Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-14-2012, 03:34 PM

I don't understand Genesismenace's objection

GenesisNemesis · 08-14-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't understand Genesismenace's objection

You claim there is no demand to accept the historicity of the miracles of Jesus (outside of the crucifixion/resurrection). Those verses appear to refute that claim. Particularly Proverbs 3:5. And I am flattered that you consider me to be a menace.

sotto voce · 08-14-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Dating is like roulette. You need luck.

Or money

So how much of it will buy scholarship that justifies 'Rabboni' deliberately sabotages the juxtaposition in the material'? More than you've got spare, just at the moment?

anethema · 08-14-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The usual way of looking at the symbolon (from the Greek 'coming together') is that Athanasius and company developed a trap to expose Arian beliefs. The idea is that this 'creed' was developed only with respect to things that the Arians and the Orthodox disagreed about. This may well be true in some sense, but it is still interesting to see how little emphasis is given to the actual ministry of Jesus. The only historical references to the gospel pertain to a pre-existent Jesus flying down from heaven and dying on the cross:

Quote:

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he cometh to judge the quick and the dead.

There is no mention of any demand to accept the historicity of the acts of Jesus outside of his crucifixion and resurrection.

For those that argue that there was no dispute with respect to the historical nature of gospel narrative, I am not so sure. Clement and especially Origen are quite willing to allegorize the details of any narrative. Origenism was alive and well at the time of Nicaea. While it is certainly true that Origenism was not the focus of here, if we go back in time there is a consistent lack of demand to accept the historical reality of the gospel narrative. This when many 'heresies' were raging who questioned everything.

So the Apostle's Creed of Hippolytus avoids demanding belief that any of the miracles were real:

Quote:

When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?" The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.

So too a complete lack of mention in Irenaeus a generation earlier:

Quote:

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .

I am not arguing of course that Athanasius or his contemporaries doubted the historical nature of gospel narratives. What I am saying is that the basic form of the creed was established in an age where such literal belief in the miracles of Jesus would have been impossible to maintain - so many Christians did not believe in the reality of the narrative. I think Hippolytus and Irenaeus stuck to the barest bone interpretation of what had to be agreed by all. They were effectively tolerating those who questioned the historical nature of the gospel narratives outside of the crucifixion and resurrection.

as a roman catholic i said that creed thousands of times. it is thoroghlly anchored with pontius pilate. what that means i dont know. but assumption and conjecture dont get us any closer to the truth than anything martin luther had to say in the 16th century.

stephan huller · 08-15-2012, 12:00 AM

But don't you find the whole creed thing utterly bizarre? You have all these people saying something together that they don't understand and don't care to understand. It's like signing on the dotted line of a document in Arabic.

My only point here is that there had to be a purpose here. It can't simply be that the orthodox were trying to stamp out the Arians. The creeds pre-dated the fourth century. If it is - as Andrew says - that they were just trying to iron out the points of controversy with the heresies - why mention only the going up and down of Jesus from heaven? The heretics basically agreed about this. They might have argued over the details of what happened going up and down but it is strange that Irenaeus should focus so much attention of the beginning and end when he had problems with all aspects of the heretical interpretation.

sotto voce · 08-15-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But don't you find the whole creed thing utterly bizarre?

It's bizarre that the likes of egregious crooks like Tertullian and Origen are so frequently the focus of BC&H. If one actually takes note of history, creeds are for crooks.

Quote:

You have all these people saying something together that they don't understand and don't care to understand.

So Romanism is admitted to be false religion? If so, how can it be simultaneously claimed to be orthodoxy?

sotto voce · 08-15-2012, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

as a roman catholic i said that creed thousands of times. it is thoroghlly anchored with pontius pilate. what that means i dont know. but assumption and conjecture dont get us any closer to the truth than anything martin luther had to say in the 16th century.

Luther was no friend to liberty and fraternity. But there was one thing that Luther wrote that gets to the heart of the matter. He wrote that the sacrifice of the Mass was awful blasphemy. That (imagined) sacrifice was continuation of the sacrifices and libations of Roman priests under the aegis of Roman Emperors in their very highly regarded role of Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Priest. The man in a black frock at the local 'Catholic church' is a direct descendant of the first king of Rome and the worship of Jupiter, as much in opposition to democracy as any Iranian ayatollah. He continues to offer sacrifices, as believed by his deceived flock, partly because of the advantage gained by controversy over creeds.

anethema · 08-15-2012, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

as a roman catholic i said that creed thousands of times. it is thoroghlly anchored with pontius pilate. what that means i dont know. but assumption and conjecture dont get us any closer to the truth than anything martin luther had to say in the 16th century.

Luther was no friend to liberty and fraternity. But there was one thing that Luther wrote that gets to the heart of the matter. He wrote that the sacrifice of the Mass was awful blasphemy. That (imagined) sacrifice was continuation of the sacrifices and libations of Roman priests under the aegis of Roman Emperors in their very highly regarded role of Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Priest. The man in a black frock at the local 'Catholic church' is a direct descendant of the first king of Rome and the worship of Jupiter, as much in opposition to democracy as any Iranian ayatollah. He continues to offer sacrifices, as believed by his deceived flock, partly because of the advantage gained by controversy over creeds.

where did that come from (citation please). what peoples opinions and beliefs are get us no closer to historical understanding than using bill o'reilly to establish an historicity of the obama administration. the creed can be of value only because of its anchoring with an established historical figure (pontius pilate). the ton or grain of salt gravitas given to it is the only argument of value to historians practicing with intellectual integrity.

sotto voce · 08-15-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So the Apostle's Creed of Hippolytus avoids demanding belief that any of the miracles were real:

Quote:

When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?" The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.

Note that Hippolytus teaches tri-baptism, suggesting, though not actually stating, existence of three discrete deities. Note that the Father is 'Almighty', while the Son and the Spirit are not. What we have here is just what the emperor ordered, a polytheism, with Jesus relegated, that can be argued to be monotheism. Note that the alternative to tritheism was restricted to Arianism, and this is still the dishonest recourse of many today.

All this is evidence of belief in HJ that was found inescapable; there would have been no need for sly tritheism, nor belief in Jesus at all, had there been no belief that deity himself had not only been physically present on earth, but had put all of humanity in his debt. Corrupt Rome, like corrupt Sanhedrin, never got over the shock, and there is abundant evidence, from the extraordinary and desperate attempts to avoid that knowledge that are not hard to find, that much of humanity is still in shock.

andrewcriddle · 08-15-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

"What do you say was the substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and destroy the law and the prophets?"

Really this doesn't indicate the significance of change from 'Son of David' to 'the Lord' in the passage? The section begins with the Marcionite denial of Jesus's birth. Then it moves on to a discussion of 'son of David' and the blind man's rebuke by the disciples - which the Marcionites apparently approved. The Marcionites certainly felt the appellation was incorrectly applied to Jesus. They accepted that "he is not the son of David, he expressed the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation, rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith." Then follows the statement of Marcionite belief without using the specific term 'Lord' but nevertheless identifying him as a god. I don't know what more you want.

I think you are misunderstanding Tertullian's argument. IIUC Tertullian regards the Marcionites as radically muddled. They deny that Jesus is the Son of David but retain in their gospel a story in which a blind man is healed after (wrongly according to the Marcionites) calling Jesus "Son of David".

It is an interesting idea that the Marcionites would have replied to Tertullian, "Ah but it was only after calling Jesus 'Lord' that the man was healed". However, I don't see that Tertullian's account provides any direct evidence in favour of this suggestion.

Andrew Criddle

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

08-14-2012, 03:34 PM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't understand Genesismenace's objection

08-15-2012, 12:00 AM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But don't you find the whole creed thing utterly bizarre? You have all these people saying something together that they don't understand and don't care to understand. It's like signing on the dotted line of a document in Arabic. My only point here is that there had to be a purpose here. It can't simply be that the orthodox were trying to stamp out the Arians. The creeds pre-dated the fourth century. If it is - as Andrew says - that they were just trying to iron out the points of controversy with the heresies - why mention only the going up and down of Jesus from heaven? The heretics basically agreed about this. They might have argued over the details of what happened going up and down but it is strange that Irenaeus should focus so much attention of the beginning and end when he had problems with all aspects of the heretical interpretation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.