aa5874

Origen was NOT arguing that Jesus was human with a human father. He was arguing that Jesus Christ was FATHERED by the Holy Ghost.

Celsus was attempting to DISCREDIT the Jesus stories as Fiction.

"Against Celsus" 40 It is clear that Celsus did NOT believe the Jesus stories and attempted to DICREDIT them.

"Against Celsus" also PROVES that Celsus did NOT use any writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger to show that Jesus was human with a human father.

Celsus could NOT destroy the argument of Christians that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost because he had ZERO document historical evidence, Jewish and Roman, that show Jesus was human.

From "Against Celsus" we know that any mention of a character called Jesus Christ in any non-apologetic source before Celsus was most likely NOT Jesus Christ of the NT or was a FORGERY.

aa5874

Based on Church writings there were big debates going on in the 2nd century by CHRISTIANS themselves.

The debate was whether Jesus existed in HUMAN FLESH.

According to Church writers Marcion proposed the Son of God existed as a PHANTOM.

Tertullian wrote a BOOK to settle the question if Jesus existed as a Phantom or God Incarnate of the SEED of God without a human father.

"On the Flesh of Christ" The Historical Jesus, the human Jesus with a human father, was CONDEMNED by Church writers as heresy and was ARGUED vehemently among CHRISTIANS of antiquity.

Even Justin Marty claimed he would NOT accept that Jesus was human with a human father even though some Christians believed so.

"Dialogue with Trypho" XLVIII There was arguments AMONG Christians themselves about the nature of Jesus.

Now, Tertullian would give the ANSWER.


""On the Flesh of Christ" Jesus existed WITHOUT a human father according to Tertullian and Church writers. Jesus existed MYTHOLOGICALLY based on Apologetic sources.

Duvduv

It appears that "man of men" simply means an ordinary flesh and blood man, whereas he believes this Jesus to be born from a human woman but not an ordinary man, but a divine being in a human body that he acquired from his mother (which of course is not in keeping with later Christology). That's not the same thing as a phantom which is like a hologram.

aa5874

Well, a Phantom is a mythological entity that appears to have a human body and Jesus of the NT was the mythological Son of a Ghost that appeared human.

Please tell me how you were able to say a Phantom is like a Hologram?

You saw a Phantom, a Hologram and one conceived by a Ghost!!!???

Duvduv

Here is a definition of a phantom. They do not include the idea as far as I know of being a physical entity which could not apply if a being were born from a human woman.

a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.
b. Something elusive or delusive.
2. An image that appears only in the mind; an illusion.

aa5874

But you have UTTERLY failed to present the description of "Hologram".

Do you need any equipment to produce a Phantom?

Did you not say a Phantom is like a Hologram???

Now, a Phantom is described as a Ghost and Jesus was described as the Son of a Ghost.

By description Jesus can be considered a PHANTOM.

Matthew 1.20 Jesus of the NT was a Myth Fable of a PHANTOM (a Ghost).

Marcion's Son of God and Jesus of the NT are PHANTOMS BY Description.

Duvduv

For heaven's sake. The point is the same. A non-physical being. A non-physical being is not a man from men. But the Jesus who was born via the womb of a human female is a physical being even if the fertilization was supernatural and even if the religion has a difficulty deciding on the nature of the person as two in one or one in two.

aa5874

What absurdity!! A Ghost cannot impregnate a virgin. There is NO such thing as a Supernatural fertilization.

This is the 21st century.

Please, please, please, I don't regard Myth Fables about Ghosts/Phantoms as history.

Next, some may want to claim STONES were actually real historical Gods in the Stone Age or some earlier time.

This is the 21st century.

There is NO such thing as Fertilization by PHANTOM.

Duvduv

aa5874, if the Book of Acts preceded the epistles, then why didn't the story of the revelation of Paul as appearing in Acts find its way into the epistles?
Why didn't the historical Jesus of NAZARETH find its way into the succeeding epistles?
Why didn't mention of the Baptist find its way into the epistles?
Why did the Peter of Acts then have epistles written just as Paul did?
If Acts was the first written text of the sect to appear, then what tradition(s) did it come from where "Peter" and "Paul" were revered as the great apostles, and who were these two important figures that got top billing in the earlier period before Acts was produced?

Duvduv

OF COURSE this is the 21st century!! I am simply talking in terms of HOW THEY THOUGHT in those days! In those days this being was deemed "human" because he was born from a human womb in the 9th month regardless of how the egg became fertilized. They didn't think like people in the 21st century!