Quadratus of Athens

Santorini Greece: Facebook

On Sunday, our pastor in his sermon mentioned Quadratus of Athens, that I do not remember hearing or reading about, previously. An interesting non-biblical, post-New Testament era, source.

From

Early Christian Writings

Cited

Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE. 

Here is the reference from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.3.

1 After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Aelius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 

2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." Such then was Quadratus. 

Eusebius, (260/265-339/340, Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae (History of the Church) IV.3

Our pastor cited this source as non-biblical support for the historical (religious history) resurrections performed by Jesus Christ. These persons, of course, ultimately died again, and were not immortal, in contrast to the resurrection of Christ in the gospels which featured the immortal resurrection body. I would state this is the spiritual, physical resurrected body described in 1 Corinthians 15.

New American Standard Bible

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption
1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption

Cited again from

Early Christian Writings

Here is the reference from Jerome, Illustrious Men 19.

Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, after Publius bishop of Athens had been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in Christ, was substituted in his place, and by his faith and industry gathered the church scattered by reason of its great fear. And when Hadrian passed the winter at Athens to witness the Eleusinian mysteries and was initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece, those who hated the Christians took opportunity without instructions from the Emperor to harass the believers. At this time he presented to Hadrian a work composed in behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching. In which, illustrating the antiquity of his period, he says that he has seen many who, oppressed by various ills, were healed by the Lord in Judea as well as some who had been raised from the dead.

Angers, France: Wikipedia

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

From my good friend, Ernest Hepner

Claim: The existence of God is not provable or disprovable

Introduction

This was implied by a major (intellectual) American broadcaster, that appears on Canadian media, yesterday, with the question, ‘Does God exist?’ meaning he views it as not provable that God, does or does not exist.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595).

Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667).

Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21).

A priori reasoning will also be used within rationalism.

Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).

Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30).

This could lead to scientism… Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30).

This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, such as the existence of God. But even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence.

In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence, the existence of God.

BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22).

First Cause: Philosophy of Religion &Theology

Even if the Hebrew Bible and New Testament documents could be proven historically false (not my academic or personal, position), this in my mind would in no way by default demonstrate the likelihood of secularism, atheism or agnosticism as correct views. First cause is a major philosophical problem. As matter is finite and cannot be its own cause as this would cause a vicious regress, it requires a cause beyond matter and time and space, which are also finite. As example, one also cannot have a vicious regress of time or the present time would never be arrived.

A vicious regress never solves its own problem...(logical or not).

Philosophical arguments for first cause do not prove the existence of the Biblical God but can serve as parallel truth to the creation story of Genesis 1. I use arguments for God being philosophically and theologically the first cause and this parallels the Genesis (1-3) creation account without being explicitly biblical. Deism or a related theism, in my mind is a far more likely alternative to Christianity than a non-theistic view, although I fully believe in the Biblical texts. Although Deism, and related theisms, do not accept a God that reveals self it still accepts the God of first cause.

First cause provides premises which prove, philosophically and theologically, in a sense, the existence of God.

Bible: Biblical Studies & Theology

It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Footnotes: Romans 1:18 Or by Romans 1:19 Or among

Within a biblical Christian worldview and Christian theology, the Scripture is legitimate, well-documented with manuscript evidence, religious history. God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses as a priori.

Jesus Christ as God’s key supernatural representative (yet God-man), was preceded by Hebrew Bible, prophets and writers and John the Baptist in the New Testament, and followed by the disciples of Jesus Christ and the apostles and scribes in the New Testament era. Post-New Testament era, followed by the Church Fathers, forward.

The Scripture provides religious history, via supernatural and human sources, which in a sense, proves the existence of God.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.  

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

May 20, 2023: From Blogger 

God is the first cause of all things within divine perfect and permissible wills. God is also the primary cause of all things, within divine perfect and permissible wills. Angelic, demonic and human beings would be secondary causes, as non-exhaustive examples, of simultaneous (with primary cause) thoughts, will, acts and actions. The primary cause motives of God would be infinite and holy. The secondary cause motives of angels would be finite and holy. The secondary cause motives of demonic beings and human beings would be finite and tainted by evil to various degrees. Demonic motives thoroughly evil, it can be deduced. The Holy Spirit guided believer can prayerfully aim for secondary motives that would be within God's perfect will, although still tainted until the resurrection in body (or at least Paradise in spirit). (1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 12).

Logic & common sense

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God..

God the Son equals God

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨ (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

My learning and review continues:

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

The review continues...

Chapter X

Abstraction and Interpretation

Logic is the study of forms. (240). The forms are derived from common experience, reality, life or whatever we choose to call it by abstraction. (240).

I would state that logic should lead to common sense. Non-contradiction in reasoning.

The 'science of logic' (240) is a steady progression from the concrete to the abstract. (240). Langer writes that this continues from contents with certain forms to those forms without those contents, from instances to kinds from examples to concepts. (240).

Langer explains that in symbolic logic there is a replacement of concrete individual elements by formalized elements of variable meaning. (240). Those meanings would be fixed within the context of that symbolic logic. (240).

Langer's example from 241...

K = houses
nt = north of

(a) . ˜ (a nt a)

(House A is therefore not north of itself, House A)

But based on Langer

a nt b. ⊃ ˜ (b nt a)

(House A is north of House B, therefore is the same as House B is not north of House A)

Taking concrete theology to abstraction.

Biblical Christian theology states Jesus Christ equals God.

JC = Jesus Christ

G = God

JC ⊃ G

(Jesus Christ is the same as God)

JC ⊨ G

(Jesus Christ entails God)

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (JC ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, Jesus Christ exists)

GS = God the Son

(G ∃!) ∴ ⊨  (GS ∃)

(God exists, therefore entails, God the Son exists)

Key symbols ≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s) ε = Epsilon and means is ⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails ˜ = Not ∃ = There exists ∃! = There exists ∴ = Therefore . = Therefore > = Is included v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable = Conjunction meaning And 0 = Null class cls = Class int = Interpretation

One never learns and understands the true nature of reality

On Facebook I recently viewed a critique of religion and Christianity which included, paraphrased, the idea that believing a religious worldview, if false, leads to the following:

One never learns and understands the true nature of reality.

Not learning and understanding reality, is indeed true in some cases, when a person is not significantly open-minded and educated, however...

In an absolute sense, academically and philosophically, I reject this idea because it is possible and reasonable to learn and understand many worldviews and positions on reality; while only accepting one as true. British MPhil/PhD theses research is largely about the pursuit of learning and understanding many worldviews.

In my work I studied various views within Christianity and outside of it.

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: 

MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Worldview

I fully admit the problem of evil is a difficult topic. There is always much more to learn with this topic but I do have some background with the subject. My world view is one of a Christian conservative who views Scripture as historically and philosophically valid. I believe God guided writers to communicate his word and that Scripture demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ accurately.

I realize the original Scriptural autographs are missing, and it is not my place here to discuss Greek manuscripts, but there is a consistency in manuscript evidence which can be found, and within the Scriptural message there is philosophical consistency. At times, there is present theological progression in thought, for example Christ’s work established a New Covenant which replaced Old Testament Law, but there appears in Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Holy City of Revelation, a consistent progressive plan of God to restore his creation.

Although I am conservative in theological position, one of the reasons I entered the University of Wales and the British academic system was because I realized there was liberal theology, and I needed to interact with that theology over time. One must be open minded in order to be scholarly, and realize that truth is truth, and whether written or spoken by a liberal of conservative, it does not matter. I firmly believe that one theological tradition does not contain all the answers, so within my text, most of my authors are conservative as they supported my ideas, but I did not hesitate to quote someone who may be liberal, if what they stated was valid and relevant to my work.

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Some works on the problem of evil In alphabetical order:

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. Augustine was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe.

Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Gebara is a Brazilian, feminist, Catholic sister. The back of the text notes that she is one of Latin America’s leading theologians. The book is interesting because, although no formal theodicy or defence is presented, she looks at the problem of evil from the perspective of the suffering of women. Gebara, Ivone (2002: 13-59) I can agree with Gebara that women within this corrupted creation have experienced much suffering, and some of it has not been thoroughly acknowledged. However, I disagree with her tendency to reinterpret the Christian faith, for example concerning the doctrine of physical resurrection which she reasons is idealistic theory. Gebara (2002: 122). She thinks it more valuable to look at resurrection in metaphorical terms today as lives are improved and evil resisted. Gebara (2002: 122).

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions.

Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292).

I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN, C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk, Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.