Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-03-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It's a myth about the descent of a divine avatar into human form, and his being granted his name as a token of his task

No, George, what it is, in the first instance, is a description of a divine being coming to earth in human likeness. It's only you who prefers to see it as being mythical.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It's a myth about the descent of a divine avatar into human form, and his being granted his name as a token of his task

No, George, what it is, in the first instance, is a description of a divine being coming to earth in human likeness. It's only you who prefers to see it as being mythical.

How can you prove what you say is true? You have no proof and yet continue to dismiss others when they oppose you.

You ADMITTED nothing is conclusive, there is NO proof and nothing is certain so you have ELIMINATED yourself from making any claim about HJ of Nazareth.

You OBVIOUSLY don't know very much about Greek/ Roman MYTHS.

Please, go and read about Greek/Roman mythology.

Romulus and Remus were described as HUMAN BROTHERS that were BORN, LIVED and DIED ON EARTH but are regarded as MYTHS. See Plutarch's "Romulus".

Ask TIM ONEILL to explain Greek/Roman Myth because you don't known what you talking about.

Now, A divine being is A myth in the HJ/MJ argument. Jesus was divine in the NT.

Jesus was MYTH.

It is so easy.

HJ of Nazareth is a MYTH for another reason.

NO history.

Toto · 10-03-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

... Someone was teaching just the opposite, that Jesus was not born, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that Jesus had only illusory flesh.

Jake

Sorry, where does it say anything remotely like he was, opposite to the Jews, in this sense?

It doesn't. The point is that the only reason to assert that Jesus was born of a woman was that someone (namely, the heretic Marcion, among others) was teaching that Jesus was not born of a woman.

archibald · 10-04-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

... Someone was teaching just the opposite, that Jesus was not born, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that Jesus had only illusory flesh.

Jake

Sorry, where does it say anything remotely like he was, opposite to the Jews, in this sense?

It doesn't. The point is that the only reason to assert that Jesus was born of a woman was that someone (namely, the heretic Marcion, among others) was teaching that Jesus was not born of a woman.

Ah. I see. My misunderstanding. I thought when Jake said 'someone' he meant the writer at hand.

OTOH, Probably the reason I didn't assume Marcion was because he hadn't been born. I do hope there is more to an interpolation argument than, 'I think it reads like the text is saying this' or 'I think Paul wouldn't have said that', which on its own is a weak argument.

maryhelena · 10-04-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Could someone fill me in on which Jews at the time were not descended from the patriarchs (Romans 9:5)? Which were not born of a woman (Gal 4:4)? And couldn't a claim be manufuactured for almost any Jew to be descended from David, as the contradictory and spurious geneologies of Matthew and Luke demonstrate?

Why belabor the obvious? The answer is quite simple. Someone was teaching
just the opposite, that Jesus was not born, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that Jesus had only illusory flesh.

Jake

Sorry, where does it say anything remotely like he was, opposite to the Jews, in this sense?

Quote:

TERTULLIAN

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.

BOOK IV.

The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent--even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?" unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety?

That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere named of Jesus, the Son of David.

Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"--in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question. Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

CHAP.VII.--MARCION REJECTED THE PRECEDINGPORTION OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"

my formatting

An earlier thread:

Marcion's Non-Jewish Jesus

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=282393

dog-on · 10-04-2011, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It's a myth about the descent of a divine avatar into human form, and his being granted his name as a token of his task

No, George, what it is, in the first instance, is a description of a divine being coming to earth in human likeness. It's only you who prefers to see it as being mythical.

How else should one see a "description of a divine being coming to earth in human likeness"?

dog-on · 10-04-2011, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Though, as I said, such an understanding makes other areas incoherent, whereas the understanding I have suggested does not.

On the contrary, I don't think your interpretation clears anything up. How could Paul, if he does as you suggest, not see any man as 'in the flesh' say:

.... my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites...

It makes no sense. To get your interpretation to work you have to contort the Romans verses to say something else entirely.

Actually no, I do not. What needs to happen is that you drop your preconceptions.

Quote:

And 2 Cor 5

' 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.'

could still be read to imply that Paul thinks things have now 'changed' (maybe the kingdom is upon us).

Of course it implies change, at least a change in viewpoint, from the worldly to the spiritual.

jakejonesiv · 10-04-2011, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It doesn't. The point is that the only reason to assert that Jesus was born of a woman was that someone (namely, the heretic Marcion, among others) was teaching that Jesus was not born of a woman.

Ah. I see. My misunderstanding. I thought when Jake said 'someone' he meant the writer at hand.

OTOH, Probably the reason I didn't assume Marcion was because he hadn't been born. I do hope there is more to an interpolation argument than, 'I think it reads like the text is saying this' or 'I think Paul wouldn't have said that', which on its own is a weak argument.

Hi Archibald,

Yes, Marcion. These are late second century anti-marcionite interpolations.

Yes, there is more to the argument than an 'I think.' Please see Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt (pdf) 2005 on RadikalKritic

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-04-2011, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

OTOH, Probably the reason I didn't assume Marcion was because he hadn't been born.

On the other other hand, if the Pauline epistles are inauthentic, this is no obstacle. This is of course, a much larger discussion, but I want to point out there is no logical contradiction necessarily implied.

Jake

archibald · 10-04-2011, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yes, Marcion. These are late second century anti-marcionite interpolations.

Yes, there is more to the argument than an 'I think.' Please see Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt (pdf) 2005 on RadikalKritic

Jake

That's in a foreign language.

If there is no actual evidence other than lit crit, then it's basically 'I think'.

There may be good reasons to think it, but in any of the suggested interpolations I have discussed, they are not there. At best, we have 'possible interpolation'. There may be a reasonable case for some interpolations, but that is not carte blanche to suggest that the interpolatons eliminate references to an earthly Jesus. Oddly, that's what many cited possible interpolations often do, on forums like this. :]

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.