Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 02-15-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa, you apparently really don't get what I'm saying here at all:

OF COURSE the gospels represent Jesus as a God and as a man.....

I am saying what the evidence says but you are saying something else.

aa, I've tried to be very nice to you on a number of occasions. Your response -- which doesn't even acknowledge what I wrote -- is IMO valid grounds for me to take off the gloves:

The Gospels represent Jesus as both God and man. No amount of quoting by you or anyone else can change that obvious fact.

Your attempts to twist the words around are nothing other than deceptive and manipulative and quite frankly IMO intentionally irritating. WE are NOT talking about the evidence in the Gospels for Jesus being a man in this thread. We ARE (at least we were) talking about what the evidence was for 1st and 2nd century individuals believing that Jesus had been a man or not.

Your interjections here are completely unacceptable and juvenile and I will no longer respond to you.

aa5874 · 02-16-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am saying what the evidence says but you are saying something else.

aa, I've tried to be very nice to you on a number of occasions. Your response -- which doesn't even acknowledge what I wrote -- is IMO valid grounds for me to take off the gloves:

The Gospels represent Jesus as both God and man. No amount of quoting by you or anyone else can change that obvious fact.

Your attempts to twist the words around are nothing other than deceptive and manipulative and quite frankly IMO intentionally irritating. WE are NOT talking about the evidence in the Gospels for Jesus being a man in this thread. We ARE (at least we were) talking about what the evidence was for 1st and 2nd century individuals believing that Jesus had been a man or not.

Your interjections here are completely unacceptable and juvenile and I will no longer respond to you.

Do not ever ATTEMPT to respond to me if you don't know what you are talking about.

I do NOT even know that you EXIST when I post. In other words, I do NOT even know if you can respond to me.

Now, what century is Clement of Rome?

What century is Ignatius?

What century is Justin Martyr?

Look at this letter supposedly from the 1st century by Clement about Jesus Christ.

"Letter to the Corinthians" 59

Quote:

.... let all the nations know that You are God alone and Jesus Christ Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture.....

Look at this letter to the Romans from Ignatius.

"Letter to the Romans"

Quote:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son.....

Look at this piece of EVIDENCE from "First Apology" XXI

Quote:

..And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.....

It is evident that you don't even know what you are talking about.

I have presented EVIDENCE from the 1st and 2nd century that CLEARLY show Jesus was NOT considered a man.

You are NOT really ready to discuss the evidence that has been presented.

Now, look at "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus of the 2nd century.

"Against Heresies" 5.1.2

Quote:

.....3. Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation.......

You are NOT ready to discuss the evidence from the 1st and 2nd century. You just want to take off your "gloves" and run away.

The evidence of antiquity is OVERWHELMING from any century. Jesus Christ was NOTHING more than a Greek fable that people of antiquity BELIEVED.

TedM · 02-16-2011, 04:10 PM

aa we are done. I am walking away because you refuse to address what I'm saying. A discussion cannot happen when one party is so obsessive as to ignore the points made by the other, so there is no point. Waste of time.

aa5874 · 02-16-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa we are done. I am walking away because you refuse to address what I'm saying. A discussion cannot happen when one party is so obsessive as to ignore the points made by the other, so there is no point. Waste of time.

You claimed that you were ready to discuss the evidence. Now, that I have presented the very evidence from the 1st and 2nd century you WALK away and THROW away your glove.

You are NOT ready.

If you turn around I will be right in front of you with EVIDENCE from any century that show Jesus was NOT considered a man or of the seed of man.

I still have a passage from "On the Flesh of Christ" that you MUST see.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

....Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed......

I walk away from NO-ONE. I present EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The evidence from ANY century show that Jesus was NOT of the seed of Man.

TedM · 02-16-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The evidence from ANY century show that Jesus was NOT of the seed of Man.

aa, Paul and several gospels wrote that Jesus was the seed of Abraham and David. Do you not acknowledge at least that?

Do you also acknowledge that this thread is talking about more than just how the gospels and NT represented Jesus? That a great deal of this thread is talking about what the 1st and 2nd century writers believed with regard to whether Jesus had walked on earth and been crucified on earth, despite or because of the evidence they had access to during their own lives?

Can you at least address these issues for a change? Just give it a try...

aa5874 · 02-16-2011, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The evidence from ANY century show that Jesus was NOT of the seed of Man.

aa, Paul and several gospels wrote that Jesus was the seed of Abraham and David. Do you not acknowledge at least that?

Do you also acknowledge that this thread is talking about more than just how the gospels and NT represented Jesus? That a great deal of this thread is talking about what the 1st and 2nd century writers believed with regard to whether Jesus had walked on earth and been crucified on earth, despite or because of the evidence they had access to during their own lives?

Can you at least address these issues for a change? Just give it a try...

Are you blind?

Perhaps some-one will have to tell you what I write.

I PRESENTED evidence from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Now, I am going to Present Clement of Alexandria.

Let us see what he wrote in the Stromata 7.16

Quote:

....But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin....

It is CLEAR that Jesus was NOT considered a man in the Stromata written supposedly at around the end of the 2nd century .

Are you ready to SHOW me evidence from antiquity where Jesus was just a man and had a human father or are you going to RUN AWAY?

Toto · 02-16-2011, 08:50 PM

Hi Ted - you are not the first to try to get through to aa5874. He's set in his interpretation, and nothing will shake him. You might as well stop trying.

aa5874 · 02-16-2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Ted - you are not the first to try to get through to aa5874. He's set in his interpretation, and nothing will shake him. You might as well stop trying.

Your claim is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. I have NOT applied any special interpretation to any passage

I have simply PRESENTED passages found in writings attributed to Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria that are SELF-EXPLANATORY.

In none of those passages is Jesus Christ described as a man with a human father.

Please TELL TED M to PRESENT the "evidence" to be examined.

LOOK at ALL the evidence that I have SPENT TIME TO FIND.

Clement of Rome "Letter to the Corinthians" 59

Quote:

.... let all the nations know that You are God alone and Jesus Christ Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture.....

Ignatius "Letter to the Romans"

Quote:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son.....

]
"First Apology" XXI

Quote:

..And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.....

"Against Heresies" 5.1.2

Quote:

.....3. Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation.......

Stromata 7.16

Quote:

....But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin....

Now, let us LOOK at Origen. Did he describe Jesus as having a human father?

"De Principiis"

Quote:

........ Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures........ it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit....

The passages NEED no special interpretation they are EXTREMELY clear. The Church writers did NOT consider that Jesus was a man with a human father.

Toto · 02-16-2011, 10:27 PM

This discussion has been split off because it is a retread of old arguments.

It is true that there is no Christian document that describes Jesus as a mere man. aa5874 will not accept that these documents could ever be used as evidence for the existence of mere human. Most other people disagree. There is no resolution.

Any more posts along this line will be merged into that thread.

TedM · 02-16-2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This discussion has been split off because it is a retread of old arguments.

It is true that there is no Christian document that describes Jesus as a mere man. aa5874 will not accept that these documents could ever be used as evidence for the existence of mere human. Most other people disagree. There is no resolution.

Any more posts along this line will be merged into that thread.

Sorry you had to bother with this Toto. I have a hard time with certain rigidities in people, and the sooner I learn to accept that some people cannot be reached the better off I'll be, I guess.

aa the genealogy lists in Mt and Lk attempt to show a human link, but Toto is right: you have your interpretation and I could give you a 500 evidences in the NT where Jesus is referred to in human terms:

Here's a few from something I worked on a while back: Enjoy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

As stated in previous questions, 1 Clement attributes the appointment of apostles to Jesus, and each of our early writings reference Jesus as though he had been a man made of flesh who lived on this earth.

In the "authentic" epistles Paul actually refers to Jesus as a man 10 times (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15), having a body 4 times, made of flesh 4 times, and made of blood 3 times. He refers to him in dozens of ways that sound like he is referring to a human: In addition to the few possible references to teachings, Paul mentions to Jesus' death 28 times, his burial 2 times, the crucifixion 7 times and cross 6 times, including nailing associated with the cross. He says he was born of a women, descended from King David (twice), had brothers, had a brother named James, was Jewish, and became poor (metaphorical?), implies that Jesus referred to God as his Father using the Aramaic term "Abba", and he was crucified by rulers.

The authors of 1 Clement and Hebrews, as noted previously also both explicitly refer to Jesus as having been in the flesh (Hebrews 2:14-17 clearly says Jesus partook of the same nature of flesh and blood, "made like his brethren in every respect"), and the writings of 1 Peter and the Didache both strongly imply that Jesus had been a man.

There are some references that appear to attribute the belief in the man Jesus to known tradition:

Paul, as mentioned earlier, includes a creed which sounds like an apostolic tradition of Jesus in the flesh. In 1 Cor 15:3 he says "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received." He is saying he is passing along what was passed along to him, which begins with "Christ died" and "he was buried". Both sound like references to a man on earth, supported by a tradition.

The author of Hebrews makes a reference that sounds like it could be to a tradition stemming from Jesus: 2:2-4 "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him."

He refers to Jesus as Lord elsewhere : 7:14 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
And 13:20 "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep"

The author of 1 Peter refers to himself in 5:1 as "a fellow elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ"

I decided to 'flesh' it out with a fairly complete list I compiled a few years back. Some certainly are not definitive. Have more fun!:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

PAUL:

Romans, 16 chapters

* Was a direct descendent of King David, and his father Jesse. 1:3,15:12
* Was in the flesh 1:3,8:3, 9:4-5a
* Shed his blood 3:25, 5:9
* Was put to death 4:25
* Was a man 5:15, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19
* His death was an act of righteousness 5:18
* Was buried 6:4
* Was crucified 6:6
* Had a body 7:4
* Suffered 8:17
* Was of the Jewish race 9:5
* Was a stumbling block to Jews 9:33 Gal 5:11 says the stumbling block is the cross
* The stumbling took place in Zion (Jerusalem) 9:33
* He will come from Zion (Jerusalem) as a deliverer 11:26
* Somehow persuaded Paul that thoughts make things unclean 14:4 possible teaching of Jesus}
* Did not live to please himself, reproached by man 15:3
* Became a servant to the Jews 15:8
* He died. 16 additional verses

1 Corinthians, 16 chapters

* Was crucified 1:13,23, 2:2, 2:8
* Is associated with a cross 1:17,18
* Was crucified according to the flesh by rulers (almost for certain speaking about men) of Paul's age (time) 2:8,
* His death was a "paschal lamb" sacrifice, implying that it happened during Passover Celebration. 5:7
* He expressly forbid divorce. (if Lord applies to him) 7:10
* He had brothers 9:5
* He commanded that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (if Lord applies) 9:14
* He initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup, in the same way as presented in the gospels This is my body which is broken for you.etc. 11:23
* Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. 11:23
* He had a body with blood 11:24,27
* Jesus was buried. 15:4
* He was a man 15:20-21, 15:45, 47,47,49
* He died. 5 additional verses

2 Corinthians, 13 chapters
* He suffered 1:5
* He was sinless 5:21
* He became poor 8:9
* He was meek and gentle 10:1
* He was crucified. 13:4
* He died. 3 additional verses

Galations, 6 chapters
* He had a brother named James, who later became a pillar in the early church. (if Lord applies to him) 1:19
* He was crucified 2:20, 3:1
* He died 2:21
* He fulfilled the OT curse of those hung on a tree 3:13
* He was born in human fashion of a woman 4:4
* He was a Jew 4:4
* He referred to God as his Father using the term "abba". 4:6
* Is associated with a cross 5:11, 6:12,14

Philippians, 4 chapters
* He was in figure as a man, in human form 2:7,8
* He humbled himself 2:8
* He was obedient 2:8
* He died on a cross 2:8
* He suffered 3:10
* He died 3:10

1 Thess, 5 chapters
* Jewish authorities were responsible for Jesus' death. 2:15
* He taught about the end-time. (if Lord applies to him) 4:15
* He died. 3 additional verses

Colossians, 4 chapters
* His blood associated with the cross 1:20
* His body of flesh died 1:22
* In his body dwells deity 2:9
* Nailing associated with the cross 2:14
* He died. 2 additional references

In addition, there are numerous references to Jesus as having been raised from the dead thoughout all of Pauls epistles..

1 PETER, 5 chapters

*His sufferings were witnessed by Peter 1:1, 5:1
*He never sinned 2:22
*He didn't lie 2:22
*He didn't threaten or fight back 2:23
*He trusted God 2:23
*He died on a tree 2:24
*He lived in the flesh 3:18, 4:1
*His spirit came to life after death, and he preached to those who died previously who hadn't obeyed 3:19
*He went to heaven and sits at the right hand of God 3:22

1 JOHN, 5 chapters

*He was seen, heard and touched by the author and others 1:1
*He was sent by God 1:2
*He taught about God's purity and walking in the light 1:5
*He gave his life for sins, shedding his blood 1:7, 2:2, 3:16, 4:10
*He was "the Righteous" 2:1
*He walked (lived) as an example 2:6
*He promised eternal life 2:25
*His was a message of brotherly love 3:1, 3:23
*The world didn't know who he was 3:1
*He sent his spirit to guide others 3:24
*He came in the flesh (implied) 4:2
*He came by water and blood 5:1

DIDACHE, 16 short chapters (Charles Hoole translation)

*He had apostles (maybe 12?) Title
*He was a teacher 4:1
*He had a gospel 8:2 11:3 15:3,4
*His gospel included the Lord's prayer in full 8:2
*He was God's Son 9:2,3 10:2
*He said the following concerning the Eucharist: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs" 9:5
*The Eucharist honors Jesus as the source of everlasting life 10:3
*He is called the Son of David 10:6
*His gospel included instructions regarding the treatment of apostles and prophets 11:3
*His gospel included instructions to rebuke one another not in wrath, but peaceably 15:3
*In the end times he will come on clouds from heaven with the resurrected saints 16:7,8

A number of sayings match the gospels, but without attribution to Jesus, such as:
*First love God, your neighbor, the golden rule 1:2
*Pray for your enemies, turn the cheek 1:3,4
*The meek shall inherit the earth 3:7
*No one knows the hour of his return 16:1

Finally, there are two rituals in which he is remembered: *Baptism in his name Ch 7
*The Eucharist ch 9,10

HEBREWS, 13 chapters

*He reflected God's very nature 1:3
*He declared God's salvation and was heard by others 2:3
*His message was proved by signs, wonders, and miracles 2:4
*He lived in flesh and blood 2:14, 5:7, 10:20
*He partook of the same nature as man 2:14,17
*He was vulnerable like humans in every respect 2:17, 4:15
*Though tempted, he was sinless 4:15
*As death approached he prayed with loud cries and tears 5:7
*He was made perfect through his obedient suffering 5:9
*He was descended from Judah 7:14
*He offered himself up as a sacrifice to died to bear the sins of man 7:27, 9:26
*He came into the world (implied) 9:28
*He will come again for those awaiting him 9:28
*He is now seated at the right hand of God 12:2
*He endured the shame and suffering of the cross 12:2
*Sinners were hostile toward him 12:3
*He shed his blood outside the city gate (Jerusalem implied) 13:12

1 CLEMENT, 65 short chapters (J.B. Lightfoot translation)

*He taught others forbearance and long-suffering 13:1
*He taught "Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy...." 13:2
*He was a holy teacher, giving commandments 13:3, 49:1
*He had apostles whom he charged to spread his message 42:3
*He taught about those that cause others to lose faith "Woe unto that man..." 46:8
*He lived in the flesh 49:6
*He was rejected as an outcast of the people, mocked 16:3,15,16
*He suffered for others, bearing their sins 16:4
*He shed his blood 49:6
*He gave up his life from the EARTH 16:8
*He was resurrected 42:3
*His resurrection assured his apostles that the kingdom of God would come 42:3
*His apostles went out and spread the good news following the resurrection 42:4

And aa, that doesn't even get into the Gospels, which clearly reference Jesus as having been a human--do you deny that they say Mary gave birth to Jesus?

What you seem to be incapable of doing is making a distinction between the following 2 things:

1. What really happened
2. What the writers say happened

I'm claiming that writers say Jesus was a man, flesh, human capable of things humans can't do as far as we know. You make the error of saying that BECAUSE Jesus couldn't have done those things, the writers weren't saying he was human--and then you find all these passages as your 'evidence' that they were really writing about a mythical god.

Well, I just listed plenty of evidence that they were not JUST writing about a mythical god and that they did in fact represent Jesus as having been a man, and human 'in every respect' like us, and more. And remember, I could have listed 500 more things straight from the gospels that say Jesus was human +, not God -.

Please don't get yourself too confused though: I'm not saying anything about what I believe Jesus really was. I'm only talking about how he was described by the early NT writers.

Have fun with your reply. I really don't know what more I can try to do to help you have a more enlighted perspective.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2011, 04:10 PM	#13
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	aa we are done. I am walking away because you refuse to address what I'm saying. A discussion cannot happen when one party is so obsessive as to ignore the points made by the other, so there is no point. Waste of time.

02-16-2011, 08:50 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Ted - you are not the first to try to get through to aa5874. He's set in his interpretation, and nothing will shake him. You might as well stop trying.

02-16-2011, 10:27 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This discussion has been split off because it is a retread of old arguments. It is true that there is no Christian document that describes Jesus as a mere man. aa5874 will not accept that these documents could ever be used as evidence for the existence of mere human. Most other people disagree. There is no resolution. Any more posts along this line will be merged into that thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.