Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-28-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. All other men are also sons of Joseph?

But seriously, is the Carpocratian view of Jesus discussed in Heresies 25? And if so, is Jesus' generation through Joseph the only thing that is noted there that Carpocrates believed about Jesus?

Jeffrey

Why don't you read Against Heresies XXV?

Why don't you answer my question? After all, you are the one making claims about what is said in Against Heresies Book 1.25.

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-28-2008, 06:13 PM

Please stop this pointless challenge and counter challenge to read something when it is so easy to find the material on the web in our allegedly common language:

IRENAEUS Against_Heresies: Book I Chapter_XXV

Quote:

Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed[1] within the sphere of the unbegotten God. On this account, a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world; and they say that it, after passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him, and to the powers,[2] which in the same way embraced like things to itself. . . .

[1] [I note again this “Americanism.”]
[2] Such seems to be the meaning of the Latin, but the original text is conjectural.

More at

Carpocratians on Carpocratians.

I do not think it makes sense to see this as describing a Jesus who fits the post-Enlightenment search for the historical Jesus. This Jesus was only the same as other men in that the Carpocratians seem to have also believed that they each had some sort of divine soul.

We are stuck with Irenaeus' account of what these heretics believed. How accurate would you estimate it to be?

aa5874 · 12-28-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop this pointless challenge and counter challenge to read something when it is so easy to find the material on the web in our allegedly common language:

IRENAEUS Against_Heresies: Book I Chapter_XXV

Quote:

Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed[1] within the sphere of the unbegotten God. On this account, a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world; and they say that it, after passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him, and to the powers,[2] which in the same way embraced like things to itself. . . .

[1] [I note again this “Americanism.”]
[2] Such seems to be the meaning of the Latin, but the original text is conjectural.

More at

Carpocratians on Carpocratians.

I do not think it makes sense to see this as describing a Jesus who fits the post-Enlightenment search for the historical Jesus. This Jesus was only the same as other men in that the Carpocratians seem to have also believed that they each had some sort of divine soul.

We are stuck with Irenaeus' account of what these heretics believed. How accurate would you estimate it to be?

We are not stuck at all. Did I not mention Cerinthus? And what about the Ebionites and Valentinius?

It is a fact that people of antiquity denied that Jesus of the NT existed.

And this is an open discussion. We are discussing whether people of antiquity did claim Jesus of the NT did not exist.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-28-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop this pointless challenge and counter challenge to read something when it is so easy to find the material on the web in our allegedly common language:

IRENAEUS Against_Heresies: Book I Chapter_XXV

More at

Carpocratians on Carpocratians.

I do not think it makes sense to see this as describing a Jesus who fits the post-Enlightenment search for the historical Jesus. This Jesus was only the same as other men in that the Carpocratians seem to have also believed that they each had some sort of divine soul.

We are stuck with Irenaeus' account of what these heretics believed. How accurate would you estimate it to be?

We are not stuck at all. Did I not mention Cerinthus?

Yes, you did. But you also claimed, did you not, when you said, as you did here, "And there is Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites that claimed Jesus was just human", that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that where we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more was to be found in Ireneaus' Against Heresies (Book 1) 25 -- which, BTW, reads:

Quote:

ΚΑΡΠΟΚΡΑΤΗΣ τὸν μὲν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων πολὺ ὑποβεβηκότων τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Πατρὸς γεγενῆσθαι λέγει· τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ ὅμοιον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γεγονότα, δικαιότερον τῶν λοιπῶν γενέσθαι, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ εὔτονον καὶ καθαρὰν γεγονυῖαν, διαμνημονεῦσαι τὰ ὁρατὰ μὲν [forte l. ὁρώμενα] αὐτῇ ἐν τῇ μετὰ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπ' ἐκείνου αὐτῷ καταπεμφθῆναι δύναμιν, ὅπως τοὺς κοσμοποιοὺς ἐκφυγεῖν δι' αὐτῆς δυνηθῇ· ἣν καὶ διὰ πάντων χωρήσασαν ἐν πᾶσί τε ἐλευθερωθεῖσαν [ἀν]εληλυθέναι πρὸς αὐτὸν, τὰ ὅμοια αὐτῆς ἀσπαζομένην. Τὴν δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγουσι ψυχὴν ἐννόμως ἠσκημένην ἐν Ἰουδαϊκοῖς ἔθεσι, καταφρονῆσαι αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δυνάμεις ἐπιτετελεκέναι, [Int. ἐπιτετυχηκέναι,] δι' ὧν κατήργησε τὰ ἐπὶ κολάσει πάθη προσόντα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

But it turns out that neither of your claims is true.

Quote:

It is a fact that people of antiquity denied that Jesus of the NT existed.

If we had reason to believe that you had any understanding or grasp of who and what the "Jesus of the NT" was, we might be inclined to consider your claim. But if nothing else, your stance that there is only one view of Jesus presented in the NT, let alone that this view is of Jesus as God because he is called "son of God", or that Matthew and Luke [but no other NT writer] tell(s) us that Jesus conception was part of the plan and purposes of Israel's god, shows that we have no such reasons whatsoever.

Moreover, you seem to be entirely unaware -- and certainly uninformed about the fact -- that Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites believed their views of who and what Jesus was to be derived from, grounded in, and entirely consistent with the views of Jesus found in NT writings.

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-28-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But it turns out that neither of your claims is true.

So, why don't you print Against Heresies XXV in English so we can see what is written?

Quote:

It is a fact that people of antiquity denied that Jesus of the NT existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyGibson

Moreover, you seem to be entirely unaware -- and certainly uninformed about the fact -- that Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites believed their views of who and what Jesus was to be derived from, grounded in, and entirely consistent with the views of Jesus found in NT writings.

Jeffrey

So, why were they called heretics?

And why is this found in the preface of Against Heresies when speaking of the heretics?

Quote:

In as much as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies.... I have felt constrained my dear friend to compose the following treatise to expose and coumteract their machinations.

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation....

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-28-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But it turns out that neither of your claims is true.

So, why don't you print Against Heresies XXV in English so we can see what is written?

Leaving aside the fact that Toto did so already, why don't you learn Greek so that you could read the original text and not have only second hand (and often inaccurate) "knowledge" of what the texts actually say?

Quote:

So, why were they called heretics?

Do you really not know?

Quote:

And why is this found in the preface of Against Heresies when speaking of the heretics?

Quote:

In as much as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies.... I have felt constrained my dear friend to compose the following treatise to expose and coumteract their machinations.

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation....

You have confused the issue of how opponents of Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites regarded the claims Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites with what Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites themsleves felt about their claims.

Moreover you are ignoring the fact that when Irenaeus speaks of "these men" as "falsifying the oracles of God and as proving themselves to be evil interpreters of the good word of revelation" he is asserting and testifying to the fact that "these men" did indeed ground and derive their views regarding the person and work of Jesus in the writings of the NT. Irenaeus' claim that "these men" have misinterpreted and perverted scripture assumes -- and, more importantly, cannot be true unless it was a fact -- that Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites did derive their views about Jesus from the NT and did see them as grounded in, and consistent with, portraits of Jesus found in NT texts.

In any case, what has this to do with the validity of your claim that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that where we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more was to be found in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-28-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, why don't you print Against Heresies XXV in English so we can see what is written?

Leaving aside the fact that Toto did so already, why don't you learn Greek so that you could read the original text and not have only second hand (and often inaccurate) "knowledge" of what the texts actually say?

Do you really not know?

Quote:

And why is this found in the preface of Against Heresies when speaking of the heretics?

You have confused the issue of how opponents of Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites regarded the claims Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites with what Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites themsleves felt about their claims.

What?

Please read on. The preface has more about the "blasphemous" heretics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyGibson

Moreover you are ignoring the fact that when Irenaeus speaks of "these men" as "falsifying the oracles of God and as proving themselves to be evil interpreters of the good word of revelation" he is asserting and testifying to the fact that "these men" did indeed ground and derive their views regarding the person and work of Jesus in the writings of the NT. Irenaeus' claim that "these men" have misinterpreted and perverted scripture assumes -- and, more importantly, cannot be true unless it was a fact -- that Cerinthius, Carpocrates, and the Ebionites did derive their views about Jesus from the NT and did see them as grounded in, and consistent with, portraits of Jesus found in NT texts.

So where is it grounded in the NT texts that Jesus was a phatom or not born of a virgin? Where are blasphemy and lies about Jesus of the NT grounded in the NT text?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyGibson

In any case, what has this to do with the validity of your claim that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that where we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more was to be found in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25?

Jeffrey

People of antiquity did question or deny that Jesus of the NT did exist.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyGibson

In any case, what has this to do with the validity of your claim that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that where we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more was to be found in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25?

Jeffrey

People of antiquity did question or deny that Jesus of the NT did exist.

Even if this question begging assertion is true, how does it show that your specific claims that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, are true?

So I ask once again: In the light of all that Irenaeus says about Carpocrates in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, do you still maintain that Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25 Irenaeus says that Carpocrates believed Jesus to be "just a man" and nothing more?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People of antiquity did question or deny that Jesus of the NT did exist.

Even if this question begging assertion is true, how does it show that your specific claims that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, are true?

So I ask once again: In the light of all that Irenaeus says about Carpocrates in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, do you still maintain that Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25 Irenaeus says that Carpocrates believed Jesus to be "just a man" and nothing more?

Jeffrey

I told you to read on. What is written about the doctrine of Carpocrates in Against Heresies XXV? Is it written that Jesus was the son of Joseph or the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Even if this question begging assertion is true, how does it show that your specific claims that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that we could find documentation that Carpocrates believed Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more in Ireneaus's Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, are true?

So I ask once again: In the light of all that Irenaeus says about Carpocrates in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, do you still maintain that Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more, and that in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25 Irenaeus says that Carpocrates believed Jesus to be "just a man" and nothing more?

Jeffrey

I told you to read on.

I have. In fact, I provided you with the full text of what Irenaeus writes about the doctrine of Carpocrates in Against Heresies (book 1) XXV?

Quote:

What is written about the doctrine of Carpocrates in Against Heresies XXV? Is it written that Jesus was the son of Joseph or the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

I agree. But leaving aside the fact that Irenaeus does not use the Greek term for, or speak of a, "ghost" in Against Heresies (Book 1) 25, let alone in reference to Jesus conception or birth, the question that I've been asking you -- and which you have consistently dodged answering - is whether what you say Irenaus writes here all that he writes concerning Carpocrates doctrine of Jesus?

Does Ireaneus stop, when he is describing Carpocrates view of who Jesus was, with τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγενῆσθα?

Yes or no?

To help you answer this question, I reproduce the text of Against Heresies (Book 1) 25 again, with Carpoctates assertion about Jesus and Joseph bolded, so that you may have some visual indication of whether or not Jesus being the son of Joseph was all that Carpocrates said about who and what Jesus was.

Quote:

ΚΑΡΠΟΚΡΑΤΗΣ τὸν μὲν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων πολὺ ὑποβεβηκότων τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Πατρὸς γεγενῆσθαι λέγει· τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγενῆσθαι, καὶ ὅμοιον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γεγονότα, δικαιότερον τῶν λοιπῶν γενέσθαι, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ εὔτονον καὶ καθαρὰν γεγονυῖαν, διαμνημονεῦσαι τὰ ὁρατὰ μὲν [forte l. ὁρώμενα] αὐτῇ ἐν τῇ μετὰ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπ' ἐκείνου αὐτῷ καταπεμφθῆναι δύναμιν, ὅπως τοὺς κοσμοποιοὺς ἐκφυγεῖν δι' αὐτῆς δυνηθῇ· ἣν καὶ διὰ πάντων χωρήσασαν ἐν πᾶσί τε ἐλευθερωθεῖσαν [ἀν]εληλυθέναι πρὸς αὐτὸν, τὰ ὅμοια αὐτῆς ἀσπαζομένην. Τὴν δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγουσι ψυχὴν ἐννόμως ἠσκημένην ἐν Ἰουδαϊκοῖς ἔθεσι, καταφρονῆσαι αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δυνάμεις ἐπιτετελεκέναι, [Int. ἐπιτετυχηκέναι,] δι' ὧν κατήργησε τὰ ἐπὶ κολάσει πάθη προσόντα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

If, in the light of the above, you say "yes" to my question of -- i.e. if you say yes it's true that "Jesus was the son of Joseph was indeed all or the only thing that Carpocrates had to say about who he thought Jesus was -- then it is even more obvious than it already is that you do not know what you are talking about when you claim, as you have done, that along with Cerinthus, Carpocrates believed that Jesus was "just a man" and nothing more,

Jeffrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.