Ben C Smith

I have no intention of opening up a full discussion on this, but, while the Testimonium is clearly either forged or interpolated, the other reference offers no clear indication of forgery, IMVHO.

I think we find just that in the fourth gospel. That it does not come out and name the beloved disciple is strange, I will grant you, but the claim of the fourth gospel is that this disciple was an eyewitness of at least some of the events of the book, one who lived long enough into the apostolic period to raise the suspicion that he would live to see the end, and that he actually wrote at least some things down that were preserved in the fourth gospel itself.

Ben.

Ideologist

2 John 1: Is on Docetism.
1 John 4: Ditto.
Commentary on Gospel of John: On Docetism again. Note the part of the sentence "receive His deity alone" which is a clear reference to having received the deity rather than the dual Christ.
On the Flesh of Christ: ...more Docetism.
Twelve Topics on the Faith: Refers to both Docetism and Arianism.
To the Sozopolitans: And we keep goin' with the Docetism.

Really.

aa5874

My point is, heresy or orthodoxy does not determine historicity. Just like Judaism does not determine the existence of a God, the Eusebian heresy does not confirm anything relative to the existence of Jesus the Christ.

The Eusebian heresy became orthodox through violence, suppression and burning of opposing documents, at least that has been confirmed.

Ideologist

Do you want me to work on refuting all of the specific points here, or should I just try to provide a summary? (I'm not used to being forced to respond to three people at the same time, each of whom bringing up sources that I need to reread.)

Ideologist

Where are you getting that I claimed that? I said;

"The apologetic works of the first few centuries must be taken in context of the two major heresies of the Ancient Church; Arianism, where Christ was a non-divine creature, and Docetism, where his body was an illusion."

This was in an effort to explain why the apologetic works you were citing did not respond to certain points, or used Scriptural evidence, not to prove that Scriptural evidence is necessarily correct.

Cite, please.

Malachi151

See discussion of it here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#10

Its almost certainly a later addition based on a mistake made by Origen.

Too bad the passion scene in the Gospel of John is based on all the same scriptural elements as Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Either Jesus' passion really was prophesied in a bizarre way, or the passion narrative in all four Gospels is a rewriting of various "Old Testament" scriptures.

Ideologist

John's Passion scene is different from those in the Synoptic Gospels in several significant ways; if John is from the same source, it's done rather differently.

Malachi151

Its done differently, but it references the same Old Testament passages, plus a few more of its own. They all have Psalm 22 at the core.

Ideologist

To which the Christian response is, well, that of course it does; Psalm 22 is a prophecy of the Messiah.

Malachi151

That may well be the Christian response (of course it is), but I hope its not the historian's response.