Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Robert Tulip · 05-26-2013, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin - to have a notion like HJ you have to have a modern historiography.

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit of having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

The use of non sequitur is one of the staples for your trade.

That is not a non sequitur. Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual. Therefore Eusebius believed in the Historical Jesus.

Your claim that the notion of the HJ is modern is groundless, but I admire your capacity for deflection, for having the cojones to accuse Mountainman's simple refutation of your statement of being illogical.

It is no wonder this debate makes so little progress when such red herrings routinely get tossed in.

aa5874 · 05-26-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

....It's not enough that someone thinks something happened or someone existed in the past. To be historical requires more than the thought that the subject happened or existed. The reasoning for this didn't emerge until about two centuries ago. Historicity is a modern concept.

Your claim is absolutely hopeless. You must have forgotten about the very Christian Heretics.

An historical Jesus was argued in c 177 CE by Celsus and by so-called Christian Heretics.

In antiquity it was argued that Jesus was ONLY a man whose father was Panthera but some in the Jesus cult claimed it was a LIE and that Jesus was God Incarnate born of the Holy Ghost.

"Against Celsus" 1

Quote:

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost............It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

Even some Christians claimed that Jesus was an ordinary man according to Justin Martyr.

Quote:

For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so...

Some so-called Heretics Preached that Jesus was an ordinary man born of Joseph and Mary according to Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus.

The Cerinthians, and the Ebionites taught that Jesus was a human being.

Refutation of All Heresies 10

Quote:

Cerinthus, however........ says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind.

But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God, and they speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus.

It is clear propaganda that an HJ was not argued until 2 centuries ago--it is more like 1800 years.

I am astonished that such basic knowledge is not known.

1. Some Christians preached that Jesus was God Incarnate--like Origen

2. Some Christians preached that the son of God was a Phantom--like Marcion

3. Some Christians preached that Jesus was a man of man --like the Cerinthians.

4. Non-Christians argued that Jesus was a man of man---like Celsus.

MrMacSon · 05-26-2013, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin - to have a notion like HJ you have to have a modern historiography.

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit of having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

The use of non sequitur is one of the staples for your trade.

That is not a non sequitur.

I agree.

Though wonder if

Quote:

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

spin · 05-26-2013, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

What do you mean by this?

Robert Tulip · 05-26-2013, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

What do you mean by this?

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_03_book1.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL

It is possible for you, if you care to take the trouble, to see with your eyes, comprehended in the prophetic writings, all the wonderful miracles of our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, that are witnessed to by the heavenly Gospels, and to hear His divine and perfect teaching about true holiness. etc etc

aa5874 · 05-26-2013, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

What do you mean by this?

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_03_book1.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL

It is possible for you, if you care to take the trouble, to see with your eyes, comprehended in the prophetic writings, all the wonderful miracles of our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, that are witnessed to by the heavenly Gospels, and to hear His divine and perfect teaching about true holiness. etc etc

In the HJ/MJ argument those who claim Jesus existed as a God manifested as a man do not argue for an historical Jesus but a Jesus of Faith.

That is precisely why we have an ON-GOING Quest for HJ.

It is like trying to find Adam in the Jewish Myth fables called Genesis.

By the way, Eusebius seemed to believe Adam existed and was the Son of God.

Adam and Eve had no real existence.

Church History 1

Quote:

Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begot Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begot' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.

mountainman · 05-26-2013, 09:55 PM

I agree that the letters of John and their identification of and prescription against those who would "not confess that Jesus appeared in the flesh" may be taken as evidence that some people (at the time the letters of John were forged) did not think Jesus was historical.

Spin is essentially citing Ehrman's opinion in his recent book "Did Big J exist"?

See for example the thread: on the idea that Jesus did not exist being a modern notion. (Ehrman)

I do not agree with Ehrman's opinion because of the letters of John, and for a number of other items of evidence (Arius, Julian, Nestorius). But I think that the greatest argument against this notion is the existence of national and state "Blasphemy Laws" against such notions that were in force until the 18th century. Ehrman does not address this fact.

But to conclude, I definitely agree (re: the letters of John) with ..... These texts illustrate the aggressive bullying intimidatory attitude propounded by Christian orthodoxy against anyone who questioned the historical existence of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The notion of a HJ did not exist before the emergence of the idea probably not more than two centuries ago.

Not true. The canonical epistles of John contain the following strong dogmatic endorsements of the notion of a historical Jesus. This idea has been central to Christian faith since early times. Its denial was the Docetic heresy, the idea that Jesus Christ only seemed to be the Son of God. The Christian notion of incarnation, meaning embodiment in the flesh, is purely historical.

Quote:

http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-22.htm Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also... I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

Quote:

http://biblehub.com/niv/1_john/4.htm On Denying the Incarnation

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirita of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Quote:

http://biblehub.com/niv/2_john/1.htm many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

These texts illustrate the aggressive bullying intimidatory attitude propounded by Christian orthodoxy against anyone who questioned the historical existence of Jesus Christ in the flesh. The author tells us this intimidation was necessary to confront the "many" critics who rejected the Historical Jesus. Such critics were called "antichrist", "wicked", "deceivers", "liars", "from the world", who should not be welcome.

This early political assault on Gnosticism provided the imprimatur for the destruction of all conflicting opinion, which is why we have so little surviving material from writers who were not in agreement with the dogma of Christ in the flesh.

spin · 05-26-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

What do you mean by this?

Please answer this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_03_book1.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL

It is possible for you, if you care to take the trouble, to see with your eyes, comprehended in the prophetic writings, all the wonderful miracles of our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, that are witnessed to by the heavenly Gospels, and to hear His divine and perfect teaching about true holiness. etc etc

spin · 05-26-2013, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Spin is essentially citing Ehrman's opinion in his recent book "Did Big J exist"?

You don't have a clue what I'm citing.

Robert Tulip · 05-26-2013, 11:48 PM

Church Historian Eusebius held to the orthodox dogma that Jesus Christ was a real human being, an actual man, an individual person, descended from King David according to the flesh, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, killed in Jerusalem, raised to heaven, sitting at the Right Hand of the Father from whence he will return in due season to judge the quick and the dead.

(Russell Crowe was terrible)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Eusebius believed that Jesus Christ was a historical individual.

What do you mean by this?

Please answer this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_03_book1.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL

It is possible for you, if you care to take the trouble, to see with your eyes, comprehended in the prophetic writings, all the wonderful miracles of our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, that are witnessed to by the heavenly Gospels, and to hear His divine and perfect teaching about true holiness. etc etc

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.