Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 04-01-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See my response to Solo. The purported authors of the second century are not dealing with your man Jesus direct.

None of which changes the fact that you were not describing docetic beliefs accurately but, instead, importing your conclusion as an assumption from the start.

Quote:

They are then dealing with a textual tradition in which the nomina sacra for the name of Jesus appears. This is actually two-steps removed from the previous century. Once for the fact that those who are now described as docetists were emergent in the second century, and secondly, that the docetists only had the text of the nomina sacra form of the name of Jesus - this was the same as Joshua's!

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The second century authors whom we read, encountered the text, and if we are to believe Eusebius, had a religious experience. Others, we are told, by these authors of antiquity, had a different experience. They examined the text, and they did not have that same authodox experience but in fact seemed, or appeared to be observed to articulate "heretical things": that Jesus "seemed" to exist (in the literature) but had no "real physical" existence.

What more needs to be rejected for the belief than the nativity stories?

Quote:

The question should be asked whether this includes the notion of historical existence.

Didn't Marcion believe Jesus was executed under Pilate?

Quote:

They were served with text which they thought (for one reason or another) was not historically accurate, and they said so.

What else besides the nativity stories were rejected as false?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Not sure. I made a quick summary of Drews one day and the notes may indicate this to be so. I will try and look it up sometime later, or string search this page on Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus: Arthur Drews (1912) .

Thanks. I would appreciate it.

mountainman · 04-01-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

So?

What more needs to be rejected for the belief than the nativity stories?

What else besides the nativity stories were rejected as false?

The entire package of the canonical new testament literature and, if you like to be pedantic about the scope of the literature, the NT apocryphal literature. Marcion is painted as different heretic than the author of the apocryphal "Acts of John" (which is quoted below). Who was the author of the Acts of John and how was he (or she) related to Marcion? It is immaterial, since the presence of docetic belief is reasonably pervasive in the apocrypha.

Quote:

Didn't Marcion believe Jesus was executed under Pilate?

What did the author of "The Acts of John" believe about Jesus?

Here is Glenn Davis' summary ...

Quote:

Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE) purports to give an eyewitness account of the missionary work of the apostle John in and around Ephesus; it may therefore be of Ephesian provenance. It probably dates to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Although no complete text is extant, we have considerable portions in Greek and in Latin. The Stichometry of Nicephorus gives its length as 2500 lines, the same number as for the Gospel according to Matthew. An English translation is in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 172-212. The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons, and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:

.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89). The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities. Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the author gives the whole a Docetic cast. Besides presenting theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86), which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late husband's tomb. For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61). Although the Acts of John is without importance for the historical Jesus and the apostle John, it is nevertheless valuable for tracing the development of popular Christianity. It is, for example, the oldest source recording the celebration of the Eucharist for the dead (§ 72). The Acts of John may have been composed by a member of the Hellenistic cultivated classes, who drew upon various literary genuses and in so doing, without any specific attachment to a concrete community, sought to propagate a Christianity as he understood it, as the expression of certain aspirations of a philosophical attitude to the world which he had held even before his conversion.

What sort of docetism was that of the author of the Acts of John? It was some form of heretical docetism, if we are to go by the evidence of the authodox christian historians and continuators of Eusebius.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 04-01-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I have a question about the following quote you offered:

Quote:

Apollinaris of Laodicea

"Our opponents ask:
If Jesus was not an historical personage,
how is it that no one ever doubted his existence?
We reply with the further question:
Granting that he was an historical personage,
how is it that not only does the Talmud never mention him,
but, apart from the gospels, not a single work
belonging to the early Christian period
gives us any intimate detail
about the life of this personage?

The source of the quote is Drews but there is nothing on that page which connects it to Apollinaris. Does Drews attribute it to Apollinaris and, if so, what is the citation from the original source?

It may be that this quote was taken from www.christianism.com and the reference to Apollinaris of Laodicea unrelated. I have problems navigating that site, however I do appreciate many of the references. It may be that I went in search of who said that text, and noted AOL but my notes do not allow me to be certain in this specific issue. If you determine who is being quoted above, let me know.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Solo · 04-02-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Ok, so the docetists encountered not JC but the texts about JC.

This is an important point and needs to be underlined. Our reports of christian origins are bound with the literature and we know that this literature that forms early christian period of the pre-nicene epoch extended (hypothetically) from the second century perhaps, to the third, etc.

The second century authors whom we read, encountered the text, and if we are to believe Eusebius, had a religious experience. Others, we are told, by these authors of antiquity, had a different experience. They examined the text, and they did not have that same authodox experience but in fact seemed, or appeared to be observed to articulate "heretical things": that Jesus "seemed" to exist (in the literature) but had no "real physical" existence.

What "other" experience did they have, I wonder ? And how would the heretics "know" that JC did not exist ? You see, it's one thing to have an experience (which you interpret as encounter with the Redeemer), at some points of which, you feel you are out of the body, and conclude on the basis of that what Jesus did or did not have for a body, and it is quite a different thing, to conclude from that that Jesus did not exist at all.

Follow what I'm saying ? One cannot have an experience of something that one does not believe exists.

Quote:

The question should be asked whether this includes the notion of historical existence. What if someone were to read the NT lit in the 2nd century and say "Jesus had no historical existence". Would they be reported (at that time) as a "docetist"?

I think I have answered that question already.

There is no evidence that a) at the time people were making such postulates, or b) even allowing such a possibility, that the holder of such a view would have been subsumed under a heretical category which was reserved for a different rift with religious orthodoxy.

Jiri

Chili · 04-02-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

But Pete, if Jesus was the pupa stage how can you say that he was not real?

Docetists have been spun together in a big cacoon of heresies by the earliest of the christian ecclesiastical historians and it is they and not I who is doing the saying. I am simply trying to interpret the evidence.

The butterfly did not fly from the cross until the fourth century. It may have been in a pupae stage from earlier centuries, as appears to be the intention of Eusebius' various "histories" and the gathering of the authorship on the matter from the preceeding centuries. It must certainly have been very much underground since, we could say because of the extreme paucity of archaeological evidence, a long way underground.

So that leaves us (for the moment) with the texts and the reports of the docetae.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

It doesn't matter how many Docetic theories you or they spun together to make up this lie that Jesus did not exist or was not historical.

The key to understanding this lies in the word 'exist' which requires "being" before it can be said to "be" and Jesus had no such being for sure. "He" was to be called Jesus when Christ was born unto Joseph and had a dual nature as man and as god but not as human or he would have been a sinner like the rest of us.

So therefore Jesus was not a Cave dweller who can only see shadows of reality nor was he free to flutter in the full celestial light because the icons in the Cave must be illuminated to transform his own world instead of leaving it behind (we must color our world while on earth to be able to enjoy heaven on earth after we transform our own world into heaven on earth).

So "being" now belongs to the essence of existence and that was Christ in Christendom where apostolic tradition is the necessary condition to have kinship with Christ. This is what Eusebius confirmed after the dust had settled on the docetic Jesus who appeared in "to be IS not to be," as the reality whereupon the Infalible Church would be built = Christ among us.

Amaleq13 · 04-02-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

So?

What more needs to be rejected for the belief than the nativity stories?

What else besides the nativity stories were rejected as false?

The entire package of the canonical new testament literature and, if you like to be pedantic about the scope of the literature, the NT apocryphal literature.

What evidence do you have that those holding a docetic view rejected as false the "entire package of the canonical new testament literature and...the NT apocryphal literature"? Marcion certainly doesn't meet this criterion.

Quote:

What did the author of "The Acts of John" believe about Jesus?

Apparently, that Jesus existed in history despite only having the illusion of a physical form.

How does any of this support your claim about docetic rejection of the "entire package"?

Quote:

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89).

That seems entirely consistent with the notion that his physical form was an illusion.

Quote:

What sort of docetism was that of the author of the Acts of John?

I really don't care unless the answer offers support for your responses to my questions.

Quote:

It was some form of heretical docetism...

Isn't "heretical docetism" redundant? Or are you suggesting it was a form of docetism that was considered heretical by other docetics?

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I have a question about the following quote you offered:

The source of the quote is Drews but there is nothing on that page which connects it to Apollinaris. Does Drews attribute it to Apollinaris and, if so, what is the citation from the original source?

It may be that this quote was taken from www.christianism.com

May be?? It's virtually the only place in the only place you do your "research" where it is appears.

Quote:

and the reference to Apollinaris of Laodicea unrelated.

May be unrelated? Do you know when Apollinarus lived? Do you know what Apollinaris taught? Do you know when the Talmud was composed?

Just how credulous are you, Pete, especially when it comes to your acceptance of things that come from sources you deem good because they say what you want to hear?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-02-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It may be that this quote was taken from www.christianism.com

May be?? It's virtually the only place in the only place you do your "research" where it is appears.

Quote:

and the reference to Apollinaris of Laodicea unrelated.

May be unrelated? Do you know when Apollinarus lived? Do you know what Apollinaris taught? Do you know when the Talmud was composed?

Just how credulous are you, Pete, especially when it comes to your acceptance of things that come from sources you deem good because they say what you want to hear?

I am a little freer with my information that you are Jeffrey. Your information is your tenure it appears, and you are precise and frugal with it. My information has been gathered from many disparate sources and to the best of my abilities undergone quality assurance exercises in connecting it to specific sources in specific texts in antiquity.

There is a vast difference between discussion here and preparing a number of theses on various subjects. I am prepared to post not only my checked sources and their references (when I have them), but also other content which is best described as my rough NOTEPAD notes. These are often useful for discussion. I do not copy these to be the subject of target practice for the likes of your didacticism.

Would you mind actually contributing something out of your storehouse of knowledge on the question Could "docetic" be a christian euphemism for "fictional"?

On the Greek word docetae for example.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

May be?? It's virtually the only place in the only place you do your "research" where it is appears.

May be unrelated? Do you know when Apollinarus lived? Do you know what Apollinaris taught? Do you know when the Talmud was composed?

Just how credulous are you, Pete, especially when it comes to your acceptance of things that come from sources you deem good because they say what you want to hear?

I am a little freer with my information that you are Jeffrey.

I was unaware that posting nonsense was the same thing as posting information. But if you say so ...

Quote:

Your information is your tenure it appears, and you are precise and frugal with it. My information has been gathered from many disparate sources and to the best of my abilities undergone quality assurance exercises in connecting it to specific sources in specific texts in antiquity.

Then so much for your "abilities".

Quote:

There is a vast difference between discussion here and preparing a number of theses on various subjects. I am prepared to post not only my checked sources and their references (when I have them), but also other content which is best described as my rough NOTEPAD notes. These are often useful for discussion. I do not copy these to be the subject of target practice for the likes of your didacticism.

How can posting crap be useful for discussion?

Quote:

Would you mind actually contributing something out of your storehouse of knowledge on the question Could "docetic" be a christian euphemism for "fictional"?

Within the context of early Christian beliefs about Jesus, no.

Quote:

On the Greek word docetae for example.

There is no Greek word "docetae". And for the third time, there is no letter "c" in the Greek alphabet.

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Hi Pete: posting your notes is not often useful for discussion.

The basic problem is that you post questions, but then do not digest the information provided to you, and never modify your position, or respond meaningfully to those who try to give you more information. It seems that you have made no progress in all the time you have been posting here. Why is this?

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

04-02-2008, 04:28 PM	#40
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Pete: posting your notes is not often useful for discussion. The basic problem is that you post questions, but then do not digest the information provided to you, and never modify your position, or respond meaningfully to those who try to give you more information. It seems that you have made no progress in all the time you have been posting here. Why is this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.