Duvduv

I still don't see where a person born from a female womb is not considered a physical being. Man of men would suggest that he is not born by virtue of male physical sperm. But that's not the same thing as not being a physical being born conventionally from a womb.
Plus we still have the issues from Justin 34 and 46 indicating he was a physical being. There is no evidence that either Justin or Irenaeus was referring to their Christ as a ghost being. Only a physical being, that walked, talked, ate and slept.

aa5874

I can only discuss human biology at this point. When I attended school I would NOT be able to pass my biology exams if I used your "divine biological" explanations.

Now, Justin Martyr also believed or claimed the God of the Jews did physically exist and Created heaven and earth.

Justin Martyr also believed or claimed the Angel Gabriel did physically exist and did speak to Mary.

Justin Martyr did BELIEVE or claim a Holy Ghost did physically exist and was the actual FATHER of Jesus.

You seem to have a hard time accepting that people of antiquity BELIEVED non-humans did physically exist.

Duvduv

It is worth noting that C. P. Sense 100 years ago made a strong argument that Tertullian's claim that Marcion believed in a phantom Jesus makes no sense. See the Google book, An Inquiry into the Third Gospel.

aa5874

Well, the authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus was Fathered by a Holy Ghost, was God the Creator, was On the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple with SATAN, Walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended in a cloud.

Did C. P Sense argue that the Jesus story made sense?

Huon

From Tertullian (active c. 197-c. 220).

Against Marcion. Book I, Chapter 19.
Well, but our god, say the Marcionites, although he did not manifest himself from the beginning and by means of the creation, has yet revealed himself in Christ Jesus. A book will be devoted to Christ, treating of His entire state; for it is desirable that these subject-matters should be distinguished one from another, in order that they may receive a fuller and more methodical treatment. Meanwhile it will be sufficient if, at this stage of the question, I show— and that but briefly— that Christ Jesus is the revealer of none other god but the Creator. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius [28 CE] Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the spirit of saving health.

On the Flesh of Christ. Chapter 1.
Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity.

According to Tertullian, the Marcionites believed that Christ Jesus came down from heaven in the fifteenth year of Tiberius [28 CE].

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [28 CE], Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea [26 to 36 CE], and Herod [Antipas] being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 3:2 in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3:3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;

Lk 3:21-22 Baptism of Jesus Mk 1: 9-11 Mt 3:13-17
3:21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

The dates given by Marcion are the dates given by gLuke.

Duvduv

No. but the difference is that people ascribe historical reality to Marcion and the "gospel truth" of what Tertullian wrote about Marcion. Even modern scholars who do not believe in the historical fact of a Jesus accept as "gospel truth" what is stated about Marcion and his beliefs. C.P. Sense is not like that.

In any event, I still am not clear on your evidence that a man born from the womb of a human female was not considered to be a physical being in this world.

You keep repeating the world "ghost," but I do not see in chapters 34 or 46 of Justin, or in the writings of Terullian that they rejected the idea that their Christ was a physical person and only a "ghost." You INFER this, but it is not explicit at all.

According to your view, WHEN DID "Christians" start to begin to understand their Jesus as a physical being? Was it at Nicaea?

Duvduv

From Irenaeus, so where do you see aa5874 that he believed his Christ to be a ghost?:

Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err, [since,] in order that they may cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between Him and Adam]. For if the one [who sprang] from the earth had indeed formation and substance from both the hand and workmanship of God, but the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case, preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured.57

Duvduv

aa5874, in "On the Flesh of Christ" did Tertullian believe his Christ was a ghost or a physical fleshly being? See especially his chapter 8.
I should say that this discussion does not deal with my other point: whether in fact the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian were produced in the 2nd century or later on as I suspect they were.

mountainman

Every document that any Christian ever wrote prior to Nicea was ultimately searched out of the archives, gathered together and edited by Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea in his monumental research project conducted between the years of c.312-324 CE.

Socrates recommended critical questioning, and IMO we are not doing the cause of rationalism any favors by presupposing that this Eusebius character wrote the gospel truth. The hypothesis that Eusebius lied has already been popularised by Richard Carrier's "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous". One of the prominent logical implications of Eusebian fiction is a massive social and political controversy following Nicaea. What happened following Nicaea other than a massive controversy?

Duvduv

What makes you think that they conceived of human reprodutive biology the way we do today? The reality is that they considered someone born from a womb as a physical being. Otherwise what do you make of the treatise on Christ as flesh? Not to mention the other descriptions.
Let me also say that I am willing to consider that Justin's Apology is not what we think it is, and therefore nobody knew or believed in a virgin birth in the second century. But rather that they believed in a Jesus who was a celestial or angelic figure.
As far as angels are concerned, they were not viewed as physical beings at all but only taking the form of humans.