Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-20-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I may be one of the few that do though

? The influence of Greek philosophy, in particular neo-Platonism, on Christianity is no secret. It has been discussed here and elsewhere often.

Dating the Ebionites to the late first century is highly speculative.

Elijah · 02-20-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I may be one of the few that do though

? The influence of Greek philosophy, in particular neo-Platonism, on Christianity is no secret. It has been discussed here and elsewhere often.

We've had the discussion before (our first I think) and as I recall you were on the supernatural side of understanding Christianity not the philosophical side. I don't know what you think the influence on Christianity was, if it's not the philosophical understanding of the world.

convo

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Would you agree with the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was conceived by normal biological processes (as the source indicates below)?

Quote:

Jesus

The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the central Christian views of Jesus such as the pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection of Jesus.[3] The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism.[16][52]

3. ^ a b c A.F.J. Klijn & G.J. Reinink (1973). Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Brill. ISBN 9004037632.
52.^ a b c Tabor, James D.. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites". Retrieved on 2006-09-31.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Or is your argument that Jesus never existed in any way, shape or form in the first place?

The Jesus of the NT is already described, I do not have to make stuff up.

Just like Achilles was already described by Homer, I do not have to fabricated Achilles. Jesus and Achilles came pre-fabricated.

Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and Acts 1.9 described Jesus from conception to ascension. This is a pre-fabricated mythical creature.

Now, when and what did the Ebionites believe? And what credible sources have information about the Ebionites?

You should be wary of sources that have mis-represented the beliefs and history of certain sects in order to present a fraudulent account of the history of Jesus believers.

Toto · 02-20-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

? The influence of Greek philosophy, in particular neo-Platonism, on Christianity is no secret. It has been discussed here and elsewhere often.

We've had the discussion before (our first I think) and as I recall you were on the supernatural side of understanding Christianity not the philosophical side. I don't know what you think the influence on Christianity was, if it's not the philosophical understanding of the world.

convo

And you seem to remain convinced that Platonists are virtually the same as modern materialists, with no possibility of supernaturalism.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Elijah · 02-20-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And you seem to remain convinced that Platonists are virtually the same as modern materialists, with no possibility of supernaturalism.

No I'm saying the Platonic world view is what was shaping Christian thought not the assumed supernatural/mythological world view that you never provided a text to support.

Quote:

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Works for me.

Amaleq13 · 02-20-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If what you say is true, then Ben C Smith still believes implausibilty is history.

No, neither of those two statements have anything whatsoever to do with "history".

They are both about the fact that ancient biographies contained implausible claims.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If what you say is true, then Ben C Smith still believes implausibilty is history.

No, neither of those two statements have anything whatsoever to do with "history".

They are both about the fact that ancient biographies contained implausible claims.

Well, if what you say is true, ancient biographies are fiction novels.

spin · 02-20-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Oh, don't you just love to talk through your hat, spin!

That's just so you can understand it.

spin

arnoldo · 02-20-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .

Now, when and what did the Ebionites believe? And what credible sources have information about the Ebionites?

You should be wary of sources that have mis-represented the beliefs and history of certain sects in order to present a fraudulent account of the history of Jesus believers.

According to the following source the Ebionites believed that Jesus was not the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Quote:

. . . And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ebionites.html

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

According to the following source the Ebionites believed that Jesus was not the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Quote:

. . . And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ebionites.html

So, Jesus was an archangel according to your source.

What is the fundamental difference between an archangel and the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.