Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-29-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....... If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is illogical.

Pilate could have been governor of Judea but did NOT condemn Jesus to be crucified.

Washington did NOT have to cut down the cherry-tree to be President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....... And Jesus could have come from Nazareth and been crucified but not been the child of a virgin and a ghost.

But, your claim is still ILLOGICAL, in effect, a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... "If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea"...

J-D · 09-29-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....... If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is illogical.

Pilate could have been governor of Judea but did NOT condemn Jesus to be crucified.

Washington did NOT have to cut down the cherry-tree to be President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....... And Jesus could have come from Nazareth and been crucified but not been the child of a virgin and a ghost.

But, your claim is still ILLOGICAL, in effect, a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... "If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea"...

None of my claims were fallacious, but even if they were, that would not change the fact that Jesus did not have to be the child of a virgin and a ghost to have come from Nazareth and been condemned by Pilate to crucifixion.

aa5874 · 09-29-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However in the majority of places the majority of early Christians appear to have been proto-orthodox and Bauer's model does not seem to apply.

Andrew Criddle

Your claim is erroneous. We really don't know what the majority of early Christians believed in the majority of places.

The term "Christian" was an ambiguous name given to people who had many different beliefs and some which was NOT at all related to the Jesus story.

Origen in "De Principiis" will state that there was really NO orthodoxy among MANY Christians up to or around the middle of the 3RD century.

The Preface to "De Pricipiis" by Origen

Quote:

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points....

Up to the 3rd century and since the 2nd century there was virtually NO orthodoxy among Christians.

The Christian Marcion claimed the Son of God was a PHANTOM IN THE 2ND CENTURY.

archibald · 09-29-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Well, Bauer's exhaustive investigation is pretty convincing - "heresy" came first, "orthodoxy" later. (Of course that's an odd way of talking about it. What it really means is that a bunch of varied ideas about a Redeemer/Intermediary figure loosely based on the Jewish concept of the Messiah - "Christ" - came first, and then they were eventually - so to speak - "condensed" into the hard-dated and semi-consistent "story" we know today.)

Well, I've read about his investigation, but I've never read the investigation itself, so I can't comment. And therefore nor will I disagree. Did you link me to the book earlier? :]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me. And I have to include it as a possibility.

Might I just add that I would love to see you discuss it with a chap called Graham Budd (Grahbudd) at ratskep.

Or Andrew Criddle (first example that comes to mind) here.

One issue with Bauer's very interesting work is that it may blur together two rather separate issues.

In one sense orthodoxy clearly is a late development. If you define orthodoxy as the teaching one finds in Athanasius Augustine and later figures, then you do not find all these doctrines in the 2nd century.

Figures like Origen who were mostly regarded as basically orthodox in their own lifetime would later be declared heretical.

Later orthodoxy developed out of debate, it was not fully formed at the beginning.

Modern scholarship recognises this by referring to proto-orthodoxy in this early period recognising that this is not entirely the same as later orthodoxy.

However Bauer is claiming something more than this, ie that at the beginning in most places most Christians were not even proto-orthodox and the later triumph of orthodoxy is a result of the spread of orthodox ideas from those places where they were the norm to the rest of the Roman Empire.

In some places this does seem to have happened. Most Early Syrian Christians were probably clearly unorthodox and the dominance of anything that could be called orthodox Christianity in that area seems to have been a later development.

However in the majority of places the majority of early Christians appear to have been proto-orthodox and Bauer's model does not seem to apply.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks. Interesting. Maybe George will chip in.

aa5874 · 09-29-2011, 05:29 PM

It is a MYTH that there was orthodoxy among Christians before the 4th century.

Justin Martyr exposes the Myth in "Dialogue with Trypho"

Quote:

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names....

archibald · 10-03-2011, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

Some Christians continue to make the distinction, to this day.

I also remember you saying this, but I don't rememnber finding it particularly convincing, as a way of explaining eithr Don's orignal verse, or the one Vorkosigan cited also (at the heresies thread), which I think was 2 Cor 5.

archibald · 10-03-2011, 03:31 AM

Here is 2 Cor 5. (KJV). I have looked at a greek-English translation, but can't seem to copy and paste from it. There doesn't seem to be too many contentious items, though if anybody disagrees, I'm only using KJV out of convenience and don't mind being corrected:

1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7(For we walk by faith, not by sight

8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.

13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'

How anybody gets from this that Jesus started out in an upper realm is quite beyond me. It is, in fact, entirely absent from the description, as far as I can see. Even v16, out of context, is still more indicative of an earthly reference, no matter what way you think of 'kata sarka'. And in the context of the whole chapter....

Sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder about the entire basis for Doherty's hypothesis.

In the case of Paul, he seems to have picked texts which don't involve an intermediate realm, but which do, repeatedly, seem to refer to an earthly one. Does nobody else find this flimsy? Honestly?

dog-on · 10-03-2011, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Don, I recently explained this to you.

According to the Flesh regards how something is considered, juxtaposed with According to the Spirit.

In other words, you can know something from a worldly viewpoint, or you can know something from a spiritual viewpoint.

Some Christians continue to make the distinction, to this day.

I also remember you saying this, but I don't rememnber finding it particularly convincing, as a way of explaining eithr Don's orignal verse, or the one Vorkosigan cited also (at the heresies thread), which I think was 2 Cor 5.

Maybe this will help.

If you read Isaiah "according to the flesh", it means one thing. However, if you read Isaiah "according to the spirit", it means something else entirely.

Get it?

Or think about it in the context of what Paul meant when he talked about the mystery, hidden for ages past.

GakuseiDon · 10-03-2011, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

I also remember you saying this, but I don't rememnber finding it particularly convincing, as a way of explaining eithr Don's orignal verse, or the one Vorkosigan cited also (at the heresies thread), which I think was 2 Cor 5.

Maybe this will help.

If you read Isaiah "according to the flesh", it means one thing. However, if you read Isaiah "according to the spirit", it means something else entirely.

Get it?

Or think about it in the context of what Paul meant when he talked about the mystery, hidden for ages past.

The passages are:

“They are Israelites … to them belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ, according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5).

and

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh; even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16).

Rather than dropping hints about it, just tell us what you think the passages mean. Thanks

archibald · 10-03-2011, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Maybe this will help.

If you read Isaiah "according to the flesh", it means one thing. However, if you read Isaiah "according to the spirit", it means something else entirely.

Get it?

No. Honestly, I don't. I see people struggling to get one of many, many earthly references to mean non-earthly, in a set of texts where the sublunar does not seem to be the setting, or part of the description, bar similar efforts to reconfigure ambiguities. It's not enough. By any objective standard. Believe it, if you must, it's not impossible. Give me Ascension of Isaiah. Then we can talk sublunar realms. :]

Btw, I'm in no way sure why you want to change the context of your example to 'reading a book'? Why don't you just use what's in the actual text and compare two possible versions of that?

'My Israeli countrymen according to the flesh'.

'My Israeli countrymen according to the spirit'.

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

10-03-2011, 03:31 AM	#327
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Here is 2 Cor 5. (KJV). I have looked at a greek-English translation, but can't seem to copy and paste from it. There doesn't seem to be too many contentious items, though if anybody disagrees, I'm only using KJV out of convenience and don't mind being corrected: 1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 12For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. 13For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. 14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' How anybody gets from this that Jesus started out in an upper realm is quite beyond me. It is, in fact, entirely absent from the description, as far as I can see. Even v16, out of context, is still more indicative of an earthly reference, no matter what way you think of 'kata sarka'. And in the context of the whole chapter.... Sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder about the entire basis for Doherty's hypothesis. In the case of Paul, he seems to have picked texts which don't involve an intermediate realm, but which do, repeatedly, seem to refer to an earthly one. Does nobody else find this flimsy? Honestly?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.