Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-02-2004, 05:45 AM

duplicate post

GakuseiDon · 04-02-2004, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Don, this is really out of bounds. First, you misread my comment. I never claimed that Tatian was not a follower of Jesus Christ, whatever version, when he authored the Address to the Greeks.
Rather, I kept demanding from you evidence that he was. There is no evidence from that text that allows one to conclude that he worshipped Jesus Christ in any form. So not only have I not made the "astounding" claim you attribute to me, you have not submitted any evidence that would entitle you to term any claim I make "astounding." You cannot win with rhetoric what you have lost by logic and evidence.

My apologies. I worded that badly. I should have said that I was astounded that you said that there was no evidence that Tatian was a follower of Jesus Christ, whatever version, when he authored the Address to the Greeks. (I'm not trying to be ironic, the difference is subtle, but it's there). Vork, the quotes I gave earlier where Tatian comments on Justin in his Address is at least circumstantial evidence, is it not? I'll also provide some more below.

Quote:

GDon >>>Justin (a HJer) proclaiming the truth!!! How likely is it that a Logos believer could be a student of someone who believes that the Logos incarnated and became a human being and still claim that he "proclaimed the truth".

Very likely. Here's a clue, Don: what happened to Tatian after Justin died?

Here is the answer: he became an Encratite. How do we know this? From Irenaeus's Against Heresies

Quote:

Chapter XXVIII.-Doctrines of Tatian, the Encratites, and Others.

1. Many offshoots of numerous heresies have already been formed from those heretics we have described. This arises from the fact that numbers of them-indeed, we may say all-desire themselves to be teachers, and to break off from the particular heresy in which they have been involved. Forming one set of doctrines out of a totally different system of opinions, and then again others from others, they insist upon teaching something new, declaring themselves the inventors of any sort of opinion which they may have been able to call into existence. To give an example: Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites (self-controlled) preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming Him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race. Some of those reckoned among them have also introduced abstinence from animal food, thus proving themselves ungrateful to God, who formed all things. They deny, too, the salvation of him who was first created. It is but lately, however, that this opinion has been invented among them. A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin's, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication.308 But his denial of Adam's salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself.

When did Irenaeus write this? He wrote this around 180. Tatian wrote around 170 CE, so Irenaeus was virtually a contemporary to Tatian. He also apparently had access to works by Tatian that no longer exist. He actually visited Rome (where Tatian had lived) itself in 177-178.

So, the full answer is, after Justin Martyr died, Tatian separated from the Church and composed his own peculiar type of doctrine (which, AFAICS like Marcion didn't deny that Christ had a historical existence, just that He wasn't composed of flesh and blood). Is there any reason to suppose that by "Church" Irenaeus (who was a HJer) meant anything other than a HJ stream? (Read his list of heresies if you have any doubt!)

NOGO · 04-02-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tercel

Toto,

What Olson has missed is that ther is an important difference between ancient Greek claims and Christians ones: People are interested in the truth or otherwise of Christian claims, everyone is happy to assume that the Greek ones are false.

Since everyone is happy to agree that there weren't miraculous events performed by the Greek Gods in the life of Alexander the Great, the modern historical reconstructions of his life that deliberately omit the miraculous are acceptable to all as neutral scholarship, because the scholars are not making any contentious assumptions. The scholars are beginning on common ground that is agreed to by all.

When, however, a person starts out with the assumption that the central claims of Christianity are false, they are making a contentious claim. And many conclusions they might derive from "research" based on this presupposition (eg that the gospels are fiction), are entirely worthless: Ending with the conclusion that something is false because you've begun with the conclusion it is false is not scholarship but silliness, perhaps even deception.

Total nonsense!
The same can be said about any faith.
Denying the central claims of any faith is contentious.

You believe in the Christian miracles but deny any other faith's miracles.

But on what grounds?

Christians miracles are true because Christianity is true and Christianity is true because Christian miracles are true.

Yes I start with the assumption that all claims are false until they are substantiated. That is the best attitude to have. One which you share for any other faith but your own.

If after examining Christian claims I determine that they are false because the evidence leads me to that conclusion no one can says that I started with this conclusion. That is total nonsense. One must necessarily start by not believing. Paul started that way and so did every Christian.

Since we all start by not believing you can accuse anybody who does not believe of starting with the conclusion. You do not believe in Islam but you started with that conclusion, did you not?

Of course anything you say about Islam is useless because you started with the conclusion. It follows that only believers can say something useful about their faith.

Brilliant example of Christian logic.

Vorkosigan · 04-03-2004, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

The JM claims Paul believed in a purely spiritual Christ figure. But Paul clearly believes in a quite human Jesus Christ. The JM claims Hebrews describes a purely spiritual Christ figure. But the letter clearly describes a preexisting spiritual being who came to earth in human form and will return to earth later. The JM (per Doherty) claims that the Gospels are Midrash, but they are no such thing.

Wrong on all counts, as shown again and again here in this forum.

BTW, Grant is not a NT scholar. He is a classical historian.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed he was an NT scholar!

Vorkosigan · 04-03-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, the full answer is, after Justin Martyr died, Tatian separated from the Church and composed his own peculiar type of doctrine (which, AFAICS like Marcion didn't deny that Christ had a historical existence, just that He wasn't composed of flesh and blood). Is there any reason to suppose that by "Church" Irenaeus (who was a HJer) meant anything other than a HJ stream? (Read his list of heresies if you have any doubt!)

Yes, because Tatian's beliefs AFTER Justin are consistent with his BEFORE Justin. I doubt Tatian was ever part of "the Church." In any case, you still haven't forwarded me any evidence that at the time Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks he was an HJer who for some bizarre reason went out of his way to contradict the main tenets of his religion, and never mention its founder. The problem is not merely the lack of evidence regarding Tatian's commitment to HJism. It is the positive evidence from Tatian's own hand that condemns him as some sort of Logos Religion believer. You haven't touched that either.

To bring this back to Doherty's claims, you have to show that Tatian was not a Logos-religion nut, but an HJer, and you have to refute his own words on the topic of God's nature -- which cannot be flesh, and on the soul -- which reaches God through knowledge of him, not through Jesus.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 04-03-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

GDon >>>So, the full answer is, after Justin Martyr died, Tatian separated from the Church and composed his own peculiar type of doctrine (which, AFAICS like Marcion didn't deny that Christ had a historical existence, just that He wasn't composed of flesh and blood). Is there any reason to suppose that by "Church" Irenaeus (who was a HJer) meant anything other than a HJ stream? (Read his list of heresies if you have any doubt!)

Yes, because Tatian's beliefs AFTER Justin are consistent with his BEFORE Justin.

Heh? How does that answer the question? Please answer the question.

By the way, what were Tatian's beliefs about Jesus Christ AFTER Justin? In what way were they consistent with his beliefs before Justin? Surely you've just conceded that Tatian was a believer in a "Jesus Christ" before Justin, if his belief is consistent?

Quote:

I doubt Tatian was ever part of "the Church."

You ask for evidence, and when I give it, you dismiss it. On what grounds do you reject Irenaeus's comment?

Quote:

In any case, you still haven't forwarded me any evidence that at the time Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks he was an HJer who for some bizarre reason went out of his way to contradict the main tenets of his religion, and never mention its founder.

I've provided evidence that he was a believer in a "Jesus Christ" (either HJ or MJ), which is what I originally claimed. Now I want to know why you reject it.

And now you've made another astounding and bizarre claim! Tatian "went out of his way to contradict the main tenets of his religion"??? I think you are anticipating debates that don't occur until several centuries later. How was the Address actually received by HJers? In the 4th C CE, Eusebius writes:

Quote:

He (Tatian) has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works.

Vork, if Tatian's Address contradicted the main tenets of the HJ stream, why wasn't this noticed? I don't want how it contradicts the central tenets of today's belief, I want evidence that HJers saw it as contradicting the beliefs of the time. In other words, why couldn't it be written by HJers of the time? (see Justin Martyr's Apologies for reference).

If no-one saw it as contradicting HJ tenets of that period, how can you say that it was not written by a HJer of that period?

Quote:

The problem is not merely the lack of evidence regarding Tatian's commitment to HJism. It is the positive evidence from Tatian's own hand that condemns him as some sort of Logos Religion believer. You haven't touched that either.

To bring this back to Doherty's claims, you have to show that Tatian was not a Logos-religion nut, but an HJer, and you have to refute his own words on the topic of God's nature -- which cannot be flesh, and on the soul -- which reaches God through knowledge of him, not through Jesus.

Vork, you've yet to show me that his Address was a problem for HJers of that period. I can show that it wasn't a problem (Eusebius). Please show me that it was a problem.

If I've shown that Tatian was always a believer in Jesus Christ (first as a HJer, then as a Marcion-like Gnostic) who doesn't mention the name "Jesus Christ" or any details of the same in his Address to the Greeks, and his Address wasn't a problem for HJers, then Doherty's thesis begins to fall like a house of cards. Why shouldn't the same apply to the other writers who don't mention "Jesus Christ" or other details of the same?

Tatian looms like a dagger stabbing deep into the heart of Doherty's thesis.

NOGO · 04-03-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

GakuseiDon
and his Address wasn't a problem for HJers, then Doherty's thesis begins to fall like a house of cards. Why shouldn't the same apply to the other writers who don't mention "Jesus Christ" or other details of the same?

Doherty's thesis can never fall like a house of cards there is just too much evidence in its support.

Why shouldn't the same apply to the other writers who don't mention "Jesus Christ" or other details of the same?

I have already answered this question and you ignored it.

You keep asking as if you had a point.

Layman · 04-03-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Doherty's thesis can never fall like a house of cards there is just too much evidence in its support.

That's it folks. Ballgames over! Nogo has declared victory.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

NOGO · 04-03-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO
Doherty's thesis can never fall like a house of cards there is just too much evidence in its support.

Layman
That's it folks. Ballgames over! Nogo has declared victory.

Greetings Layman.
At least you have not lost your sense of humour.

I think that you should start a new career as a humourist.
But first you need to learn how to read and perhaps to write as well.

In an earlier post you made sweeping declarations of fact that Paul speaks about an earthly Jesus and so does Hebrews.

This is what I call a declaration of victory. Contrast that with my statement if you can.

I simply stated that Doherty's thesis is on solid ground.
As and example you claim that Hebrews speaks of an earthly Jesus which is on anything but solid foundation.

While Doherty can point to countless elements in Hebrews (and Paul) which contrast the Gospel stories and the idea of an HJ, you, on the other hand, are force to play around with the meaning of one or two words. Your whole argument hinges on the meaning of these words.

That's what I call a house of cards. That is what Doherty's theory is not.

You have yet to explain the many differences betwen the Gospels and the Epistles.

Try this one Son of God

Layman · 04-03-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Greetings Layman.
In an earlier post you made sweeping declarations of fact that Paul speaks about an earthly Jesus and so does Hebrews.

This is what I call a declaration of victory. Contrast that with my statement if you can.

I backed up my "sweeping" declarations with well-reasoned articles available online.

View Poll Results: I am a Jesus Myther and...
I have read Doherty's arguments, but not Wright's arguments.	23	71.88%
I have read Wright's arguments, but not Doherty's arguments.	1	3.13%
I have read both arguments, and I find Doherty's superior to Wrights	8	25.00%
I have read both documents, and I find them to be equally convincing.	0	0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-02-2004, 05:45 AM	#131
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	duplicate post

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.