jgreen44

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ:

"As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOT OF MAN, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh."

In the above passage, Tertullian twice describes Jesus as "flesh". If you recall, Christians believe, or came to believe, that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. Yes. This is paradoxical. And it seems as though Tertullian is using some of that paradoxical language.

aa5874

Let's not get confused. "On the FLESH of Christ" is about a dispute regarding the LORD'S BODILY substance.

"On the FLESH of Christ" 1
There are THREE QUESTIONS to be ANSWERED by TERTULLIAN.

1. DID IT EVER EXIST?

Tertullian: The WORD was MADE FLESH

2.WHENCE WAS IT DERIVED?

Tertullian: It was DERIVED by the WILL of God, NOT by the will of flesh.

3. OF WHAT KIND WAS IT?

Tertullian:It was NOT of BLOOD, and NOT of MAN

Tertullian ANSWERED the questions.

"On the FLESH of Christ" The DISPUTE is over. Jesus was NOT of BLOOD and NOT of Man.

Jesus was MYTH. You see it yet?

angelo

Is this the same Tertullian who converted to literalist christianity circa 195 c and later [207 c] became a Gnostic?

show_no_mercy

He became a Montanist. I wouldn't call them Gnostics... unless you think modern Pentacostalists are Gnostics

jgreen44

I agree that Jesus is a myth. But I want to employ valid arguments to argue in favor of that point. I don't see that Tertullian said anywhere that the Marcionites believed Jesus was visible to his friends but invisible to his enemies. Therefore, I don't see why "Tertullian" would have used (if it existed) the Christus reference in Annals against the Marcionites.

Other than that, you and I are in 100% agreement.

spin

Well, those people coming to this thread looking for "[t]he overwhelming case for a historical Jesus" have been totally underwhelmed by what was presented, just the usual string of pagan *yawn* witnesses and little else. It's notable that the believer of historical Jesusism intent on selling his overweaning case has long ago disappeared along with anyone vaguely supportive of hj and we have a couple of mythers nattering about what constitutes the mythological evidence. Perhaps we're destined to receive an "overwhelming case" for a mythical Jesus in the near future, but I fear it too would go the way of the overbearing historical case -- toes up.


spin

angelo

So, one has to hold on to an agnostic position?

aa5874

That there is EVIDENCE of MYTH is BEYOND dispute.

No one is even arguing that there is NO evidence of mythology. HJers AGREE that the NT does indeed contain MYTH but are trying to show that the MYTH was based on a REAL person.

Every one involved the HJ/MJ, perhaps EXCEPT agnostics, AGREE that Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Luke 24.40, John 1.1-4, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1, and 1 Cor. 15.3-8 do exists and describe Jesus as a MYTH.

There is ZERO dispute that in the NT Jesus was described as the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was God, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected, appeared to his disciples after the resurrection, and then ascended to heaven.

There is ZERO dispute that "PAUL" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a MAN but of one who was RAISED from the dead and that he saw the resurrected Jesus.

The EVIDENCE is known and undisputed.

Now, once there is NO credible EXTERNAL historical source of antiquity of Jesus as a MERE MAN then the MJ argument can NEVER, EVER to be contradicted. NEVER EVER or until new EVIDENCE surfaces.

Jesus was described as a MYTH and there is NO credible external historical source.

Jesus of the NT has SATISFIED the fundamental parameters of MYTHOLOGY.

Jesus was ALL MYTH and NO HISTORY.

The HJ argument has been found to be a TOTAL DISASTER.

spin

In situations where there is insufficient evidence to make a rational choice, as is the case here, one usually doesn't choose.

Answer me truthfully, did the early British King Arthur exist?

aa5874

What an absurd and IRRELEVANT question. The existence of King Arthur requires a SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT inquiry. And the sources for King Arthur CANNOT be transferred to the Jesus of the NT.

King Arthur was NOT described as the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, without human father, equal to the God of the Jews, who walked on water, transfigured, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED and was SEEN by "PAUL" over 500 people in a RESURRECTED state..

There are NO arguments that there are EXTANT CODICES of the NT where Jesus was a MYTH.

The evidence of MYTH JESUS has survived and is WELL documented in at least FOUR versions plus the Pauline writings.

HJers have NOTHING. They have no argument.

THIS IS THE TRUTH,The MYTH JESUS theory is WELL supported. We have EXTANT CODICES that describe Jesus as a MYTH.

Jesus was ALL MYTH and NO history.

And this is ALSO TRUE, the myth theory for King Arthur is good once there is NO credible historical source for King Arthur.