altar each morning and evening, not the high priest. Luke1:8–19 described the angel Gabriel visiting Zacharias as he fulfilled his duty in the Holy Place—not the Holy of Holies. Yet the Protevangelium claims that Zacharias was the high priest, a position whose duties would be performed in the Holy of Holies. Second, Matthew describes Herod’s troops going to Bethlehem to kill the “young child” Jesus, but the Protevangelium adds that “Herod searched for John” as well. Unlike the biblical narratives, the Protevangelium expands the story with several tangents about John and his family. In so doing, it twists details from both nativity narratives and concludes that the infant John (not Jesus) “is destined to be king over Israel.” The apocryphal account elevates John to take over Jesus’ role as king. Furthermore, Herod’s search for John stretched the story to include Zacharias’ martyrdom, which is not biblical. Third, the Protevangelium disregards the passage of time between the Lucan and Matthean accounts. Unlike Luke’s text, which describes the night of Jesus’ birth in a stable, Matthew recounts a year or two later, when Jesus is a “young child” (paidion) and the holy family lives in a house (see Matthew 2:13). The apocryphal version ignores that timing. When Herod’s troops come to Bethlehem, the Protevangelium claims that Mary is still without housing and attempts to hide the infant Jesus in “an ox stall,” with no reference to Joseph’s dream to flee to Egypt. Fourth, in contrast to Matthew 2:16, the apocryphal work claims that Herod’s slaughter of the baby boys extended far beyond the sparsely populated pastoral community of Bethlehem to include a broader swath across the hill country of Judea and Jerusalem. As part of that larger geography, the Protevangelium includes that “Herod searched for John,” contradicting the biblical account. This search supposedly led to Herod killing Zacharias because he would not divulge his son’s whereabouts. Fifth, the Protevangelium connects the “devout Simeon” from the temple scene in Luke 2:25, 34, with Zacharias. Luke shares a few details about Simeon but never includes any exchange between the two aged men. In fact, Luke 2:26 insinuates that after Simeon saw “the Lord’s Christ,” the old prophet would be free to leave his mortal existence. Yet the Protevangelium does not have him die but instead asserts that Simeon succeeded Zacharias as the high priest. Both points are not biblical and contradict the documented lists of high priests in Jerusalem at that time: 5–4 BC, Matthias ben Theophilus; 4 BC, Joazar ben Boethus; 4–3 BC, Eleazar ben Boethus; 3 BC, Joshua ben Sie; in or before AD 6, Joazar ben Boethus; and AD 6–15, Ananus ben Seth. Partially because of its lack of historicity and authority, western popes attacked the Protevangelium. Nevertheless, because the stories venerated the Virgin Mary, [33] they spread among the Eastern Orthodox, Ebionite, Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian churches. Leaders like the Orthodox patriarch Peter I of Alexandria (300–311) and a spokesman for the Syrian Christians, Bishop Solomon of Bassoria (1222), perpetuated the tale that the martyred Zacharias cited in Matthew 23:35 was actually the father of John the Baptist. ‘’Good Morning’’.!
1 note
·
View note
Photo
Gospel Reading and Commentary for December 17th - Third Monday of Advent - Roman Catholic -Matthew: 1: 1 - 17
Ver. 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.
Jerome, Ez, i. 5. Hier. Prolog. in Com. in Matt.: ‘The face of a man’ (in Ezekiel’s vision) signifies Matthew, who accordingly opens his Gospel with the human genealogy of Christ.
Rabanus: By this exordium he shews that it is the birth of Christ according to the flesh that he has undertaken to narrate.
Pseudo-Chrys., Hom. in Matt., Hom. i: Matthew wrote for the Jews, and in Hebrew [ed. note: It seems to be the general witness of antiquity that there was a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, whether written before or after the Greek. This Hebrew copy was interpolated by the Ebionites.]; to them it was unnecessary to explain the divinity which they recognized; but necessary to unfold the mystery of the Incarnation. John wrote in Greek for the Gentiles who knew nothing of a Son of God. They required therefore to be told first, that the Son of God was God, then that this Deity was incarnate.
Rabanus: Though the genealogy occupies only a small part of the volume, he yet begins thus, “The book of the generation.” For it is the manner of the Hebrews to name their books from that with which they open; as Genesis.
Gloss. Ordinaria: The full expression would be “This is the book of the generation;” but this is a usual ellipse; e.g. “The vision of Isaiah,” for, ‘This is the vision.’
“Generation,” he says in the singular number, though there be many here given in succession, as it is for the sake of the one generation of Christ that the rest are here introduced.
Chrys., Hom. in Matt., Hom. ii: Or he therefore entitles it, “The book of the generation,” because this is the sum of the whole dispensation, the root of all its blessings; viz. [p. 10] that God become man; for this once effected, all other things followed of course.
Rabanus: He says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” because he knew it was written, ‘The book of the generation of Adam.’ He begins thus then, that he may oppose book to book, the new Adam to the old Adam, for by the one were all things restored which had been corrupted by the other.
Jerome, Hier. Comm. in Matt., ch. 1: We read in Isaiah, “Who shall declare His generation?” [Isa 53:8] But it does not follow that the Evangelist contradicts the Prophet, or undertakes what he declares impossible; for Isaiah is speaking of the generation of the Divine nature; St. Matthew of the incarnation of the human.
Chrys.: And do not consider this genealogy a small thing to hear: for truly it is a marvellous thing that God should descend to be born of a woman, and to have as His ancestors David and Abraham.
Remigius: Though any affirm that the prophet (Isaiah) does speak of His human generation, we need not answer to his enquiry, “Who shall declare it?” - “No man;” but, “Very few;” because Matthew and Luke have.
Rabanus: By saying, “of Jesus Christ,” he expresses both the kingly and priestly office to be in Him, for Jesus, who first bore this name, was after Moses, the first who was leader of the children of Israel; and Aaron, anointed by the mystical ointment, was the first priest under the Law.
Hilary, Quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 40: What God conferred on those, who, by the anointing of oil were consecrated as kings or priests, this the Holy Spirit conferred on the Man Christ; adding moreover a purification. The Holy Spirit cleansed that which taken of the Virgin Mary was exalted into the Body of the Saviour, and this is that anointing of the Body of the Saviour’s flesh whence He was called Christ.
[ed. note: This passage is from a work commonly ascribed to Hilary the Deacon. The Fathers bear out its doctrine; e.g. “Since the flesh is not holy in itself, therefore it was sanctified even in Christ, the Word which dwelt in it, through the Holy Ghost, sanctifying His own Temple, and changing it into the energy of His own Nature. For therefore is Christ’s Body understood to be both holy and hallowing, as being made a Temple of the Word united to it bodily, as Paul says.” Cyril Alex. lib. v. in Joann. p. 992.
In like manner, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of “The Father of the True and really Anointed (Christ), whom He has anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows, anointing the manhood with the Godhead, so as to make both one.” Orat. 5. fin]
Because the impious craft of the Jews denied that Jesus was born of the seed of David, he adds, “The son of David, the son of Abraham.” [p. 11]
Chrys.: But why would it not have been enough to name one of them, David alone, or Abraham alone? Because the promise had been made to both of Christ to be born of their seed. To Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” [Gen 22:18] To David, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat.” [Ps 137:11]
He therefore calls Christ the Son of both, to shew that in Him was fulfilled the promise to both. Also because Christ was to have three dignities; King, Prophet, Priest; but Abraham was prophet and priest; priest, as God says to him in Genesis, “Take an heifer;” [Gen 15:9] Prophet, as the Lord said to Abimelech concerning him, “He is a prophet, and shall pray for thee.” [Gen 20:7] David was king and prophet, but not priest.
Thus He is expressly called the son of both, that the threefold dignity of His forefathers might be recognized by hereditary right in Christ.
Ambrose, in Luc. iii: He therefore names specially two authors of His birth - one who received the promise concerning the kindreds of the people, the other who obtained the oracle concerning the generation of Christ; and though he is later in order of succession is yet first named, inasmuch as it is greater to have received the promise concerning Christ than concerning the Church, which is through Christ; for greater is He who saves than that which is saved.
Jerome: The order of the names is inverted, but of necessity; for had he written Abraham first, and David afterwards, he would have to repeat Abraham again to preserve the series of the genealogy.
Pseudo-Chrys.: Another reason is that royal dignity is above natural, though Abraham was first in time, yet David is honour.
Gloss.: But since from this title it appears that the whole book is concerning Jesus Christ, it is necessary first to know what we must think concerning Him; for so shall be better explained what this book relates of Him.
Aug., de Haer, et 10: Cerinthus then and Ebion made Jesus Christ only man; Paul of Samosata, following them, asserted Christ not to have had an existence from eternity, but to have begun to be from His birth of the Virgin Mary; he also thought Him nothing more than man. This heresy was afterwards confirmed by Photinus.
Pseudo-Athan., Vigil. Tapsens. (Athan. Ed. Ben., vol ii, p. 646): The Apostle John, seeing long before by the Holy Spirit this man’s madness, rouses him from his deep sleep of error by the preaching of his voice, saying, “In the beginning was the [p. 12] Word.” [John 1:1]
He therefore, who in the beginning was with God, could not in this last time take the beginning of His being from man. He says further, (let Photinus hear his words,) “Father, glorify Me with that glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” [John 17:5]
Aug., de Haeres. 19: The error of Nestorius was, that he taught that a man only was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom the Word of God received not into Unity of person and inseparable fellowship; a doctrine which Catholic ears could not endure.
Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. i. ad Monachos Egypti.: Saith the Apostle of the Only-begotten, “Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” [Phil 2:6]
Who then is this who is in the form of God? or how emptied He Himself, and humbled Himself to the likeness of man? If the abovementioned heretics dividing Christ into two parts, i.e. the Man and the Word, affirm that it was the Man that was emptied of glory, they must first shew what form and equality with the Father are understood to be, and did exist, which might suffer any manner of emptying.
But there is no creature, in its own proper nature, equal with the Father; how then can any creature be said to be emptied? or from what eminence to descend to become man? Or how can he be understood to have taken upon Him, as though He had not at first, the form of a servant?
But, they say, the Word being equal with the Father dwelt in Man born of a woman, and this is the emptying. I hear the Son truly saying to the Holy Apostles, “If any man love Me, he will keep My saying, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” [John 14:23]
Hear how He saith that He and the Father will dwell in them that love Him. Do you then suppose that we shall grant that He is there emptied of His glory, and has taken upon Him the form of a servant, when He makes His abode in the hearts of them that love Him? Or the Holy Spirit, does He fulfil an assumption of human flesh when He dwells in our hearts?
Isidore, Epist. lib. iv. 166: But not to mention all arguments, let us bring forward that one to which all arguments point, that, for one who was God to assume a lowly guise both has an obvious use, and is an adaptation and in nothing contradicts the course of nature. But for one who is man to speak things divine and supernatural is the highest presumption; for though a king may [p. 13] humble himself a common soldier may not take on him the state of an emperor. So, if He were God made man, all lowly things have place; but if mere man, high things have none.
Aug., de Haeres. 41: Sabellius they say was a disciple of Noctus, who taught that the same Christ was one and the same Father and Holy Spirit.
Pseudo-Athan., Vigil. Tapsens. (ibid. p. 644): The audaciousness of this most insane error I will curb by the authority of the heavenly testimonies, and demonstrate the distinct personality of the proper substance of the Son. I shall not produce things which are liable to be explained away as agreeable to the assumption of human nature; but shall offer such passages as all will allow to be decisive in proof of His divine nature.
In Genesis we find God saying, “Let Us make man in Our own Image.” By this plural number shewing, that there was some other person to whom He spoke. Had He been one, He would have been said to have made Him in His own Image, but there is another; and He is said to have made man in the Image of that other.
Gloss.: Other denied the reality of Christ’s human nature. Valentinus said that Christ sent from the Father, carried about a spiritual or celestial body, and took nothing of the Virgin, but passed through her as through a channel, taking nothing of her flesh. But we do not therefore believe Him to have been born of the Virgin, because by no other means He could have truly lived in the flesh, and appeared among men; but because it is so written in the Scripture, which if we believe not we cannot either be Christians, or be saved.
But even a body taken of spiritual, or ethereal, or clayey substance, had He willed to change into the true and very quality of human flesh, who will deny His power to do this? The Manichaeans said that the Lord Jesus Christ was a phantasm, and could not be born of the womb of a woman. But if the body of Christ was a phantasm, He was a deceiver, and if a deceiver, then He was not the truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore His Body was not a phantasm.
Gloss.: And as the opening both of this Gospel, and of that according to Luke, manifestly proves Christ’s birth of a woman, and hence His real humanity, they reject the beginning of both these Gospels.
Aug., cont. Faust, ii, 1: Faustus affirms, that “the Gospel both begins, and begins to be so called, from the preaching of [p. 14] Christ, in which He no where affirms Himself to have been born of men. [ed. note: The Ebionites, as well as the Manichees, rejected the beginning of St. Matthew, vid. Epiphan. II arr. xxx. 23. And the Marcionites the beginning of St. Luke. Epiph. Haer. xlii, 11. But what exact portion they rejected is doubtful.]
Nay, so far is this genealogy from being part of the Gospel, that the writer does not venture so to entitle it; beginning, ‘The book of the generation,’ not ‘The book of the Gospel.’ Mark again, who cared not to write of the generation, but only of the preaching of the Son of God, which is properly The Gospel, begins thus accordingly, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” Thus then, all that we read in Matthew before the words, “Jesus began to preach the Gospel of the kingdom,” [Matt 4:!4] is a part of the genealogy, not of the Gospel. I therefore betook myself to Mark and John, with whose prefaces I had good reason to be satisfied, as they introduce neither David, nor Mary, nor Joseph.”
To which Augustine replies, What will he say then to the Apostle’s words, “Remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ of the seed of David according to my Gospel.” [2 Tim 2:8] But the Gospel of the Apostle Paul was likewise that of the other Apostles, and of all the faithful, as he says, “Whether I, or they, thus have we preached the Gospel.”
Aug., de Haer., 49: The Arians will not have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one and the same substance, nature, and existence; but that the Son is a creature of the Father, and Holy Spirit a creature of a creature, i.e. created by the Son; further, they think that Christ took the flesh without a soul.
But John declares the Son to be not only God, but even of the same substance as the Father; [margin note: ref Id. de Trin. i. 6] for when he had said, “The Word was God,” he added, “all things were made by Him;” whence it is clear that He was not made by Whom all things were made; and if not made, then not created; and therefore of one substance with the Father, for all that is not of one substance with the Father is creature.
I know not what benefit the person of the Mediator has conferred upon us, if He redeemed not our better part, but took upon Him our flesh only, which without the soul cannot have consciousness of the benefit. But if Christ came to save that which had perished, [p. 15] the whole man had perished, and therefore needs a Saviour; Christ then in coming saves the whole man, taking on Him both soul and body.
How too do they answer innumerable objections from the Gospel Scriptures, in which the Lord speaks so many things manifestly contrary to them? as is that, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” [Matt 26:38] and, “I have power to lay down My life;” [John 10:18] and many more things of the like kind.
Should they say that He spoke thus in parables, we have at hand proofs from the Evangelists themselves, who in relating His actions, bear witness as to the reality of His body, so of His soul, by mention of passions which cannot be without a soul; as when they say, “Jesus wondered, was angry,” and others of like kind.
The Apollinarians also as the Arians affirmed that Christ had taken the human flesh without the soul [margin note: Id. de Haeres. 55]. But overthrown on this point by the weight of Scripture proof, they then said that part which is the rational soul of man was wanting to the soul of Christ, and that its place was filled by the Word itself.
But if it be so, then we must believe that the Word of God took on Him the nature of some brute with a human shape and appearance. But even concerning the nature of Christ’s body, there are some who have so far swerved from the right faith, as to say, that the flesh and the Word were of one and the same substance, most perversely insisting on that expression, The Word was made flesh; which they interpret that some portion of the Word was changed into flesh, not that He took to Him flesh of the flesh of the Virgin.
[ed. note: Some of the Apollinarians thus hold. vid. Nyssen. vol. ii, p. 694. A.Theodor. Eranist. p. 174. ed. Schulz. The same doctrine was afterwards ascribed to the Eutychians, vid. Vigil. Taps. in Eutych. iv. Theod. Haer. iv. 13]
Cyril, Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. 6, Ep. 107: We account those persons mad who have suspected that so much as the shadow of change could take place in the nature of the Divine Word; it abides what it ever was, neither is nor can be changed.
Leo, Epist. 59, ad Const.: We do not speak of Christ as man in such a sort as to allow that any thing was wanting to Him, which it is certain pertains to human nature, whether soul, or rational mind, or flesh, and flesh such as was taken of the Woman, not gained by a change or conversion of the Word into flesh.
These three several errors, that thrice false heresy of the Apollinarists has brought forward. Eutyches also chose out this third dogma of Apollinaris, which denying [p. 16] the verity of the human body and soul, maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ was wholly and entirely of one nature, as though the Divine Word had changed itself into flesh and soul, and as though the conception, birth, growth, and such like, had been undergone by that Divine Essence, which was incapable of any such changes with the very and true flesh; for such as is the nature of the Only-begotten, such is the nature of the Father, and such is the nature of the Holy Ghost, both impassible and eternal.
But if to avoid being driven to the conclusion that the Godhead could feel suffering and death, he departs from the corruption of Apollinaris, and should still dare to affirm the nature of the incarnate Word, that is of the Word and the flesh, to be the same, he clearly falls into the insane notions of Manichaeus and Marcion, and believes that the Lord Jesus Christ did all His actions with a false appearance, that His body was not a human body, but a phantasm, which imposed on the eyes of the beholders.
But what Eutyches ventured [margin note: Id. Ep. 35 ad Julian] to pronounce as an episcopal decision, that in Christ before His incarnation were two natures, but after His incarnation only one, it behoved that he should have been urgently pressed to give the reason of this his belief.
I suppose that in using such language he supposed the soul which the Saviour took, to have had its abode in heaven before it was born of the Virgin Mary [ed. note, e: This opinion, which involves Nestorianism, the opposite error to Eutychianism or Monophysitism, is imputed to Eutyches by Flavian, ap. Leon. Ep. xxii. 3. Ephraem, Antioch, ap Phot. p. 805. Leont. de Sectis 7 init].
This Catholic hearts and ears endure not, for that the Lord when He came down from heaven shewed nothing of the condition of human nature, nor did He take on Him any soul that had existed before, nor any flesh that was not taken of the flesh of His mother. Thus what was justly condemned in Origen [ed. note, f: Vid. Origen in Joan. t. i. n. 37. t. xx. n. 17. Patriarch. ii. 6. n. 4. ix. Cels. i. 32, 33], must needs be rebuked in Eutyches, to wit, that our souls before they were placed in our bodies had actions not only wonderful but various.
Remig: These heresies therefore the Apostles overthrow in the opening of their Gospels, as Matthew in relating how He derived His descent from the kings of the Jews proves Him to have been truly man and to have had true flesh.
Likewise Luke, when he [p. 17] describes the priestly stock and person; Mark when he says, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God;” and John when he says, “In the beginning was the Word;” both shew Him to have been before all ages God, with God the Father.
2. Abraham began Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.
Aug., de Con. Evan., ii, 1: Matthew, by beginning with Christ’s genealogy, shews that he has undertaken to relate Christ’s birth according to the flesh. But Luke, as rather describing Him as a Priest for the atonement of sin, gives Christ’s genealogy not in the beginning of his Gospel, but at His baptism, when John bare that testimony, “Lo, He that taketh away the sins of the world.” [John 1:29]
In the genealogy of Matthew is figured to us the taking on Him of our sins by the Lord Christ: in the genealogy of Luke, the taking away of our sins by the same; hence Matthew gives them in a descending, Luke in an ascending, series. But Matthew, describing Christ’s human generation in descending order, begins his enumeration with Abraham.
Ambrose, in Luc. cap. 3. lib. iii. n. 7,8: For Abraham was the first who deserved the witness of faith; “He believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” It behoved therefore that he should be set forth as the first in the line of descent, who was the first to deserve the promise of the restoration of the Church, “In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” And it is again brought to a period in David, for that Jesus should be called his Son; hence to him is preserved the privilege, that from him should come the beginning of the Lord’s genealogy.
Chrys., Hom. iii, and Aug. City of God, 15, 15: Matthew then, desiring to preserve in memory the lineage of the Lord’s humanity through the succession of His parents, begins with Abraham, saying, “Abraham begat Isaac.” Why does he not mention Ismael, his first-born? And again, “Isaac began Jacob;” why does he not speak of Esau his first-born? Because through them he could not have come down to David.
Gloss.: Yet he names all the brethren of Judah with him in the lineage. Ismael and Esau had not remained in the worship of the true God; but the brethren of Judah were reckoned in God’s people. [p. 18]
Chrys., Hom. iii: Or, he names all the twelve Patriarchs that he may lower that pride which is drawn from a line of noble ancestry. For many of these were born of maidservants, and yet were Patriarchs and heads of tribes.
Gloss: But Judah is the only one mentioned by name, and that because the Lord was descended from him only. But in each of the Patriarchs we must note not their history only, but the allegorical and moral meaning to be drawn from them; allegory, in seeing whom each of the Fathers foreshewed; moral instruction in that through each one of the Fathers some virtue may be edified in us either through the signification of his name, or through his example.
[ed. note: Origen considered that there were three senses of Scripture, the literal or historical, the moral, and the mystical or spiritual, corresponding to the three parts of man, body, and soul, and spirit. Hom. in Lev. ii, 5, de Princio iv, p. 168. By the moral sense is meant, as the name implies, a practical application of the text; by mystical one which interprets it of the invisible and the spiritual world.]
Abraham is in many respects a figure of Christ, and chiefly in his name, which is interpreted the Father of many nations, and Christ is Father of many believers. Abraham moreover went out from his own kindred, and abode in a strange land; in like manner Christ, leaving the Jewish nation, went by His preachers throughout the Gentiles.
Pseudo-Chys.: Isaac is interpreted, ‘laughter,’ but the laughter of the saints is not the foolish convulsion of the lips, but the rational joy of the heart, which was the mystery of Christ. For as he was granted to his parents in their extreme age to their great joy, that it might be known that he was not the child of nature, but of grace, thus Christ also in this last time came of a Jewish mother to be the joy of the whole earth; the one of a virgin, the other of a woman past the age, both contrary to the expectation of nature.
Remig.: Jacob is interpreted, ‘supplanter,’ and it is said of Christ, “Thou hast cast down beneath Me them that rose up against Me.” [Ps 18:43]
Pseudo-Chrys.: Our Jacob in like manner begot the twelve Apostles in the Spirit, not in the flesh; in word, not in blood. Judah is interpreted, ‘confessor,’ for he was a type of Christ who was to be the confessor of His Father, as He spake, “I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”
Gloss: Morally; Abraham signifies to us the virtue of faith in Christ, as an example himself, as it [p. 19] is said of him, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto Him for righteousness.” Isaac may represent hope; for Isaac is interpreted, ‘laughter,’ as he was the joy of his parents; and hope is our joy, making us to hope for eternal blessings and to joy in them. “Abraham begat Isaac,” and faith begets hope. Jacob signifies, ‘love,’ for love embraces two lives; active in the love of our neighbour, contemplative in the love of God; the active is signified by Leah, the contemplative by Rachel. For Leah is interpreted ‘labouring,’ [ed. note, h: Leah full of labour, Jerom. de nomin. Hebr. from לאה, to weary one’s self.] for she is active in labour; Rachel ‘having seen the beginning,’ [ed. note, i: Rachel, in ewe, (as Gen. xxxi, 38, &c.) Jerom. ibid. who also gives the interpretation in the text, from ראה and חלל (החלה beginning.] because by the contemplative, the beginning, that is God, is seen. Jacob is born of two parents, as love is born of faith and hope; for what we believe, we both hope for and love.
3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king.
Gloss: Passing over the other sons of Jacob, the Evangelist follows the family of Judah, saying, “But Judah begat Phares and Zara of Thamar.”
Augustine, City of God, 15, 15: Neither was Judah himself first-born, nor of these two sons was either his first-born; he had already had three before them. So that he keeps in that line of descent, by which he shall arrive at David, and from him whither he purposed.
Jerome: It should be noted, that none of the holy women are taken into the Saviour’s genealogy, but rather such as Scripture has condemned, that He who came for sinners being born of sinners might so put away the sins of all; thus Ruth the Moabitess follows among the rest.
Ambrose, in Luc. 3: But Luke has avoided the mention of these, that he might set forth the series of the priestly race immaculate. But the plan of St. Matthew did not exclude the [p. 20] righteousness of natural reason; for when he wrote in his Gospel, that He who should take on Him the sins of all, was born in the flesh, was subject to wrongs and pain, he did not think it any detraction from His holiness that He did not refuse the further humiliation of a sinful parentage.
Nor, again, would it shame the Church to be gathered from among sinners, when the Lord Himself was born of sinners; and, lastly, that the benefits of redemption might have their beginning with His own forefathers: and that none might imagine that a stain in their blood was any hindrance to virtue, nor again any pride themselves insolently on nobility of birth.
Chrys.: Besides this, it shews that all are equally liable to sin; for here is Thamar accusing Judah of incest, and David begat Solomon with a woman with whom he had committed adultery. But if the Law was not fulfilled by these great ones, neither could it be by their less great posterity, and so all have sinned, and the presence of Christ is become necessary.
Ambrose: Observe that Matthew does not name both without a meaning; for though the object of his writing only required the mention of Phares, yet in the twins a mystery is signified; namely, the double life of the nations, one by the Law, the other by Faith.
Pseudo-Chys.: By Zarah is denoted the people of the Jews, which first appeared in the light of faith, coming out of the dark womb of the world, and was therefore marked with the scarlet thread of the circumciser, for all supposed that they were to be God’s people; but the Law was set before their face as it had been a wall or hedge. Thus the Jews were hindered by the Law, but in the times of Christ’s coming the hedge of the Law was broken down that was between Jews and Gentiles, as the Apostle speaks, “Breaking down the middle wall of partition;” [Eph 2:14] and thus it fell out that the Gentiles, who were signified by Phares, as soon as the Law was broken through by Christ’s commandments, first entered into the faith, and after followed the Jews.
Gloss: Judah begat Phares and Zarah before he went into Egypt, whither they both accompanied their father. In Egypt, “Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; Aram begat Aminadab; Aminadab begat Naasson;” and then Moses led them out of Egypt. Naasson was head of the tribe of Judah under Moses in the desert, where he begat Salmon; and this Salmon it was who, as prince of the tribe [p. 21] of Judah, entered the land of promise with Joshua.
Pseudo-Chrys.: But as we believe that the names of these Fathers were given for some special reason under the providence of God, it follows, but “Naasson begat Salmon.” This Salmon after his father’s death entered the promised land with Joshua as prince of the tribe of Judah. He took a wife of the name of Rahab. This Rahab is said to have been that Rahab the harlot of Jericho who entertained the spies of the children of Israel, and hid them safely. For Salmon being noble among the children of Israel, inasmuch as he was of the tribe of Judah, and son of the prince thereof, beheld Rahab so ennobled through her great faith, that she was worthy whom he should take to wife. Salmon is interpreted ‘receive a vessel,’ [ed. note: שלמון. Probably as if from מאן Ch. a vessel; perhaps נשא למאן] perhaps as if invited in God’s providence by his very name to receive Rahab a vessel of election.
Gloss: This Salmon in the promised land begat Booz of this Rahab. Booz begat Obeth of Ruth.
Pseudo-Chrys.: How Booz took to wife a Moabitess whose name was Ruth, I thought it needless to tell, seeing the Scripture concerning them is open to all. We need but say thus much, that Ruth married Booz for the reward of her faith, for that she had cast off the gods of her forefathers, and had chosen the living God. And Booz received her to wife for reward of his faith, that from such sanctified wedlock might be descended a kingly race.
Ambrose: But how did Ruth who was an alien marry a man that was a Jew? and wherefore in Christ’s genealogy did His Evangelist so much as mention a union, which in the eye of the law was bastard? Thus the Saviour’s birth of a parentage not admitted by the law appears to us monstrous, until we attend to that declaration of the Apostle, “The Law was not given for the righteous, but for the unrighteous.” [1 Tim 1:9]
For this woman who was an alien, a Moabitess, a nation with whom the Mosaic Law forbad all intermarriage, and shut them totally out of the Church, how did she enter into the Church, unless that she were holy and unstained in her life above the Law? Therefore she was exempt from this restriction of the Law, and deserved to be numbered in the Lord’s lineage, chosen from the kindred of her mind, not of her body.
To us she is a great example, for [p. 22] that in her was prefigured the entrance into the Lord’s Church of all of us who are gathered out of the Gentiles.
Jerome: Ruth the Moabitess fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah, “Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb that shall rule over the earth, out of the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Sion.” [Isa 16:1]
Gloss: Jesse, the father of David, has two names, being more frequently called Isai. But the Prophet says, “There shall come a rod from the stem of Jesse;” [Isa 11:1] therefore to shew that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and Christ, the Evangelist puts Jesse.
Remig.: It is asked, why this epithet King is thus given by the holy Evangelist to David alone? Because he was the first king in the tribe of Judah. Christ Himself is Phares ‘the divider,’ as it is written, “Thou shalt divide the sheep from the goats;” [Matt 25:33] He is Zaram [ed. note, l: זרח; in Zech. 6:12, it is זרח], ‘the east,’ “Lo the man, the east is His name;” [Zech 6:12]; He is Esrom [ed. note, m: חצרון, as if from חץ, and so Jerome.], ‘an arrow,’ “He hath set me as a polished shaft.” [Isa 49:2]
Raban.: Or following another interpretation, according to the abundance of grace, and the width of love. He is Aram the chosen [ed. note, n: רם to be lofty, vid. infr. p.23], according to that, “Behold my Servant whom I have chosen.” [Isa 42:1] He is Aminadab, that is ‘willing,’ [ed. note, o: עמי נדב My people is willing, - Jerome; comp. עמך נדבת, Ps 110:3], in that He says, “I will freely sacrifice to Thee.” [Isa 54:6] Also He is Naasson [ed. note, p: נחשן, from נחש to augur from serpents, and so Jerome], i.e. ‘augury,’ as He knows the past, the present, and the future; or, ‘like a serpent,’ according to that, “Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.” [John 3:14] He is Salmon [ed. note, q: And so Jerome], i.e. ‘the feeleth,’ as He said, “I feel that power is gone forth out of me.” [Luke 8:46]
Gloss: Christ Himself espouses Rahab, i.e. the Gentile Church; for Rahab [ed. note, : רחב, to be wide or broad. (רהב might רעב hunger)] is interpreted either ‘hunger’ or ‘breadth’ or ‘might;’ for the Church of the Gentiles hungers and thirsts after righteousness, and converts philosophers and kings by the might of her doctrine. Ruth is interpreted either ‘seeing’ or ‘hastening’ [ed. note, s: And so Jerome, from ראה, and perhaps רוץ for the second.], and denotes the Church which in purity of heart sees God, and hastens to the prize of the heavenly call.
Remig. Christ is also Booz [ed. note, t: And so Jerome; perhaps בעז =بعز activity; here, as if בעז “with might.”], because He is strength, for, [p. 23] “When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me.” [John 12:32] He is Obeth, ‘a servant’ [ed. note, u: עובד Obed, and so Jerome], for “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” [Matt 20:28] He is Jesse, or ‘burnt’ [ed. note, x: As if from אש], for, “I am come to send fire on earth.” [Luke 12:49] He is David [ed. note, y: And so Jerome], ‘mighty in arm,’ for, “the Lord is great and powerful;” [Ps 24:8] ‘desirable,’ for, “He shall come, the Desire of all nations;” [Hag 2:7] ‘beautiful to behold,’ according to that, “Beautiful in form before the sons of men.” [Ps. 45:3]
Gloss: Let us now see what virtues they be which these fathers edify in us; for faith, hope, and charity are the foundation of all virtues; those that follow are like additions over and above them. Judah is interpreted ‘confession,’ of which there are two kinds, confession of faith, and of sin. If then, after we be endowed with the three forementioned virtues, we sin, confession not of faith only but of sin is needful for us.
Phares is interpreted, ‘division,’ Zamar ‘the east,’ and Thamar, ‘bitterness.’ [ed note, z: תמרורים bitterness, from מרר Jer. 31:15, Hos 12:15] Thus confession begets separation from vice, the rise of virtue, and the bitterness of repentance.
After Phares follows Esron, ‘an arrow,’ for when one is separated from vice and secular pursuits, he should become a dart wherewith to slay by preaching the vices of others.
Aram is interpreted ‘elect’ or ‘lofty’ [ed. note, a: Lofty from רום], for as soon as one is detached from this world, and profiteth for another, he must needs be held to be elect of God, famous amongst men, high in virtue.
Naasson is ‘augury,’ but this augury is of heaven, not of earth. It is that of which Joseph boasted when he said, “Ye have taken away the cup of my Lord, wherewith He is wont to divine.” [Gen 44:5] The cup is the divine Scripture wherein is the draught of wisdom; by this the wise man divines, since in it he sees things future, that is, heavenly things.
Next is Salomon [ed. note, b: שלם peace, and so Jerome], ‘that perceiveth,’ for he who studies divine Scripture becomes perceiving, that is, he discerns by the taste of reason, good from bad, sweet from bitter.
Next is Booz, that is, ‘brave,’ for who is well taught in Scripture becomes brave to endure all adversity.
Pseudo-Chrys.: This brave one is the son of Rahab, that is, of the Church; for Rahab signifies ‘breadth’ or ‘spread out,’ for because the [p. 24] Church of the Gentiles was called from all quarters of the earth, it is called, ‘breadth.’
Gloss: Then follows Obeth, i.e. ‘servitude,’ for which none is fit but he who is strong; and this servitude is begotten of Ruth, that is ‘haste,’ for it behoves a slave to be quick, not slow.
Pseudo-Chrys.: They who look to wealth and not temper, to beauty and not faith, and require in a wife such endowments as are required in harlots, will not beget sons obedient to their parents or to God, but rebellious to both; that their children may be punishment of their ungodly wedlock. Obeth begat Jesse, that is, ‘refreshment,’ for whoever is subject to God and his parents, begets such children as prove his ‘refreshment.’
Gloss: Or Jesse may be interpreted, ‘incense.’ [ed. note: See p. 29, note i] For if we serve God in love and fear, there will be a devotion in the heart, which in the heat and desire of the heart offers the sweetest incense to God. But when one is become a fit servant, and a sacrifice of incense to God, it follows that he becomes David (ie. ‘of a strong hand’), who fought mightily against his enemies, and made the Idumeans tributary.
In like manner ought he to subdue carnal men to God by teaching and example.
6-8. David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; and Asa begat Josaphat.
The Evangelist has now finished the first fourteen generations, and is come to the second, which consists of royal personages, and therefore beginning with David, who was the first king in the tribe of Judah, he calls him “David the king.”
Aug., de Cons. Evan., ii, 4: Since in Matthew’s genealogy is shewed forth the taking on Him by Christ of our sins, therefore he descends from David to Solomon, in whose mother David had sinned. Luke ascends to David through Nathan, for through Nathan the prophet of God punished David’s sin; because Luke’s genealogy is to shew the putting away of our sins.
Aug., Lib. Retract., ii, 16: That [p. 25] is it, must be said, through a prophet of the same name, for it was not Nathan the son of David who reproved him, but a prophet of the same name.
Remig.: Let us enquire why Matthew does not mention Bathsheba by name as he does the other women. Because the others, though deserving of much blame, were yet commendable for many virtues. But Bathsheba was not only consenting in the adultery, but in the murder of her husband, hence her name is not introduced in the Lord’s genealogy.
Gloss: Besides, he does not name Bathsheba, that, by naming Urias, he may recall to memory that great wickedness which she was guilty of towards him.
Ambrose: But the holy David is the more excellent in this, that he confessed himself to be but man, and neglected not to wash out with the tears of repentance the sin of which he had been guilty, in so taking away Urias’ wife. Herein shewing us that none ought to trust in his own strength, for we have a mighty adversary whom we cannot overcome without God’s aid. And you will commonly observe very heavy sins befalling to the share of illustrious men, that they may not from their other excellent virtues be thought more than men, but that you may see that as men they yield to temptation.
Pseudo-Chrys.: Solomon is interpreted, ‘peace-maker,’ because having subdued all the nations round about, and made them tributary, he had a peaceful reign. Roboam in interpreted, ‘by a multitude of people,’ for multitude is the mother of sedition; for where many are joined in a crime, that is commonly unpunishable. But a limit in numbers is the mistress of good order.
8-11. And Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Jerome: In the fourth book of Kings we read, that Ochozias was the son of Joram. On his death, Josabeth, sister of [p. 26] Ochozias and daughter of Joram, took Joash, her brother’s son, and preserved him from the slaughter of the royal seed by Athalias. To Joash succeeded his son Amasias; after him his son Azarias, who is called Ozias; after him his son Joatham. Thus you see according to historical truth there were three intervening kings, who are omitted by the Evangelist. Joram, moveover, begot not Ozias, but Ochozias, and the rest as we have related.
But because it was the purpose of the Evangelist to make each of the three periods consist of fourteen generations, and because Joram had connected himself with Jezebel’s most impious race, therefore his posterity to the third generation is omitted in tracing the lineage of the holy birth.
Hilary: Thus the stain of the Gentile alliance being purged, the royal race is again taken up in the fourth following generation.
Pseudo-Chrys.: What the Holy Spirit testified through the Prophet, saying, that He would cut off every male from the house of Ahab, and Jezebel, that Jehu the son of Nausi fulfilled, and received the promise that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel. As great a blessing then as was given upon the house of Ahab, so great a curse was given on the house of Joram, because of the wicked daughter of Ahab and Jazebel, that his sons to the fourth generation should be cut out of the number of the Kings.
Thus his sin descended on his posterity as it had been written, “I will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” [Ex 20:5] Thus see how dangerous it is to marry with the seed of the ungodly.
Aug., Hilsr. Amast. V. et N. Test. q. 85: Or, Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias, were excluded from the number, because their wickedness was continuous and without interval. For Solomon was suffered to hold the kingdom for his father’s deserts, Roboam for his son’s.
But these three doing evil successively were excluded. This then is an example how a race is cut off when wickedness is shewn therein in perpetual succession.
“And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias.”
Gloss: This Ezekias was he to whom, when he had no children, it was said, “Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die.” [Isa 38:1] He wept, not from desire of longer life, for he knew that Solomon had thereby pleased God, that he had not [p. 27] asked length of days; but he wept, for he feared that God’s promise should not be fulfilled, when himself, being in the line of David of whom Christ should come, was without children.
“And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.”
Pseudo-Chrys.: But the order in the Book of Kings is different [2 Ki 23], thus namely; Josias begot Eliakim, afterwards called Joakim; Joakim begot Jechonias. But Joakim is not reckoned among the Kings in the genealogy, because God’s people had not set him on the throne, but Pharoah by his might. For if it were just that only for their intermixture with the race of Ahab, three kings should be shut out of the number in the genealogy, was it not just that Joakim should be likewise shut out, whom Pharaoh had set up as king by hostile force? And thus Jechonias, who is the son of Joakim, and the grandson of Josiah, is reckoned among the kings as the son of Josiah, in place of his father who is omitted.
Jerome: Otherwise, we may consider the first Jeconias to be the same as Joakim, and the second to be the son not the father, the one being spelt with k and m, the second by ch and n. This distinction has been confounded both by Greeks and Latins, by the fault of writers and the lapse of time.
Ambrose, in Luc., cap. 2: That there were two kings of the name of Joakim, is clear from the Book of Kings. “And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joachim his son reigned in his stead.” [2 Ki 24:6] This son is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jeconias. And rightly did St. Matthew purpose to differ from the Prophet, because he sought to shew therein the great abundance of the Lord’s mercies. For the Lord did not seek among men nobility of race, but suitably chose to be born of captives and of sinners, as He came to preach remission of sin to the captives. The Evangelist therefore did not conceal either of these; but rather shewed them both, inasmuch as both were called Jeconias.
Remig.: But it may be asked, why the Evangelist says they were born in the carrying away, when they were born before the carrying away. He says this because they were born for this purpose, that they should be led captive, from the dominion of the whole nation, for their own and others’ sins. And because God foreknew that they were [p. 28] to be carried away captive, therefore he says, they were born in the carrying away to Babylon.
But of those whom the holy Evangelist places together in the Lord’s genealogy, it should be known, that they were alike in good or ill fame. Judas and his brethren were notable for good, in like manner Phares and Zara, Jechonias and his brethren, were notable for evil.
Gloss: Mystically, David is Christ, who overcame Golias, that is, the Devil. Urias, i.e. God is my light, is the Devil who says, “I will be like the Highest.” [Isa 14:14] To Him the Church was married, when Christ on the Throne of the majesty of His Father loved her, and having made her beautiful, united her to Himself in wedlock.
Or Urias is the Jewish nation who through the Law boasted of their light. From them Christ took away the Law, having taught it to speak of Himself.
Bersabee is ‘the well of satiety,’ that is, the abundance of spiritual grace.
Remig.: Bersabee is interpreted, ‘the seventh well,’ or, ‘the well of the oath’ [ed. note, c: באר שבע the well of the oath, the origin of the name is given, Gen 21:28-31. “satiety” as if from שבע], by which is signified the grant of baptism, in which is given the gift of the sevenfold Spirit, and the oath against the Devil is made.
Christ is also Solomon, i.e. the peaceful, according to that of the Apostle, “He is our peace.” [Eph 2:14]
Roboam [ed. note, d: So Jerome, from רחב; or the foolishness of the people, Ecclus. 47. 23] is, ‘the breadth of the people,’ according to that, “Many shall come from the East and from the West.”
Raban.: Or; ‘the might of the people,’ because he quickly converts the people to the faith.
Remig.: He is also Abias, that is, ‘the Lord Father,’ according to that, “One is your Father who is in heaven.” [Matt 23:9] And again, “Ye call me Master and Lord.” [John 13:13]
He is also Asa [ed. note, e: So Jerome; as if from נשה=נסה; but אסא means a physician], that is, ‘lifting up,’ according to that, “Who taketh away the sins of the world.” [John 1:29]
He is also Josaphat, that is, ‘judging,’ for, “The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” [John 5:22]
He is also Joram, that is, ‘lofty,’ according to that, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven.” [John 3:13]
He is also Ozias, that is, ‘the Lord’s strength,’ for “The Lord is my strength and my praise.” [Ps 118:14]
He is also Jotham [ed. note, f: And so Jerome, from תמם], that is, ‘completed,’ or ‘perfected,’ for “Christ is the end of [p. 29] the Law.” [Rom 10:4]
He is also Ahaz [ed. note, g: אחז to seize or hold, and so Jerome.], that is, ‘turning,’ according to that, “Be ye turned to Me.” [Zech 1:3]
Raban.: Or, ‘embracing,’ because, “None knoweth the Father but the Son.” [Matt 11:27]
Remig.: His is also Ezekias, that is, ‘the strong Lord,’ or, ‘the Lord shall comfort;’ according to that, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” [John 16:33]
He is also Manasses, that is, ‘forgetful,’ or, ‘forgotten,’ according to that, “I will not remember your sins any more.” [Ezek 28]
He is also Aaron [ed note, h: A strong mountain; Jerome. It has no Hebrew root.], that is, ‘faithful,’ according to that, “The Lord is faithful in all His words.” [Ps 145:17]
He is also Josias, that is, ‘the incense of the Lord,’ [ed. note, i: A sacrifice to the Lord, - Jerome; from אשה fire in the ritual service, or incense, Lev 24:7], as, “And being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly.” [Luke 22:44]
Raban.: And that incense signifies prayer, the Psalmist witnesses, saying, “Let my prayer come up as incense before Thee.” [Ps 141:2] Or, ‘The salvation of the Lord,’ according to that, “My salvation is for ever.” [Isa 55]
Remig.: He is Jechonias [ed. note, k: יכניהו “the Lord establisheth,” also “prepareth.”], that is, ‘preparing,’ or ‘the Lord’s preparation,’ according to that, “If I shall depart, I will also prepare a place for you.” [John 14:3]
Gloss: Morally; After David follows Solomon, which is interpreted, ‘peaceful.’ For one then becomes peaceful, when unlawful motions being composed, and being as it were already set in the everlasting rest, he serves God, and turns others to Him.
Then follows Roboam, that is, ‘the breadth of the people.’ For when there is no longer any thing to overcome within himself, it behoves a man to look abroad to others, and to draw with him the people of God to heavenly things.
Next is Abias, that is, ‘the Lord Father,’ for these things premised, He may proclaim Himself the Son of God, and then He will be Asa, that is, ‘raising up,’ and will ascend to His Father from virtue to virtue: and He will become Josaphat, that is, ‘judging,’ for He will judge others, and will be judged of none.
Thus he becomes Joram, that is, ‘lofty,’ as it were dwelling on high; and is made Oziah, that is, ‘the strong One of the Lord,’ as attributing all his strength to God, and persevering in his path.
Then follows Jotham, that is, ‘perfect,’ for he groweth daily for greater perfection. And thus he becomes Ahaz, that is, ‘embracing,’ for by obedience knowledge is increased according [p. 30] to that, “They have proclaimed the worship of the Lord, and have understood His doings.”
Then follows Ezekias, that is, ‘the Lord is strong,’ because he understands that God is strong, and so turning to His love, he becomes Manassas, ‘forgetful,’ because he gives up as forgotten all worldly things; and is made thereby Amon, that is, ‘faithful,’ for whoso despises all temporal things, defrauds no man of his goods. Thus he is made Josias, that is, ‘in certain hope of the Lord’s salvation;’ for Josias in intepreted ‘the salvation of the Lord.’
12-15. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob.
Pseudo-Chrys.: After the carrying away, he sets Jeconiah again, as now become a private person.
Ambrose: Of whom Jeremiah speaks. “Write this man dethroned; for there shall not spring of his seed one sitting on the throne of David.” [Jer 22:30]
How is this said of the Prophet, that none of the seed of Jeconias should reign? For if Christ reigned, and Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah, then has the Prophet spoken falsely. But it is not there declared that there shall be none of the seed of Jeconiah, and so Christ is of his seed; and that Christ did reign, is not in contradiction to the prophecy; for He did not reign with worldly honours, as He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” [John 18:36]
Pseudo-Chrys.: Concerning Salathiel [ed. note, l: This Gloss. from Pseudo-Chrys. is not found in Nicolai’s edition.], we have read nothing either good or bad, but we suppose him to have been a holy man, and in the captivity to have constantly besought God in behalf of afflicted Israel, and that hence he was named, Salathiel, ‘the petition of God.’ [ed. note, m: שאלתי אל “I have asked of God.”]
“Salathiel begot Zorobabel,” which is interpreted, ‘flowing postponed,’ or, ‘of the confusion,’ or here, ‘the doctor of Babylon.’ [ed. note, n (p.31): The teacher of Babylon; Jerome; perhaps from זר “crown;” זרב Ch. flowed, poured away,” Syr. “contracted, bound;” hence another of the meanings in the text.]
I have read, but know not [p. 31] whether it be true, that both the priestly line and the royal line were united in Zorobabel; and that it was through him that the children of Israel returned into their own country. For that in a disputation held between three, of whom Zorobabel was one, each defending his own opinion, Zorobabel’s sentence, that Truth was the strongest thing, prevailed; and that for this Darius granted him that the children of Israel should return to their country; and therefore after this providence of God, he was rightly called Zorobabel, ‘the doctor of Babylon.’ For what doctrine greater than to shew that Truth is the mistress of all things?
Gloss: But this seems to contradict the genealogy which is read in Chronicles. For there it is said, that Jeconias begot Salathiel and Phadaias, and Phadaias begot Zorobabel, and Zorobabel Mosollah, Ananias, and Solomith their sister. [1 Chron 3:17] But we know that many parts of the Chronicles have been corrupted by time, and error of transcribers. Hence come many and controverted questions of genealogies which the Apostle bids us avoid. [1 Tim 1:4]
Or it may be said, that Salathiel and Phadaias are the same man under two different names. Or that Salathiel and Phadaias were brothers, and both had sons of the same name, and that the writer of the history followed the genealogy of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel. From Abiud down to Joseph, no history is found in the Chronicles; but we read that the Hebrews had many other annals, which were called the Words of the Days, of which much was burned by Herod, who was a foreigner, in order to confound the descent of the royal line.
And perhaps Joseph had read in them the names of his ancestors, or knew them from some other source. And thus the Evangelist could learn the succession of this genealogy. It should be noted, that the first Jeconiah is called the resurrection of the Lord, the second, the preparation of the Lord. Both are very applicable to the Lord Christ, who declares, “I am the resurrection, and the life;” [John 11:25] and, “I go to prepare a place for you.” [John 14:2]
Salathiel, i.e. ‘the Lord is my petition,’ is suitable to Him who said, “Holy Father, keep them whom Thou hast given Me.” [John 17:11]
Remig.: He is also Zorobabel, [p. 32] that is, ‘the master of confusion,’ according to that, “Your Master eateth with publicans and sinners.” [Matt 9:11]
He is Abiud, that is, ‘He is my Father,’ according to that, “I and the Father are One.” [John 10:30]
He is also Eliacim [ed. note: So Jerome, אל יקים “God will raise up”], that is, ‘God the Reviver,’ according to that, “I will revive him again in the last day.” [John 6:54]
He is also Azor, that is, ‘aided,’ according of that, “He who sent Me is with Me.” [John 8:29]
He is also Sadoch, that is, ‘the just,’, or, ‘the justified,’ according to that, “He was delivered, the just for the unjust.” [1 Pet 3:18]
He is also Achim, that is, ‘my brother is He,’ according to that, “Whoso doeth the will of My Father, he is My brother.” [Matt 12:50]
He is also Eliud, that is, ‘He is my God,’ according to that, “My Lord, and my God.” [John 20:28]
Gloss: He is also Eleazar, i.e. ‘God is my helper,’ as in the seventeenth Psalm, “My God, my helper.”
He is also Mathan, that is, ‘giving,’ or, ‘given,’ for, “He gave gifts for men;” [Eph 4:8] and, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” [John 3:16]
Remig.: He is also Jacob, ‘that supplanteth,’ for not only hath He supplanted the Devil, but hath given His power to His faithful people; as, “Behold I have given you power to tread upon serpents.” [Luke 10:19]
He is also Joseph, that is, ‘adding,’ according to that, “I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly.”
Raban.: But let us see what moral signification these names contain. After Jeconias, which means ‘the preparation of the Lord,’ follows Salathiel, i.e. ‘God is my petition,’ for he who is rightly prepared, prays not but of God.
Again, he becomes Zorobabel, ‘the master of Babylon,’ that is, of the men of the earth, whom he makes to know concerning God, that He is their Father, which is signified in Abiud.
Then that people rise again from their vices, whence follows Eliacim, ‘the resurrection;’ and thence rise to good works, which is Azor, and becomes Sadoch, i.e. ‘righteous;’ and then they are taught the love of their neighbour. He is my brother, which is signified in Achim; and through love to God he says of Him, ‘My God,’ which Eliud signifies.
Then follows Eleazar, i.e. ‘God is my helper;’ he recognizes God as his helper. But whereto he tends is shewn in Matthan, which is interpreted ‘gift,’ or ‘giving;’ for he looks to God as his benefactor; and as he wrestled with and overcame his vices [p. 33] in the beginning, so he does in the end of life, which belongs to Jacob, and thus he reaches Joseph, that is, ‘The increase of virtues.’
16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Gloss: In the last place, after all the patriarchs, he sets down Joseph the husband of Mary, for whose sake all the rest are introduced, saying, “But Jacob begot Joseph.”
Jerome: This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman. [Deut 25]
But of this matter Africanus the chronologist [ed. note: In his Epist. ad Aristidem, vid. Reuth Reliqu. vol. ii, p. 114. Africanus], and Eusebius of Caesarea, have disputed more fully.
Euseb., Hist. Eccles. i, 7: For Matthan and Melchi at different periods had each a son by one and the same wife Jesca. Matthan, who traced through Solomon, first had her, and died leaving one son, Jacob by name. As the Law forbade not a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married to another, so Melchi, who traced through Matthan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son.
Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother, to have been brethren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son. Whereupon also it is written, “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But by the Law, he was the son of Heli; for Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed to him.
Thus the genealogy, both as recited by Matthew, and by Luke, stands right and true; Matthew saying, “And Jacob begot Joseph;” Luke saying, “Which was the son, as it was supposed, (for he adds this withal,) of Joseph, [p. 34] which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi.”
Nor could he have more significantly or properly expressed that way of generation according to the Law, which was made by a certain adoption that had respect to the dead, carefully leaving out the word “begetting” throughout even to the end.
Augustine, de Cons. Evan., ii, 2: He is more properly called his son, by whom he was adopted, than had he been said to have been begotten of him of whose flesh he was not born. Wherefore Matthew, in saying, “Abraham begot Isaac,” and continuing the same phrase throughout down to “Jacob begot Joseph,” sufficiently declares that he gives the father according to the order of nature, so as that we must hold Joseph to have been begotten, not adopted, by Jacob. Though even if Luke had used the word, “begotten,” we need not have thought it any serious objection; for it is not absurd to say of an adopted son that he is begotten, not after the flesh, but by affection.
Euseb.: Neither does this lack good authority; nor has it been suddenly devised by us for this purpose. For the kinsmen of our Saviour according to the flesh, either out of desire to shew forth this their so great nobility of stock, or simply for the truth’s sake, have delivered it unto us.
Aug., de Cons. Evan., ii, 4: And suitably does Luke, who relates Christ’s ancestry not in the opening of his Gospel, but at his baptism, follow the line of adoption, as thus more clearly pointing Him out as the Priest that should make atonement for sin. For by adoption we are made the sons of God, by believing in the Son of God. But by the descent according to the flesh which Matthew follows, we rather see that the Son of God was for us made man.
Luke sufficiently shews that he called Joseph the son of Heli, because he was adopted by Heli, by his calling Adam the son of God, which he was by grace, as he was set in Paradise, though he lost it afterwards by sinning.
Chrys., Hom. 4: Having gone through all the ancestry, and ended in Joseph, he adds, “The husband of Mary,” thereby declaring that is was for her sake that he was included in the genealogy.
Jerome: When you hear this word, “husband,” do not straight bethink you of wedlock, but remember the Scripture manner, which calls persons only betrothed husband and wife.
Gennadius, de Eccles. Dog., 2: The Son of God was born of human flesh, that is of Mary, and not by man after the way of nature, as Ebion says; and accordingly it is significantly [p. 35] added, “Of her Jesus was born.”
Aug., De Haeres, ii: This is said against Valentinus, who taught that Christ took nothing of the Virgin Mary, but passed through her as through a channel or pipe.
Wherefore it pleased Him to take flesh of the womb of a woman, is known in His own secret counsels; whether that He might confer honour on both sexes alike, by taking the form of a man, and being born of a woman, or from some other reason which I would not hastily pronounce on.
Hilary, Quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test. q. 49: What God conveyed by the anointing of oil to those who were anointed to be kings, this the Holy Spirit conveyed upon the man Christ, adding thereto the expiation; wherefore when born He was called Christ; and thus it proceeds, “who is called Christ.”
Aug., de Cons. Evan., ii, 1: It was not lawful that he should think to separate himself from Mary for this, that she brought forth Christ as yet a Virgin. And herein may the faithful gather, that if they be married, and preserve strict continence on both sides, yet may their wedlock hold with union of love only, without carnal; for here they see that it is possible that a son be born without carnal embrace.
Aug., de Nupt. et Concup., i, 11: In Christ’s parents was accomplished every good benefit of marriage, fidelity, progeny, and a sacrament. The progeny we see in the Lord Himself; fidelity, for there was no adultery; sacrament, for there was no divorce.
Jerome: The attentive reader may ask, Seeing Joseph was not the father of the Lord and Saviour, how does his genealogy traced down to him in order pertain to the Lord? We will answer, first, that it is not the practice of Scripture to follow the female line in its genealogies; secondly, that Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, and that he was thence compelled to take her to wife as a kinsman, and they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being come of one stock.
Augustine: Also, the line of descent ought to be brought down to Joseph, that in wedlock no wron
1 note
·
View note
Quote
Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
The Gospel of Thomas, verse 19, translated by Thomas O. Lambdin, Nag Hammadi Library
#the gospel of thomas#The Gospel According to Thomas#gospel according to thomas#Bible#dead sea scrolls#nag hammadi scrolls#gnosis#gnosticism#white stone#the precious stone within the lotus#om mani padme hum#white lotus#egyptian mysticism#early christianity#ebionites#essenes
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
Who Were the Ebionites?
Who Were the Ebionites?
Ebionism; Ebionites
e’-bi-o-niz’-m, e’-bio-nits (Ebionaioi, from ‘ebhyonim, “poor people”)
General Statement
The Ebionites were a sect of heretics frequently mentioned by the early Fathers. In regard to their opinions, as in regard to those of most early heretical sects, there is the difficulty that to a large extent we are dependent for our information on their opponents. These…
View On WordPress
#Apocalyptic Literature#Ebionism#Ebionites#Gospel According to the Hebrews#The Clementines#The Gospel of Ebionism
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
agbsblog-blog
.,CrAzInEsS iS aN aRt.,
errantgoatart
Goat art
nirvanaladob
NIRVANA LADO-B
fortnitebattleroyals-blog
Fortnite Funny Videos
catherineloizu
愛国大和撫子