Tag: Clement

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 7.1

What was the devil’s plan to corrupt Scripture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I hear people, especially pastors, talk about how God gave them a sermon or God led them to do something or what God was doing in Heaven that is not revealed in Scripture, I inwardly cringe. What makes these people think they have insight into what’s going on in the Heavens like this? I do the same when people talk about the devil this way too. So let’s continue with KJV-only craziness that can be found here.

To attack God’s true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption. The history goes as follows:

Yes. That obviously was the way. It couldn’t be that you can just attack doctrine like Porphyry did in early church history.

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

“… founded the ‘Catechetical School’ at Alexandria. He brought the wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts” [S7P8]. “Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy” [S2P191].

Unfortunately, we are not told where Clement said this. I can find two possible places in his work, The Instructor, and both of them put such an idea in a light that is quite sensible and what we use today. First, there is chapter 12 of book 1. Also, there is chapter 4 of book 5, which I consider more likely.

Clement compares what He is doing to Christ speaking in parables to express hidden truths. C.S. Lewis would refer to the idea as sneaking past watchful dragons. The idea was a way to sneak truth into the minds of those who would reject it or to explain to people the truth of Scripture using concepts they already understand.

These ‘historically early’ changes to God’s Word were also verified by Colwell who found that: “… as early as A.D. 200 scribes were altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a minority type” [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

This could be so, but Johnson needs to give us a reason beyond “Colwell says so.” He needs to provide the evidence. Now if Colwell is who I think it is, then he is a scholar indeed, but we still want his reasons.

READER NOTE: “… it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations” [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

Jerusalem was the place where God’s name would dwell, thus Jerusalem is good. Also, in Jerusalem….

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt is: “… the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: “… the iron furnace” (Deuteronomy 4:20).

Nineveh was also bad, and yet God sought to redeem it.

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It was about Egypt that God said to Israel: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: “… pagan city known for its education and philosophy …” [S1P51].

I wonder why Johnson doesn’t go into detail on the history of the people of Israel following this kind of logic….

Now, back to the story:

“… The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible called the ‘Hexapla’. Each of the columns had a different version of the Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his liberal ideas. He spiritualized God’s Word. He believed Christ to be a created being just as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach today” [S7P8].

I was having no problem with this until I got to the part about changing verses immediately and saying Christ was a created being. He would need to show where this was. This is not to say that Origen did not hold some crazy ideas. There is a lot of truth that he did spiritualize and allegorize a lot, but I have no basis for thinking his Christology was Arian.

Also:

“Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!” [S5P65]. We know: “Origin was the first person to teach purgatory” [S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: “The laws of men appear more excellent and reasonable than the laws of God” [S3P527]. And, we also know that: “Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication that he was spiritually saved” [S4P112].

The first part is nonsense. The second part I would need to see evidence of. For the third, I want to see where this is, but note that he says “appear.” That could well be describing what a non-Christian audience would think, and today even that is true. As for the last, the guy spent his entire life in service of God. What does he mean by no indication?

In her book “New Age Bible Versions” [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:

Excuse gag reflex at the mention of Riplinger. Also, the guy’s name is “Origen” and not “Origin.”

1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

Origen did believe in preexistence, but he needs to show where the idea of Jesus taking on such a soul exists.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

I consider both of these ideas nonsense. Show where Origen taught this.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.

Again. Show it.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

Yes. He did teach this.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

Show it.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.

The idea he did this is doubtful. The second needs to be shown.

Origin was also the author of the ‘Septuagint’. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

The Septuagint was around at the time of Jesus……

Yet, some ‘modern textual critics’ use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of ‘new versions’. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin’s Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: “standardized early in the third century by Origin” [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God’s Word.

“It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology” [S7P8]. “Origin, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy …”

No. What is clear is that Johnson doesn’t know a thing about Origen or church history. There is no reason to take him seriously on anything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Fathers Know Best?

What do the church fathers say about Matthew 27? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Norman Geisler has come to picture obsession to the extreme. For years now, he’s been harping on Matthew 27 and really, not producing anything new. In all this time, he could have gone out and read Burridge on why the Gospels are Greco-Roman Bioi or gone to the best scholarly monographs he could find on the passage in Matthew 27, but instead, he just wants to repeat the same material.

So now he’s gone to the church fathers. Now I’m sure we’ll all agree that while the church fathers have authority, they are not the final authority. What matters most is what the Scripture says. Still, it would be foolish to just dismiss all the church fathers. Their views should be taken seriously.

But do they really agree with Geisler?

Let’s start with Geisler’s citation of Ignatius’s epistle to the Trallians.

What does the text supposedly say?

“For Says the Scripture, ‘Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap.Ix, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70).

Why do I say supposedly?

Because there are two versions of the epistle. There is the shorter version and the longer version. Most scholars consider the longer version to be spurious.

So let’s go to chapter 9 of the shorter version. What do we see?

9:1 Be ye deaf, therefore, when any one speaketh unto you apart from Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David, who was born of Mary, who was truly born, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the sight of the things that are in heaven and on earth and under the earth;

9:2 and was truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up; according to the similitude of which also his Father shall raise up us who believe in him in Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have not the true life.

Why was the spurious version cited? Why is this not pointed out?

Either A) Geisler does not know and this is an error of ignorance that calls the research ability high into question

or B) It is known and is ignored, in which case facts are being ignored to suit an agenda.

I think it’s best to be generous and go with A.

Let’s now look at the epistle to the Magnesians.

According to Geisler.

“…[T]herefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead”[Chap. IX] (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I (1885). Reprinted by Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 62. Emphasis added in all these citations).

While some connect this to Matthew 27, nothing in the context demands it. Further, what does it mean, “When he came?” Nothing is said about the death of Jesus or about opening of the tombs. It could be referring to Matthew 27, but the text does not demand it.

The next statements are from the lost fragments of Irenaeus. The problem is many scholars consider these lost fragments to be spurious. Once again, the problem is the same as in the first citing of the epistle of Ignatius.

Next is Clement of Alexandria. What do we have from Geisler?

“‘But those who had fallen asleep descended dead, but ascended alive.’ Further, the Gospel says, ‘that many bodies of those that slept arose,’—plainly as having been translated to a better state”(Alexander Roberts, ed. Stromata, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, chap. VI, 491).

But what do we find earlier?

But how? Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept in ward and guard? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.

So a question.

Does Geisler think the apostles went and preached the Gospel to those in Hades? If not, why not? If so, on what grounds since this is a testimony centuries later?

Now of course, it could be that Clement really sees the resurrection of the saints as historical and that must be taken into consideration, but it is not the final authority.

Next comes Tertullian. What does Geisler quote?

“’And the sun grew dark at mid-day;’ (and when did it ‘shudder exceedingly’ except at the passion of Christ, when the earth trembled to her centre, and the veil of the temple was rent, and the tombs burst asunder?) ‘because these two evils hath My People done’” (Alexander Roberts, ed. An Answer to the Jews, Chap XIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 170).

An obvious problem here is all it says is that the tombs burst open. That could easily happen in an earthquake. There is no mention of saints coming out. Now Geisler could say is that Tertullian did fully have in mind that scene, but that would be claiming to know authorial intent, which he says cannot be known.

Next he says this about Hippolytus

“And again he exclaims, ‘The dead shall start forth from the graves,’ that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal. For this he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead” (Alexander Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, The Refutation of All Heresy, BooK V, chap. 3, p. 54). The editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers footnotes this as a reference to the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52, 53 (in Note 6, p. 54.), as indeed it is.

But is it indeed? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not. Could it not refer to the future resurrection, especially since it is also in the future tense? Of course, it could refer to Matthew 27, but must it do so necessarily?

What about Origen?

Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than the Gospel narratives, which state that ‘there was an earth quake, and that the rock were split asunder, and the tombs were opened, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, an the darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light’”

Once again, the tombs are open, but there’s no mention of saints getting out and walking around. Again, Geisler cannot appeal to anything else here because he says we can’t know authorial intent.

Geisler also goes to chapter 36. What does the chapter say in that work?

Celsus next says: What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it ‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods?’ He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after His death, one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knows that he says the truth. Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and water flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying, This man was the Son of God.

Again, no mention here. Strange isn’t it?

For Cyril, I see no reason to doubt that this is referring to Matthew 27 and this must be taken seriously, but it is also about 300 years after the event.

Next is Gregory of Nazianzus.

“He [Christ] lays down His life, but He has the power to take it again; and the veil rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened;5 the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. He dies but he gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again. He goes down to Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words are yours” (Schaff, ibid., vol. VII, Sect XX, p. 309).

This could indeed be a reference to Matthew 27, but it could also have in mind a passage like Ephesians 4. Mike Licona would want to know how this would work with Jesus being the firstfruits of the resurrection. If Jesus is the first to rise in a new and glorified body, how is it that these saints arise in such a body before Jesus? It is a question Geisler needs to take seriously.

We have no beef really with what is said later by the early fathers, but it’s worth noting that the earliest references possible to this do not mention it. In fact, this could be along the lines of what some scholars would say is legendary development. I’m not saying that it is, although we all do know legends did arise around Jesus. That does not mean that they are found in the Gospels of course. Gnostic Gospels and such contained stories about Jesus we would call legends. In fact, some of our Christmas tradition comes from the Proto-Evangelium of James. (Not really a Gnostic Gospel, but rather something that could have been seen as Christian fiction.) It is doubtful that Geisler thinks Jesus struck down bullies with death as a child or extended the length of planks of wood for his Dad or brought clay pigeons to life, but these are accounts found in other works and at times, even some Christians got confused.

We conclude that there is still much research to be done on this question but let it be known the difference. When a question like this is raised, it is better to debate the question without settling it, than it is to settle it without debating. We prefer the former. Geisler seems to prefer the latter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters