Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 180 of 253 · 20 per page

• From The Decameron (1353)

  Certes, I confess that they jumble a wench's furbelows more briskly; but those more in years, being men of experience, know better where the fleas stick, and little meat and savoury is far and away rather to be chosen than much and insipid, more by token that hard trotting undoth and wearieth folk, how young soever they be, whereas easy going, though belike it bring one somewhat later to the inn, at the least carrieth him thither unfatigued. You women perceive not, animals without understanding that you are, how much ill lieth hid under this scantling of fair seeming. Young fellows are not content with one woman; nay, as many as they see, so many do they covet and of so many themseemeth they are worthy; wherefore their love cannot be stable, and of this thou mayst presently of thine own experience bear very true witness. Themseemeth they are worthy to be worshipped and caressed of their mistresses and they have no greater glory than to vaunt them of those whom they have had; the which default of theirs hath aforetime cast many a woman into the arms of the monks, who tell no tales. Albeit thou sayst that never did any know of thine amours, save thy maid and myself, thou knowest it ill and believest awry, an thou think thus. His[389] quarter talketh well nigh of nothing else, and thine likewise; but most times the last to whose ears such things come is he to whom they pertain. Young men, to boot, despoil you, whereas it is given you[390] of men of riper years. Since, then, thou hast ill chosen, be thou his to whom thou gavest thyself and leave me, of whom thou madest mock, to others, for that I have found a mistress of much more account than thou, who hath been wise enough to know me better than thou didst. And that thou mayst carry into the other world greater assurance of the desire of mine eyes than meseemeth thou gatherest from my words, do but cast thyself down forthright and thy soul, being, as I doubt not it will be, straightway received into the arms of the devil, will be able to see if mine eyes be troubled or not at seeing thee fall headlong. But, as medoubteth thou wilt not consent to do me so much pleasure, I counsel thee, if the sun begin to scorch thee, remember thee of the cold thou madest me suffer, which an thou mingle with the heat aforesaid, thou wilt without fail feel the sun attempered.'

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  20 Lecture 4: Early Gnostic Christianity—Our Sources feel alienated from this world. In this lecture, we will examine our sources for this ancient worldview. Until 1945, virtually our only sources of information about the gnostic religions were the lengthy and vitriolic attacks against them in the writings of proto-orthodox church fathers, such as Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 180 A.D.); Tertullian of Carthage (200 A.D.); and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.). These authors don’t hold back in attacking their gnostic opponents, who are ruthlessly denounced for espousing ridiculous myths, being completely self-contradictory, misleading the innocent, and engaging in wild and licentious activities that show their true colors. There was, naturally, some question about how reliable these proto- orthodox accounts could be. With the discovery of original gnostic documents, we can now evaluate the patristic reports—the writings of the church fathers—and get a much clearer picture of what the Gnostics were really like. The chance discovery of a cache of original gnostic documents in 1945, near the Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi, was one of the most important archaeological ¿ nds of the twentieth century. Some details of the ¿ nd remain sketchy. It occurred in December 1945, when six bedouin camel drivers were digging for fertilizer next to a cliff in the wilderness of Upper Egypt, some 200 miles south of Cairo and 40 miles north of Luxor, near the bend of the Nile, close by the small village of Nag Hammadi. One of them accidentally uncovered a human skeleton with his mattock. Next to the skeleton was buried an earthenware jar, with a bowl over the top, sealed Saint Hippolytus. Photo by The Teaching Company.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  75 to claim to stand in a special relationship with the God who created the world and chose Israel to be his people, they had to show that the Jews were not his people. This point of view became increasingly prominent in the second century. The Christian philosopher Justin Martyr, writing around 150 A.D., claimed that God had given the Jews circumcision so they could easily be recognized by those wanting to persecute them. The Christian apologist Tertullian, writing around 200 A.D., claimed that Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans as punishment for the Jewish rejection of Jesus. The Christian preacher of the late second century Melito of Sardis claimed that by killing Jesus, Jews were guilty of killing their own God. This is the ¿ rst instance of any Christian charging Jews with the sin of deicide. It is important to place these various accusations against the Jews in their own historical context, without excusing them. Christians making these claims were a tiny minority that felt defenseless against larger Roman society. They wanted to maintain that, in fact, they were not a new and suspect religious sect. They were as old as the law of Moses and the ancient traditions of Judaism. In making these claims, though, they necessarily had to attack Jews, who could rightfully claim these religious traditions for themselves. These attacks may have been simply defensive posturings by Christians in the early years. Problems arose when Christianity acquired more converts and more power and, eventually, complete power, religious and secular. After the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century, when Christians could exercise real social, economic, and military force, they took Moses Coming Down from Mount Sinai. Dore Bible Illustrations, Courtesy of Dover Pictorial Archive Series.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  126 Biographical Notes important for his anti-heretical writings. A bitter opponent of both Gnostics and Marcionites, he is one of our best sources of information concerning what these groups, especially the latter, believed. His ¿ ve-volume attack on Marcion, for example, still survives and is our principal means of access to Marcion’s life and teaching. Thecla: It is dif ¿ cult to know whether Thecla was a historical person or a legendary ¿ gure. The earliest references to her are in the Apocryphal Acts of Paul, which provide a highly ¿ ctionalized account of her conversion, based on the ascetic preaching of the apostle Paul, and her subsequent escapades, as she travels, sometimes in Paul’s company, on Christian mission. In these accounts, she twice escapes execution ordered on the grounds of her refusal to participate in the social life of her pagan world, for example, when her ¿ ancé, whom she spurns to devote herself to the gospel, hands her over to the authorities on charges of being a Christian. Thecla became venerated as a sacred virgin in Christian tradition, and tales of her life were in wide circulation throughout the Middle Ages. Valentinus: Valentinus was probably the best known gnostic Christian of the second century. Born in Egypt, he was educated in Alexandria before coming to Rome around 136 A.D. Valentinus was a rhetorically powerful and charismatic person, who developed his theological views in light of Platonic and other philosophical traditions dominant in the world at the time. Tradition indicates that he wanted to receive a high of¿ ce in the church of Rome (aspiring to be its bishop), but that he was spurned by the church leadership and broke off from it to start churches of disciples who accepted his gnosticized understanding of the faith. Valentinian Gnosticism developed in a variety of ways among his followers after his death and became one of the primary targets for attack by heresiologists, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian. We have few writings that survive from Valentinus himself, but many scholars think that the Gospel of Truth discovered at Nag Hammadi may derive directly from him. If it does, then it shows Valentinus at his best, rhetorically effective and ¿ lled with joy at the thought of the salvation that had been graciously given by the true God.

• From The Canterbury Tales (2009)

  Only he was culpable. But I will say this. If there is a Judas in your house, get rid of him at once. It will save you shame and embarrassment later. So do not be angry with me for telling my story. Just listen. There had lived in London for many years a chantry priest, who earned his living by saying masses for the dead. He was so sweet and - how can I put it? - serviceable to his landlady that she would not hear of him paying anything for his board and lodging. She even bought his fine clothes for him. So he had plenty of ready money to spend. There was gold in his purse. Let me now explain to you how that gold fell into the hands of the malicious canon. The canon came one day to the priest’s lodging, and asked to borrow some money. ‘Can you lend me a gold mark?’ he asked him. ‘I only need it for three days. Then I will repay you. If I let you down, I give you leave to hang me from the nearest tree!’ The priest took the coin from his purse straight away, and gave it to him; the canon pocketed it, thanked him, and went on his way. Three days later he promptly returned the money, much to the surprise and delight of the priest. ‘Well, really,’ the priest said to him, ‘I don’t mind lending you money, good sir, if you repay it so readily. You are true to your word. That is clear enough. How can I refuse you anything in the future?’ ‘What? You never thought I would trick you, did you? Please. Honesty is my middle name. I will always keep my word, to the day I die. God forbid that I should ever lie to you or deceive you. It just won’t happen. Believe me when I say that I have always paid my debts. I have never let anyone down. There is not a false bone in my body.’ He lowered his voice a little. ‘Since you have been so good to me, I will let you in on a little secret. You have been kind to me, and I will be kind in return. I am willing to teach you, if you are willing to learn, the secrets of my work as an alchemist. If you watch carefully, I can assure you that you will see a wonder.’ ‘Is that right?’ the priest replied. ‘Go ahead, for God’s sake.’ ‘I will do it if you wish. For no other cause but to please you.’ ‘Of course.’ Do you see how this villain lured his prey? He granted the priest a favour the priest had not asked for. That kind of favour bodes no good. I will prove that to you in a moment. And so this false canon, this root of iniquity, took great pleasure in betraying good Christian people. The devil planted wickedness in his heart.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The second disputation was held in the city hall, and lasted three days. There were present about nine hundred persons, including three hundred and fifty clergymen and ten doctors. Dr. Vadian of St. Gall, Dr. Hofmeister of Schaffhausen, and Dr. Schappeler of St. Gall presided. Zwingli and Leo Judae defended the Protestant cause, and had the advantage of superior Scripture learning and argument. The Roman party betrayed much ignorance; but Martin Steinli of Schaffhausen ably advocated the mass. Konrad Schmid of Küssnacht took a moderate position, and produced great effect upon the audience by his eloquence. His judgment was, first to take the idolatry out of the heart before abolishing the outward images, and to leave the staff to the weak until they are able to walk without it and to rely solely on Christ.99 The Council was not prepared to order the immediate abolition of the mass and the images. It punished Hottinger and other "idol-stormers" by banishment, and appointed a commission of ministers and laymen, including Zwingli, Schmidt and Judae, who should enlighten the people on the subject by preaching and writing. . Zwingli prepared his "Short and Christian Introduction," which was sent by the Council of Two Hundred to all the ministers of the canton, the bishops of Constance, Basle, and Coire, the University of Basle, and to the twelve other cantons (Nov. 17, 1523).100 It may be compared to the instruction of Melanchthon for the visitation of the churches of Saxony (1528). A third disputation, of a more private character, was held Jan. 20, 1524. The advocates of the mass were refuted and ordered not to resist any longer the decisions of the magistracy, though they might adhere to their faith. During the last disputation, Zwingli preached a sermon on the corrupt state of the clergy, which he published by request in March, 1524, under the title "The Shepherd."101 He represents Christ as the good Shepherd in contrast with the selfish hirelings, according to the parable in the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John. Among the false shepherds he counts the bishops who do not preach at all; those priests who teach their own dreams instead of the Word of God; those who preach the Word but for the glorification of popery; those who deny their preaching by their conduct; those who preach for filthy lucre; and, finally, all who mislead men away from the Creator to the creature. Zwingli treats the papists as refined idolaters, and repeatedly denounces idolatry as the root of the errors and abuses of the Church.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The monastic demonology and demonomachy is a strange mixture of gross superstitions and deep spiritual experiences. It forms the romantic shady side of the otherwise so tedious monotony of the secluded life, and contains much material for the history of ethics, psychology, and pathology. Especially besetting were the temptations of sensuality, and irresistible without the utmost exertion and constant watchfulness. The same saints, who could not conceive of true chastity without celibacy, were disturbed, according to their own confession, by unchaste dreams, which at least defiled the imagination.298 Excessive asceticism sometimes turned into unnatural vice; sometimes ended in madness, despair, and suicide. Pachomius tells us, so early as his day, that many monks cast themselves down precipices, others ripped themselves up, and others put themselves to death in other ways.299 A characteristic trait of monasticism in all its forms is a morbid aversion to female society and a rude contempt of married life. No wonder, then, that in Egypt and the whole East, the land of monasticism, women and domestic life never attained their proper dignity, and to this day remain at a very low stage of culture. Among the rules of Basil is a prohibition of speaking with a woman, touching one, or even looking on one, except in unavoidable cases. Monasticism not seldom sundered the sacred bond between husband and wife, commonly with mutual consent, as in the cases of Ammon and Nilus, but often even without it. Indeed, a law of Justinian seems to give either party an unconditional right of desertion, while yet the word of God declares the

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The dialogue Philopatris, or The Patriot, is ascribed indeed to the ready scoffer and satirist Lucian (died about 200), and joined to his works; but it is vastly inferior in style and probably belongs to the reign of Julian, or a still later period;117 since it combats the church doctrine of the Trinity and of the procession of the Spirit from the Father, though not by argument, but only by ridicule. It is a frivolous derision of the character and doctrines of the Christians in the form of a dialogue between Critias, a professed heathen, and Triephon, an Epicurean, personating a Christian. It represents the Christians as disaffected to the government, dangerous to civil society, and delighting in public calamities. It calls St. Paul a half bald, long-nosed Galilean, who travelled through the air to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12, 1–4). The last renowned representative of Neo-Platonism, Proclus of Athens (died 487), defended the Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the world, and, without mentioning Christianity, contested the biblical doctrine of the creation and the end of the world in eighteen arguments, which the Christian philosopher, John Philoponus, refuted in the seventh century. The last heathen historians, Eunapius and Zosimus, of the first half of the fifth century, indirectly assailed Christianity by a one-sided representation of the history of the Roman empire from the time of Constantine, and by tracing its decline to the Christian religion; while, on the contrary, Ammianus Marcellinus (died about 390) presents with honorable impartiality both the dark and the bright sides of the Christian emperors and of the Apostate Julian.118 § 10. The Heathen Apologetic Literature. After the death of Julian most of the heathen writers, especially the ablest and most estimable, confined themselves to the defence of their religion, and thus became, by reason of their position, advocates of toleration; and, of course, of toleration for the religious syncretism, which in its cooler form degenerates into philosophical indifferentism. Among these were Themistius, teacher of rhetoric, senator, and prefect of Constantinople, and afterwards preceptor of the young emperor Arcadius; Aurelius Symmachus, rhetorician, senator, and prefect of Rome under Gratian and Valentinian II., the eloquent pleader for the altar of Victoria; and above all, the rhetorician Libanius, friend and admirer of Julian, alternately teaching in Constantinople, Nicomedia, and Antioch. These all belong to the second half of the fourth century, and represent at once the last bloom and the decline of the classic eloquence. They were all more or less devoted to the Neo- Platonic syncretism. They held, that the Deity had implanted in all men a religious nature and want, but had left the particular form of worshiping God to the free will of the several nations and individuals; that all outward constraint, therefore, was contrary to the nature of religion and could only beget hypocrisy. Themistius vindicated this variety of the forms of religion as favorable to religion itself, as many Protestants justify the system of sects.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  111 Glossary 3 Corinthians: Part of the Apocryphal Acts of John, a letter allegedly by Paul to the Corinthians warning against docetic teachers and emphasizing that Jesus was a real À esh-and-blood human being and that there could be a future resurrection of the body. Acts of John : A group of apocryphal tales surrounding the exploits and encounters of John, the son of Zebedee, during his missionary work in Asia Minor. Acts of Paul and Thecla: A tale of Paul and his female convert Thecla, who reneges on her vows to marry and instead adopts an ascetic lifestyle, leading to her condemnation to death by the state authorities but her miraculous deliverance by God. Acts of Thomas: A group of apocryphal tales surrounding the exploits and ascetic preaching of Thomas, allegedly the twin brother of Jesus, during his missionary work in Asia Minor. adoptionism: The view that Jesus was not divine but was a À esh-and-blood human being who had been adopted by God to be his son at his baptism. aeons: Divine beings who make up the Pleroma in gnostic religions. Apocalypse of Peter : A pseudepigraphic work in the name of Simon Peter that narrates the blessings of the saved and the torments of the damned in the afterlife, based on what appears to be a tour of the two regions conducted by Jesus. Apocalypticism: A worldview held by many ancient Jews and Christians maintaining that the present age is controlled by forces of evil, but that these

• From Another Country (1962)

  How could they endure it? Well, he had been there. How had he endured it? Whiskey and marijuana had helped; he was a pretty good liar and that had helped; and most women inspired great contempt in him and that had helped. But there was more to it than that. After all, the country, the world—this city—was full of people who got up in the morning and went to bed at night and, mainly, throughout their lives, to the same bed. They did whatever it was they were supposed to do, and they raised their children. And perhaps he didn’t like these people very much, but, then, he didn’t, on the other hand, know them. He supposed that they existed because he had been told that they did; presumably, the faces he saw on subways and in the streets belonged to these people, who were admirable because they were numerous. His mother and father and his married sister and her husband and their friends were part of this multitude, and his younger brother would belong to them soon. And what did he know about them, really, except that they were ashamed of him? They didn’t know that he was real. It seemed that they didn’t, for that matter, know that they were real, but he was insufficiently simple to find this notion comforting. He watched a lone man come up the street, his tight black overcoat buttoned to the neck, looking back from time to time as though he hoped he were being followed. Then the garbage truck came up the street, like a gray brainless insect. He watched the garbage being loaded. Then there was nothing, no one. The light was growing stronger. Soon, alarm clocks would begin to ring and the houses would expel the morning people. Then he thought of the scene which would now be occurring between the boy and the girl in the room.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The people were corrupted by the foreign military service (called Reislaufen), which perpetuated the fame of the Swiss for bravery and faithfulness, but at the expense of independence and good morals.14 Kings and popes vied with each other in tempting offers to secure Swiss soldiers, who often fought against each other on foreign battle-fields, and returned with rich pensions and dissolute habits. Zwingli knew this evil from personal experience as chaplain in the Italian campaigns, attacked it before he thought of reforming the Church, continued to oppose it when called to Zurich, and found his death at the hands of a foreign mercenary. On the other hand, there were some hopeful signs of progress. The reformatory Councils of Constance and Basle were not yet entirely forgotten among the educated classes. The revival of letters stimulated freedom of thought, and opened the eyes to abuses. The University of Basle became a centre of literary activity and illuminating influences. There Thomas Wyttenbach of Biel taught theology between 1505 and 1508, and attacked indulgences, the mass, and the celibacy of the priesthood. He, with seven other priests, married in 1524, and was deposed as preacher, but not excommunicated. He combined several high offices, but died in great poverty, 1526. Zwingli attended his lectures in 1505, and learned much from him. In Basle, Erasmus, the great luminary of liberal learning, spent several of the most active years of his life (1514–1516 and 1521–1529), and published, through the press of his friend Frobenius, most of his books, including his editions of the Greek Testament. In Basle several works of Luther were reprinted, to be scattered through Switzerland. Capito, Hedio, Pellican, and Oecolampadius likewise studied, taught, and preached in that city. But the Reformation proceeded from Zurich, not from Basle, and was guided by Zwingli, who combined the humanistic culture of Erasmus with the ability of a popular preacher and the practical energy of an ecclesiastical reformer. The Swiss Reformation may be divided into three acts and periods, — I. The Zwinglian Reformation in the German cantons from 1516 to Zwingli’s death and the peace of Cappel, 1531. II. The Calvinistic Reformation in French Switzerland from 1531 to the death of Calvin, 1564. III. The labors of Bullinger in Zurich (d. 1575), and Beza in Geneva (d. 1605) for the consolidation of the work of their older friends and predecessors. The Zwinglian movement was nearly simultaneous with the German Reformation, and came to an agreement with it at Marburg in fourteen out of fifteen articles of faith, the only serious difference being the mode of Christ’s presence in the eucharist. Although Zwingli died in the Prime of life, he already set forth most of the characteristic features of the Reformed Churches, at least in rough outline. But Calvin is the great theologian, organizer, and discip-linarian of the Reformed Church. He brought it nearer the Lutheran Church in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, but he widened the breach in the doctrine of predestination.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  11 Nevertheless, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also man is born through the woman; and all things [whether male or female] originate from God [as their Creator]. 13 g Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to offer prayer to God [publicly] with her head uncovered? 14 Does not common sense itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her ornament and glory? For her long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 Now if anyone is inclined to be contentious [about this], we have no other practice [in worship than this], nor do the churches of God [in general]. 17 But in giving this next instruction, I do not praise you, because when you meet together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you meet together in church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and in part I believe it, 19 for [doubtless] there have to be factions among you, so that those who are of approved character may be clearly recognized among you. 20 So when you meet together, it is not to eat the h Lord’s Supper, 21 for when you eat, each one hurries to get his own supper first [not waiting for others or the poor]. So one goes hungry while another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those [impoverished believers] who have nothing? What will I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? In this I will not praise you! The Lord’s Supper 23 i For I received from the Lord Himself that [instruction] which I passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is (represents) My body, which is [offered as a sacrifice] for you. Do this in [affectionate] remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant [ratified and established] in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in [affectionate] remembrance of Me.” 26 For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are [symbolically] proclaiming [the fact of] the Lord’s death until He comes [again]. 27 So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy [of Him] will be guilty of [profaning and sinning against] the body and blood of the Lord.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  76 Lecture 17: The Epistle of Barnabas the anti-Jewish claims that had developed much earlier in such writers as Barnabas and applied them literally, maintaining that Jews were the enemies of their own God and, therefore, had to be punished and destroyed. The ugly, painful, and notorious history of Christian anti-Semitism is in some ways a direct result of writings such as these. One can only imagine how much worse it would have been had the epistle of Barnabas actually succeeded in making it into the canon. Ŷ Bart Ehrman, After the New Testament, reading 15. Jay Treat, “Barnabas, Epistle of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. I, pp. 611–614. John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Rosemary Ruether , Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425). 1. How are Barnabas’s attitudes toward Jews and the Jewish Scriptures still evident among Christians today? 2. To what extent can the horri ¿ c acts of anti-Semitism of the twentieth century be traced back to the kind of anti-Jewish polemic that we ¿ nd in early Christian authors? Essential Reading Supplementary Reading Questions to Consider

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Ps 22:18 ] 35 Now the people stood by, watching; but even the rulers ridiculed and sneered at Him, saying, “He saved others [from death]; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed) of God, His Chosen One.” 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him and [cruelly] offering Him sour wine, [Ps 69:21 ; Matt 27:48 ; Mark 15:36f ; John 19:29 , 30 ] 37 and sarcastically saying, “If you are [really] the King of the Jews, save Yourself [from death]!” 38 Now there was also an inscription above Him: “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 39 One of the criminals who had been hanged [on a cross beside Him] kept hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us [from death]!” 40 But the other one rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 “We are suffering justly, because we are getting what we deserve for what we have done; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, [please] remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” 43 Jesus said to him, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, today you will be with Me in i Paradise.” [2 Cor 12:4 ; Rev 2:7 ] 44 It was now about the sixth hour (noon), and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour (3:00 p.m.), [Matt 27:45–56 ; Mark 15:33–41 ; John 19:14 ] 45 because the sun was j obscured; and the veil [of the Holy of Holies] of the temple was k torn in two [from top to bottom]. [Ex 26:31–35 ] 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO Y OUR HANDS I COMMIT M Y SPIRIT !” Having said this, He breathed His last. [Ps 31:5 ] 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he began praising and honoring God, saying, “Certainly this Man was innocent.” 48 All the crowds who had gathered for this spectacle, when they saw what had happened, began to return [to their homes], beating their breasts [as a sign of mourning or repentance]. 49 And all His acquaintances and the women who had accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, watching these things. Jesus Is Buried 50 A man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court), a good and honorable man [Matt 27:57–61 ; Mark 15:42–47 ; John 19:38–42 ] 51 (he had not consented to the Council’s plan and action) a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for and expecting the kingdom of God; 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  the principal persecutors of Christianity. Paul had a visionary experience in which Jesus appeared to him, and he converted to Christianity. Paul developed the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection led to the salvation of the world. Paul had differentiated between his gospel message and the Jewish law, maintaining that a person is made right with God by faith in Christ, completely apart from following —————_—_—_—_————L_—____—Se Marcion thought that the requirements of the law. Paul was the one apostle Marcion pressed this differentiation to who rightly understood the nature of the a logical conclusion. There is a radical disjunction between law and_ gospel. a The God who gave us the gospel cannot, Christian message. therefore, be the god who gave the law; the law was given to the Jews by the Jewish God. The gospel was given by Jesus—evidently from a different god. The logical conclusion: The God of Jesus was not at all the God of the Jews. The Jewish God created this world, called Israel to be his people, and gave them his law. Because they could not keep the law, they were condemned by the wrathful justice of their God. Perry-Castafieda Library, University of Texas at Austin. Lecture 3: Christians Who Refuse To Be Jews In contrast, the God of Jesus is a God of mercy and love. Jesus came to save people from the just wrath of the Old Testament God who created this world. Jesus himself could obviously not belong to the creator God or to the material world that he created: Marcion’s conclusion was that Jesus was not actually born into this world or part of it. He was not a flesh-and-blood human but a phantasm. Scholars have called this view docetism, from the Greek word dokeo for “to seem, to appear.” The Jewish God required a death penalty for those who sinned; given that Jesus died for others, the Jewish God was compelled to accept his sacrifice for the sake of others (even though it was a deception, because Jesus did not have a real body). Marcion developed his views in two major literary productions, one of which he wrote and the other he edited. His Antitheses (= contradictory statements) contrasted the Old Testament God of wrath with Jesus’ God of love and mercy. The Old Testament God, for example, tells the Israelites to murder all their enemies in Jericho, but the God of Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies. The God of the Old Testament allowed the prophet Elisha to call out a bear to attack and kill the children who were taunting him; Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me.” The God of the Old Testament said “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree”; the God of Jesus ordered him, the one who was blessed, to be hanged on a tree.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  n the past two lectures, we have examined the beliefs of two second- century Christian groups declared heretical: the Ebionites and the Marcionites. The views of these groups were strongly at odds with each other. Not only was each of these groups declared heretical by the other, but both were also attacked by the proto-orthodox who insisted that they were wrong. Of even greater concern to the proto-orthodox, though, were religious movements that historians call Gnostic. In this lecture and the next, we will discuss the nature of the gnostic religions before examining several of the sacred writings revered by individual gnostic groups, writings now known through one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of modern times. Before we begin, we must first define some of our terms. Gnosticism is a modern term used to refer to a widely diverse set of ancient religions that shared some key features. The term comes from the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge.” The gnostic religions all maintained that salvation comes through knowledge. Knowledge of what? Gnostics did not claim that only the smartest people would be saved. The knowledge involved was secret, esoteric—knowledge available to those who are chosen—although ultimately it was self-knowledge, knowledge of who you really are, where you came from, how you got here, and how you can return. As we will see more fully in the next lecture, the different gnostic religions maintained that this material world is a place of imprisonment for sparks of the divine, which became entrapped here, in human bodies, because of a cosmic disaster. For the divine element to be liberated from this evil material world, it needs to learn who it really is and how it can escape. These religions have struck a sympathetic note for many people today, who also 19 Lecture 4: Early Gnostic Christianity—Our Sources feel alienated from this world. In this lecture, we will examine our sources for this ancient worldview. Until 1945, virtually our only sources of information about the gnostic religions were the lengthy and vitriolic attacks against them in the writings of proto-orthodox church fathers, such as Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 180 A.D.); Tertullian of Carthage (200 A.D.); and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.). These authors don’t hold back in attacking their gnostic opponents, who are ruthlessly denounced for espousing ridiculous myths, being completely self-contradictory, misleading the innocent, and engaging in wild and _licentious activities that show their true colors. There was, naturally, some question about how reliable these proto- orthodox accounts could be. With the discovery of original gnostic documents, we can now evaluate the patristic reports—the writings of the church fathers—and get a much clearer picture of what the Gnostics were really like.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  ] 15 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert to Judaism), and when he becomes a convert, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, that is nothing (non-binding); but whoever swears [an oath] by the gold of the temple is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the sanctuary of the temple that sanctified the gold? [Ex 30:29 ] 18 “And [you scribes and Pharisees say], ‘Whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, that is nothing (non-binding), but whoever swears [an oath] by the offering on it, he is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].’ 19 “You [spiritually] blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, swears both by it and by everything [offered] on it. 21 “And whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells within it. [1 Kin 8:13 ; Ps 26:8 ] 22 “And whoever swears [an oath] by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth (tithe) of your mint and dill and cumin [focusing on minor matters], and have neglected the weightier [more important moral and spiritual] provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the [primary] things you ought to have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You [spiritually] blind guides, who strain out a gnat [consuming yourselves with miniscule matters] and swallow a camel [ignoring and violating God’s precepts]! [Lev 11:24 ; 27:30 ; Mic 6:8 ] 25 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and robbery and self-indulgence (unrestrained greed). 26 “You [spiritually] blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the plate [examine and change your inner self to conform to God’s precepts], so that the outside [your public life and deeds] may be clean also. 27 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which look beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 “So you, also, outwardly seem to be just and upright to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [Ps 5:9 ] 29 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

• From Confessions of the Flesh (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 4) (2021)

  There does exist, however, a peculiar trait in the hyena that is not found in any other animal. Clement describes it by following Aristotle, almost word for word.61 It involves an outgrowth of flesh that traces a form below the tail very similar to a female sex, but a quick inspection will show that this cavity does not open into any canal leading toward the womb or the intestine. But Clement doesn’t treat this anatomical feature as Aristotle does. The latter uses it to explain how hasty observers let themselves be misled by the ambiguity of appearance: they thought they saw two sexes on the same animal; he sees this only as a case of human error of interpretation. But Clement sees in this anatomical peculiarity an element that has a relation of both effect and instrument to a moral fault. If hyenas have a body that’s arranged in such an odd way, this is because of a defect. A defect “of nature,” taking “nature” to mean the characteristic traits of a species, but a defect that is nonetheless utterly similar to a moral fault found in men: lasciviousness. And it’s in view of this defect that “nature” has devised a supplementary cavity in these animals for them to use for their equally supplementary sallies. In sum, to the “excessive” natural propensity for pleasure that characterizes the hyena, nature has responded with an excessive anatomy that enables “excessive” relations. But, in this, nature shows that it’s not only in terms of quantity that one must speak of excess: since the hyenas’ surplus pouch is not connected by any channel to the organs of generation, the excess is “useless,” or more precisely cut off from the end that nature has assigned to the organs of generation, to sexual relations, to semen and its emission—that is, procreation. And since this finality is disrespected in this way, it is a counter-natural activity that this tendency to misbehavior, both natural and excessive, permits and encourages. So we have a whole cycle that goes from nature to contrary-to-nature, or rather a constant intertwining of nature and counter-nature that gives hyenas a blameworthy trait, excessive inclinations, extra organs, and the means to use them “for nothing.”62

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Suppression Slightly different from sulking or withdrawal, there are some who simply deny their anger feelings... maybe even to themselves. They might tell you they are “fine” despite some very real feelings of frustration and irritation. On the Anger Expression Inventory I mentioned earlier, this type of expression style, called Anger Expression-In, is measured through items like, “I boil inside, but I don’t show it” or “I tend to harbor grudges that I don’t tell anyone about.” This sort of anger suppression might be invisible to the people around them. It isn’t quite the same as the pouting or withdrawal mentioned before because with those forms of anger there might be an acknowledgement of the anger, but an unwillingness to talk about it. The person is essentially saying, “I’m mad, but don’t want to talk about it and would prefer to be alone.” Here, though, the person simply doesn’t share that they are angry. They won’t acknowledge their anger to you even if you ask. So you may know or believe them to be angry, but they won’t admit it. Sarcasm Dr. Clifford Lazarus, a well-known and respected clinical and health psychologist, once said “sarcasm is actually hostility disguised as humor.” 56 While I’m not sure this is always the case, there is definitely some truth here. Sarcasm can indeed be motivated by anger in that people will use it to deal with mild or major frustrations they experience. Their computer crashes and they respond with “Well that’s just great.” Someone asks if they need help with something that they are obviously struggling with and they respond with “No, I’m really enjoying this.” Sarcasm isn’t likely intended to be hostile. In fact, it might be a way of making light of the very real pain they are suffering. Like a lot of humor, sarcasm might exist as a way of lightening mood and making social interactions more pleasant. When something bad happens to them, instead of acknowledging the frustration and disappointment directly, they might say, “So that’s nice” or “Isn’t that just perfect.” It can also, though, be a semi-aggressive way of

• From From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (2004)

  that Jesus himself was Jewish, the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people to fulfill the Jewish Law. 1. This can be seen in the opening passages of his Gospel (the birth narratives). 2. And it is a theme that recurs throughout, for example, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17—20). On the other hand, he blames the Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus for his death and portrays them as blind, hypocritical, and opposed to the will of God. 1. The Jewish leaders are condemned in vitriolic terms in this Gospel (chapter 23). 2. The Jewish people are portrayed as complicit in their blind rejection of Jesus (for example, 27:25). Even so, this understanding of the Jewishness of Jesus was significant for some later groups of Christians, who saw themselves as the “true” Jews and who kept the Jewish Law and customs on the understanding that Jesus himself was thoroughly Jewish. The apostle Paul took a different tack and maintained a different perspective, one that became yet more important historically for the development of Christianity A. Paul, too, accepted Jesus’s Jewishness and saw himself as thoroughly Jewish, a worshiper of the Jewish God and a believer in his promises. As we Saw in the previous lecture, however, Paul came to believe that Jesus’s death and Resurrection were the only way of salvation and concluded that the Law of the Jews, although itself embodying God’s righteous demands, had no role to play in salvation. I. Asaresult, he insisted that Christians are made right with God apart from the Law. 2. For him, this meant that Gentiles, who were quickly becoming the majority in the church by the middle to late first century, did not need to keep the provisions of the Law (such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and kosher food laws). 3. Paul understood this as being the goal of the Law itself—the salvation to be brought by Christ apart from the Law. 4. The result was that faith in Christ was not just a Jewish option but was available to all. C. This marks the beginning of Christianity as a non-Jewish religion, which stood over against Judaism and could portray the Jews themselves as outsiders to the promises that God had made to the Jewish ancestors—promises now seen, by the Christians, as being fulfilled not for the Jews but for the followers of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. D. This is probably why Paul is commonly understood as anti-Jewish. But it is important to realize that he saw himself as thoroughly Jewish and representing the views of the Jewish God as set forth in the Jewish Bible. E. Even so, once Paul’s doctrine was established that a person’s relationship to God is independent of the Jewish Law and Jewish culture, something new had obviously begun, leading to the developments of Christianity as an anti-Jewish religion.