Solo

It was commonly believed by European serfs of Middle Ages and later that the colour of nobles' bood was blue. The origin of the phrase 'blue blood', known to many European languages, comes from Spanish sangre azul which originated in Castille during the times of Reconquista. The Spanish nobles were said to point to their bluish veins on the forearms, which under their skin appeared bluer than those of the darker Moors and 'half-breeds', as sign of their superiority. Most classes took 'blue blood' as metaphor but among peasants it was widely believed that this was true literally.

Hitler exclaimed famously "Ich bin vom Himmel gefallen" ("I have fallen from heaven") when told about Chamberlain's telegram in which announced his visit and proposed a "peace conference" (took place in Munich 1938). I am sure there were Nazis who believed that literally. (Goebbles, e.g. was a great fan of spiritualism and metempsychosis).

So, ....

would the belief that the nobles blood was "really" blue and that Hitler fell down from the sky literally, an argument for non-existence of European nobility and/or Hitler ?

Jiri

aa5874

I don't think we are discussing Hitler and European nobility presently. We are dealing with Docetists and their fundamental belief with respect to Jesus Christ.

It is my position that all believers in Jesus consider him to be a figure of history, whether they believe he came down from heaven directly, was the offspring of the Holy Ghost or was just a man with a human father and mother.

However, it cannot be shown that any belief about the existence of Jesus, in any shape or form, is actually true.

andrewcriddle

De Synodis is online here http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...tm#P679_442022 I think what you are referring to is or This is not directed against Arian views but against the notorious Photinus. The section from which I have quoted is introduced as: Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

It was an analogy intended to help you grasp the nuance involved.

aa5874

In "Against Celsus" by Origen, written around the 3rd century, Celsus made the claim that Christians were meeting in secret, Origen, however, did not deny these secret associations, he only gave reasons why Christians had to resort to secrecy.

Against Celsus 1.1 And in "Against Celsus", Celsus claimed that Christians are a secret and forbidden society, since they have no altars, statues or temples. Again, Origen did not deny that Christians were operating in secret, he only gave reasons for the secrecy.

"Against Celsus" 8.1 Now, if one takes in consideration Justin Martyr's First and Second Apology this would mean that Christians, whether followers of Marcion's, Valentinius' or Justin's Jesus, were being persecuted and were forced to operate in secret, Christianity then it would appear developed "below the surface".

Now, if Christianity was developed under the "cover of darkness" or in secrecy to avoid persecution, then their literature would likely to be also tramsmitted via secretive means, then it would expected that there would have been many sects of Christianity and versions of Jesus, and these versions would vary widely and this is exactly the case, where there are all sorts of stories about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

In my opinion, the secretive associations of Christians fostered the numerous fictitious anecdotes or apocryphal writings that littered the 2nd century.

See www.earlychristianwritings.com

Sheshbazzar

It appears that this anathema was composed to address and denounce three separate but interconnected "heresies" that the party in power wanted to eliminate from among men claiming to be "Christians"

1. The claims being taught by some, that the Son was real and was "historical", yet was originally "sprung" or fashioned out of "things non-existent" , or was,

2. "from another substance". either of which teachings would have made the Son a creature or creation of God the Father, and thus the lesser, rather than co-existent and "equal" with the Father from "the beginning"
Not that the Son was the -first-, or the -beginning- of Gods creation, but that he was God and was present with the Father before any creation began.
(By Him were all things...")

3. and, "that there was a time or age when He was not."

The Orthodox objection was to the doctrine of those believers who held the Son as ever being in any sense "created" by, secondary to, or in any position ever inferior to the Father.

As for the 3rd point, either group of Christian believers, "orthodox" or "heretical", having sufficient strength, would likely have taken extreme measures to eliminate anyone who would be bold enough, or foolish enough, to blasphemously assert publicly that their god "Jesus" had never existed, and was entirely mythical.
Just as during the Middle ages, Any heretics, dissidents, or unbelievers who would express such an opinion, would have been in just as much danger from the Protestant religious authorities, as from Catholic. Either faction would have leaped at the opportunity to prove their devotion and zeal toward God, by the executing of all such blasphemers.
Jewish religious views and opinions were tolerated, barely; As long as they acknowledged at least, that "Jesus" was a real man, and had actually lived and interacted with the Jewish people, they were permitted by the Christian authorities to survive as "hostile witnesses", with Jewish writings about a "real" Jesus existing being the "proof" that the Church demanded, as the price of Jewish "protection" and survival.
The stakes were high, both Christian AND Jewish authorities would be bent upon enforcing that no other opinion or writing would be permitted to flourish or survive.
Little doubt, that had not the Jewish Rabbi's and Jewish populations quietly assented to a 'NOT-TO-BE-QUESTIONED' acceptance of the existence of an actual historical Jesus, there would no longer be a Jewish people.

aa5874

When I read "Church History" by Eusebius, I am confronted with the fact that " early Christianity" had no known history. Eusebius only provided erroneous and misleading information and masquerrades it as history, but it is complete fiction.

This is Eusebius, writing around the 4th century, on the works of Philo of Alexandria who lived up to the middle of the 1st century.

Church History 2.18.7 But upon reading On the Contemplative Life or On Suppliants by Philo, there is not a single word on any apostles whatsoever. There is no mention of Jesus, the apostles, Peter, James the Just, or any Paul. In fact, Philo expounds on the Theraputae, who have no affiliation with the apostles, Jesus or Paul.

" Church History" by Eusebius is an indictment against the "history" of Christianity.

mountainman

The literature of the Talmud contains no overt references whatsoever to substantiate the claim that there were prenicene Jewish-Christian relations. One implication of the integrity failure of the HJ as a postulate in ancient history is that the fiction postulate presents the possibility that the Jewish Bible was simply hijacked as part of the new testament fiction. The Talmudic literature is silent on the dispute, and Philostratus is silent on the dispute, because in the early third century, nobody had heard of the new testament. And I hope you are not citing either the Acts or the gospels as "history".


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

I always have to remind people that Acts is not history.

But you asked for an example "where an entire group of people resist the impulse to become christians, or refuse to be baptised or be converted, on account of their disbelief? How is such a reaction classified by the ecclesiatical heresiologists?" And you can read about their reaction in Christian literature - the Jews were assumed to be stiff necked, evil, seduced by Satan, what have you. In other words, evidence for belief was not an issue. But is that the purpose of your question?

There is much more to the Talmud than your statements indicate, although none of it establishes the historicity of Jesus. There are references to minim, or heretics, which are typically interpreted as referring to Christians. But the Jews had to edit out any adverse mentions of Jesus to save their skins at various points in European history, so it's not clear what was originally there.

Have you read Meade or Zindler?

mountainman

The purpose of the question was to open for examination the interpretation of all ancient historical events before Nicaea, in which we can find evidence that there was a (historical) reaction (or specific commentary) to the new purported "Early Christian movement" -- at a larger scale than a single convert, perhaps an entire town or city, who may have reacted as a whole, which is a natural expectation of the diversity of politics. I dont think the Jewish people can offer any historical evidence in this regard.


The silence of the Talmud (re-compiled c.200 CE, and added to after) supports the postulate of a late NT fiction, as does the paucity of prenicene archaeological citations. We have no history before our eyes on any account when the ground of the first few centuries is examined in a critical light without the guidance of Eusebius. What if the LXX was hijacked by an imperial fraud at some date later than the compilation of the Talmudic literature c.200 CE? You can be sure that the Jewish historians may have been well aware of the effect of the "Council" of Nicaea, for example.

I believe that it will be possible to frame various analyses of the evidence in order to better be able to determine whether the postulate of the historical jesus or the postulate of the later fictional jesus story are variously supported by the evidence in our possession.


Not yet in full. It is a vast landscape, and one can only cover so much in so much time. Which Meade? And I may have read bits of Zindler in passing at some stage when I collected and reviewed the Talmudic textual citations commonly offered up as hypothetical allegorical references to "things christian".


Best wishes,



Pete Brown