Have I been here before?

No, not metempsychosis aka reincarnation, but as here?

Is this the instance of the fingerpost hiding in plain sight?

Jesus is dead in 31. Paul is struck down by Him (or guilt) in 37. In 6 years the Church was a thriving, widespread, international, underground network. Driven underground after significant, dangerous, social justice was rapidly achieved 31-34 led by Stephen, a Hellenized Jew, amongst others.

At the very least it speaks to Jesus the martyred peaceful subversive social revolutionary as the proximal source.

I've had the pieces before, but they've only just come together in this Heraclitus loop.

Could Jesus and His followers, including Paul, have achieved this naturally? In less than a decade from the start of His ministry? Is Incarnation required?

This makes the novel harder work!

Comments

  • Hmmm. We haven't been acquainted that long. What do YOU think? HAVE you been here before?

    What seems different about this current dive?

    I expect you will answer your questions naturalistically. Don't you?

    What IS the timeline on getting this novel published, by the way?
  • Not in the same Heraclitus loop, no.

    A robed, provincial, ME, Jewish carpenter set an underground fire burning that consumed the greatest empire the world had seen within 300 years. It's still burning. It was well alight in 3 years on the surface.

    It's that initial historical ignition that is fascinating.

    I can't even get my expenses 'published' at the moment. I've had 4 bookings at the hall in the last two days, those are the ones that won out. I ran out of chairs twice and had to drag posh ones up from the church. One drag (well three actually) on another.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Sol invictus? Or another cycle of hope and experience.

    The same star that gave us life, shares your life. A bonny, bouncing baby, born in a nursery without walls. And then, ignition!

    Sun, wind, rain and sun again. The season cycle doesn't trap you, it sustains you. Light gazes down upon you.

    And hopes, if the stellar tales are true, to share our cycle of life. A second ignition!

    From stardust we were born, to stardust we return.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's that initial historical ignition that is fascinating.

    I can't even get my expenses 'published' at the moment. I've had 4 bookings at the hall in the last two days, those are the ones that won out. I ran out of chairs twice and had to drag posh ones up from the church. One drag (well three actually) on another.

    Sorry.* I keep pushing around the pieces you laid out the table. I picked them up to inspect the backs. I don't understand what about them looks different to you this time.

    This reminds me of Stephen Wright's story about thieves coming in, stealing all his furniture and replacing it with exact replicas.

    I"m missing the subtle difference you're trying to point out. I'm sorry.

    Is this a loop, because it's all the same evidence coming back around again, but appearing different somehow?

    Anyway, Happy New Year!



    *(Midwest U.S. & Canada usage)
  • Superb. Bloody funny too.

    So, I've mithered on about the Church exploding from nothing before? It's me age. And it was two runnings out and two sets of three drags. Up. And back.

    Is the Church unnatural? Does it require Incarnation? Nothing else comes close now. Paul collided with the Church. The Church won.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    So, I've mithered on about the Church exploding from nothing before? It's me age.

    And it was two runnings out and two sets of three drags. Up. And back.

    Is the Church unnatural? Does it require Incarnation? Nothing else comes close now. Paul collided with the Church. The Church won.

    Na. No Mitherin'.
    It's not you. Or your age.

    Can you help with the running and dragging? Please?

    Iffin' it did?
  • Ran outta chairs twice. Had to make 2 x 3 sets o' runs up th'ill wi't' 'and trolley in't' rain on't' 29th & 30th and 6 downhill on't' 31st as they were needed f't' New Year's.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    Thank you. Sorry about the rain. And the hauling in it. The mind goes elsewhere at times. Not bad.

    Until I understood you had t' 'and trolley, I was speccing one out for you in my 'ead.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Is the Church unnatural? Does it require Incarnation? Nothing else comes close now. Paul collided with the Church. The Church won.
    Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
    Paul fought the church, and the church won
    Paul fought the church, and the church won


    I've never considered the church to be very mysterious or a mystery - the church that we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste is an entirely natural phenomenon. An institution. Its growth trajectory isn't dissimilar to social media, taking into account means and speed of communication.

    It's a rather less convincing fingerpost than some of the others you've pursued. The only meaningful fingerposts you'll find here are the ones we all make when we tap the digits on the ends of our arms on the buttons on our keyboards and screens.
  • pease wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Is the Church unnatural? Does it require Incarnation? Nothing else comes close now. Paul collided with the Church. The Church won.
    Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
    Paul fought the church, and the church won
    Paul fought the church, and the church won


    I've never considered the church to be very mysterious or a mystery - the church that we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste is an entirely natural phenomenon. An institution. Its growth trajectory isn't dissimilar to social media, taking into account means and speed of communication.

    It's a rather less convincing fingerpost than some of the others you've pursued. The only meaningful fingerposts you'll find here are the ones we all make when we tap the digits on the ends of our arms on the buttons on our keyboards and screens.

    The Church now and for most of the past 1700 years isn't mysterious, no. But for the first 6 is. Exponentially so back to June 31 AD.
  • Kendel wrote: »
    Thank you. Sorry about the rain. And the hauling in it. The mind goes elsewhere at times. Not bad.

    Until I understood you had t' 'and trolley, I was speccing one out for you in my 'ead.

    That 'u'd be th' 'and trolley wi'out wi'.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Martin54 wrote: »
    pease wrote: »

    I've never considered the church to be very mysterious or a mystery - the church that we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste is an entirely natural phenomenon. An institution. Its growth trajectory isn't dissimilar to social media, taking into account means and speed of communication.

    It's a rather less convincing fingerpost than some of the others you've pursued. The only meaningful fingerposts you'll find here are the ones we all make when we tap the digits on the ends of our arms on the buttons on our keyboards and screens.
    The Church now and for most of the past 1700 years isn't mysterious, no. But for the first 6 is. Exponentially so back to June 31 AD.
    It's hard to recognise that as a fingerpost in the sense that Bacon meant:
    When in the investigation of any nature the understanding is so balanced as to be uncertain to which of two or more natures the cause of the nature in question should be assigned, on account of the frequent and ordinary concurrence of many natures, Instances of the Fingerpost show the union of one of the natures with the nature in question to be sure and indissoluble, of the other to be varied and separable; and thus the question is decided, and the former nature is admitted as the cause, while the latter is dismissed and rejected. Such instances afford very great light, and are of high authority, the course of interpretation sometimes ending in them and being completed. Sometimes these Instances of the Fingerpost meet us accidentally among those already noticed; but for the most part they are new, and are expressly and designedly sought for and applied, and discovered only by earnest and active diligence.
    He gives examples of inquiry: the tidal ebb and flow of the sea; the daily motion of the sun and stars; gravity; induced magnetic polarity and other observable phenomena.
  • True @pease. But we bring the beholder's share to ideas over four hundred years.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    edited January 2024
    Referencing a theory about sensory perception in relation to an abstract idea is interesting, unless you're making a point about how you process information. (Though Bacon would probably recognise it).

    The image of the first six years that you are looking at is heavily influenced by 2000 years' interpolation and restoration by the church's own scribes, scholars and historians.

    Why prefer that to the vision of 100,000 souls in one year of the 1904-1905 Welsh Revival of just over 100 years ago? Is it all down to the share you bring to the party?
  • I'm not interested in anything the Church's own made up after the fact of the Church that Paul collided with. The gospels are not that immediate, even if any of their sources were in the first circle. It's about what we can infer.

    Revivals are two a penny,
    American society experienced a number of "Awakenings" around the years 1727, 1792, 1830, 1857 and 1882. More recent revivals in the 20th century include those of the 1904–1905 Welsh Revival, 1906 (Azusa Street Revival), 1930s (Balokole), 1970s (Jesus people), 1971 Bario Revival and 1909 Chile Revival which spread in the Americas, Africa, and Asia among Protestants and Catholics.
    etc, etc, etc

    What makes the Welsh an instance of the fingerpost?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'm used to not being able to understand what Martin54 is talking about, but now here's a thread where I can't understand what anyone else on this thread is saying either.

    Is it just me? Or is that the point? It's just going round in a perpetual circle that never gets anywhere, like a toy train in a shop window.

  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'm not interested in anything the Church's own made up after the fact of the Church that Paul collided with. The gospels are not that immediate, even if any of their sources were in the first circle. It's about what we can infer.

    Revivals are two a penny,
    ...
    What makes the Welsh an instance of the fingerpost?
    What I was asking is the difference is that *you* see between them, that makes the very early church a fingerpost, but not the Welsh revival.

    The short, initial, unnatural phase was succeeded by a rather longer natural, (institutional), phase. Many of the elements of the unnatural phase have subsequently been replayed, at various times and places, over the subsequent 2000 years. To denote all of them as being natural, but the initial concurrence as being unnatural looks little different to ascribing omnipotent creativity to the big bang and everything thereafter as natural philosophy.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm used to not being able to understand what Martin54 is talking about, but now here's a thread where I can't understand what anyone else on this thread is saying either.

    Is it just me? Or is that the point? It's just going round in a perpetual circle that never gets anywhere, like a toy train in a shop window.
    You're right about the circle. The rest is narrative, but less entertaining.
  • pease wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'm not interested in anything the Church's own made up after the fact of the Church that Paul collided with. The gospels are not that immediate, even if any of their sources were in the first circle. It's about what we can infer.

    Revivals are two a penny,
    ...
    What makes the Welsh an instance of the fingerpost?
    What I was asking is the difference is that *you* see between them, that makes the very early church a fingerpost, but not the Welsh revival.

    The short, initial, unnatural phase was succeeded by a rather longer natural, (institutional), phase. Many of the elements of the unnatural phase have subsequently been replayed, at various times and places, over the subsequent 2000 years. To denote all of them as being natural, but the initial concurrence as being unnatural looks little different to ascribing omnipotent creativity to the big bang and everything thereafter as natural philosophy.

    The 1700 hundred years of establishment Christianity with all its fissiparity and dependent interaction with social development certainly doesn't inspire. It's never delivered the promise of that first handful of years.

    It's obvious sociologically where the Welsh revival comes from. Is the birth and human scale infancy and lifespan of the C1st Church sociologically impossible?

    Or just the second half of the novel?

  • Sure, you can 'explain' the Welsh Revival sociologically and some of it is shrouded in as many myths as early Christianity. I don't see why we have to make a distinction between the first 6, 60 or 600 years of Christianity and whatever happened since.

    There's a kind of ultra-purist 'restorationist' Protestantism that seems to hold that everything was hunky-dory for about two hours on a Thursday afternoon somewhere around 6 AD only for it all to go down hill after that.
  • That's fine if you can't differentiate the very beginning of something, the Church, with its intrinsic socio-economic impact, with something much later which came out of socio-economic impact on the Church translated almost unrecognisably in space and time.
  • Well both Orthodox and Roman Catholics emphasise continuity of course, whilst acknowledging evolutionary development.

    Whether that development leads to something 'unrecognisable' over time is a moot point, of course.

    Sure, I don't imagine first century Christians would have foreseen St Peter's in Rome or Soul Survivor or TV evangelists or ...
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm used to not being able to understand what Martin54 is talking about, but now here's a thread where I can't understand what anyone else on this thread is saying either.

    Is it just me? Or is that the point? It's just going round in a perpetual circle that never gets anywhere, like a toy train in a shop window.
    You’re not the only one…😕
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Martin54 wrote: »
    A robed, provincial, ME, Jewish carpenter set an underground fire burning that consumed the greatest empire the world had seen within 300 years. It's still burning. It was well alight in 3 years on the surface.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The Church now and for most of the past 1700 years isn't mysterious, no. But for the first 6 is. Exponentially so back to June 31 AD.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That's fine if you can't differentiate the very beginning of something, the Church, with its intrinsic socio-economic impact, with something much later which came out of socio-economic impact on the Church translated almost unrecognisably in space and time.
    Posts on this thread increasingly suggest to me the inferred existence of an initial unnaturally ignited proto-church that spawned multiple natural instances. Is the underground fire of this proto-church still burning?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'm not interested in anything the Church's own made up after the fact of the Church that Paul collided with. The gospels are not that immediate, even if any of their sources were in the first circle. It's about what we can infer.
    ...
    What continues to strike me about this post is your use of *we*.

    And whatever else the very early church is, it's community. You're talking about the unnatural creation of a natural(?) community - and your desire to see it as a fingerpost. In this context, you seem to be appealing to this particular natural community (ie these forums) for something - although what that something is, is unclear - "confirmation" seems inapt; maybe it's "vigorous contemplation" (but there are other possibilities).

    Whatever it is, it illustrates the complex relationship between that which sustains individuals and that which sustains communities.
  • It's the hoped for existence of the initial unnaturally ignited proto-Church. Nature takes over PDQ, for ill and good. Until the posited unnatural disappears. Within three generations at most. Within another two hundred years it naturally took over the community from Carlisle to Aqaba and had long spread far and south east.

    I guess I'll have to raise the question elsewhere.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    edited January 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Superb. Bloody funny too.

    So, I've mithered on about the Church exploding from nothing before? It's me age. And it was two runnings out and two sets of three drags. Up. And back.

    Is the Church unnatural? Does it require Incarnation? Nothing else comes close now. Paul collided with the Church. The Church won.
    @Martin54, sorry, I got distracted days ago by Steven Wright and visions of you hauling chairs. And by demands that the thread be more entertaining. Check's in the mail presumably.

    I feel like I have little to contribute except encouragement to keep searching. I don't know much at all about the infant church and can really only give you a good, old parochial, "Well, sure it was supernatural and required Incarnation!" But I don't think that is at all what you are looking for.

    Perhaps I can contribute something I do professionally: a reference interview.
    Kendel: Hello, Mr. X. I understand you are interested in researching the possibility of the super- or unnatural nature of the inception of the Church and its first few years.

    I assume you are looking for events that can't possibly have happened naturally. Do you have a feel for the type of information you lack in order to answer your question? What sources do you think would be reliable for this kind of enquiry? Are any of the biblical sources you would find reliable enough? Do you think extrabiblical sources will be required for your research?

    Your turn:

    Name removed
    North East Quine, Purgatory host
  • questioningquestioning Shipmate
    edited January 2024
    Kendel: Hello, Mr. X. I understand you are interested in researching the possibility of the super- or unnatural nature of the inception of the Church and its first few years.

    I assume you are looking for events that can't possibly have happened naturally. Do you have a feel for the type of information you lack in order to answer your question? What sources do you think would be reliable for this kind of enquiry? Are any of the biblical sources you would find reliable enough? Do you think extrabiblical sources will be required for your research?

    This . is . brilliant.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    @Martin54, you left your materials on Infinity in the reading room the other day. They're on the Hold Shelf at the Reference Desk where you can pick them up when you're in next
    .
    But Dang! That got me thinking about your question. Assuming .... you know, you find what you're yearning for about the early church and incarnation, where does Infinity fit?
  • Assuming He turns up, He fits in infinity. Which fits in Love. He is an intersection of the two. That can't change.
Sign In or Register to comment.