Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There were the Ebionites:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)"

I thought he was asking for something contemporary or near contemporary, in the way that the Gospels purport to be contemporary evidence of the God-man, and in the way that the usual references to Josephus and the Roman writers are thought to be near-contemporary evidence of something in the region of a "Jesus Christ"?

I think dog-on's point is sound actually, regardless of Chris' scorn. With all the apologist squid-ink flying around, it tends to be forgotten that most Christians throughout history have believed (and proposed to the rest of the world) that the NT/Gospels are pretty much all the contemporary evidence one might want of a God-man who walked this Earth.

i.e. the Gospels, etc., were not put forward by most Christians as evidence of an apocalyptic prophet, an obscure preacher, etc. - those ideas have been extracted by scholars from the purported God-man evidence since the 19th century (precisely because, as evidence for a full-blown, miracle working, earth-shaking God-man, the Gospels had already been found wanting roundabout that time).

BINGO!

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Too many problems with this citation...at best, this is simply his take on the hearsay evidence provided by Christians of the time.

Non sequitur. And if you don't like it, go with GakuseiDon's suggestion.

Let's see here Chris, ...

2nd Century Christian: JC is lord, seated at the RH of the Father, etc, etc, etc...

Tacticus: LOL, Pilate wtfpwned him...

GakuseiDon · 06-07-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There were the Ebionites:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)"

I thought he was asking for something contemporary or near contemporary, in the way that the Gospels purport to be contemporary evidence of the God-man, and in the way that the usual references to Josephus and the Roman writers are thought to be near-contemporary evidence of something in the region of a "Jesus Christ"?

Nope. Dog-on asked "Please elaborate for the benefit of the ignorant. Please point me to the document from antiquity which discusses the "average Joe" HJ." I elaborated for his benefit. You could throw in Lucian as well, writing around 160 CE. Too late? Then when did the last mythicist write, in your opinion? And if we found a mythicist writer who wrote in 160 CE, should we reject that for being too late as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I think dog-on's point is sound actually, regardless of Chris' scorn. With all the apologist squid-ink flying around, it tends to be forgotten that most Christians throughout history have believed (and proposed to the rest of the world) that the NT/Gospels are pretty much all the contemporary evidence one might want of a God-man who walked this Earth.

Really, who cares what apologists think? How is this relevant to this discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

i.e. the Gospels, etc., were not put forward by most Christians as evidence of an apocalyptic prophet, an obscure preacher, etc. - those ideas have been extracted by scholars from the purported God-man evidence since the 19th century (precisely because, as evidence for a full-blown, miracle working, earth-shaking God-man, the Gospels had already been found wanting roundabout that time).

Are the scholars wrong? If so, why?

GakuseiDon · 06-07-2007, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There were the Ebionites:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)"

These guys just couldn't handle allowing another God into the stable (you know, all that "I am the Lord thy God" stuff)...

Well, take me through the steps then. How did they go from Paul writing around 50 CE about a mythical Jesus who didn't live on earth, to the Ebionites in the Second Century CE, who believed that Jesus (1) wasn't divine, and (2) wasn't virgin born?

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

These guys just couldn't handle allowing another God into the stable (you know, all that "I am the Lord thy God" stuff)...

Well, take me through the steps then. How did they go from Paul writing around 50 CE about a mythical Jesus who didn't live on earth, to the Ebionites in the Second Century CE, who believed that Jesus (1) wasn't divine, and (2) wasn't virgin born?

How does one go from Paul to Mark?

Maybe the Ebionites were simply unaware of the Marcionite epistles...

How exactly would the Ebionites have disproved the existence of Jesus as told by the contemporary Christians? The only thing they could do would be to deny that he (whoever he was), was "divine". Remember, their own beliefs rested on no sounder footing than did those of any other sect. One must always be careful with the stones, when one's own house is made of glass.

This simple fact seems to be missing in all these discussions.

Chris Weimer · 06-07-2007, 03:15 AM

Let's see if we can recap here, GakuseiDon:

"HJ evidence..."

"nuh-uh! look at this Cosmo issue..."

"scientific and scholarly information please..."

"uh...what?"

"do you even know Greek?"

"I know English! and that's good enough for me!"

"the "mythicists" displaying obvious fundy-like behavior"

"dude, chill. there was no hj becuz no1 in teh past sed NEting bout him"

"yes they did"

"uh...where?"

"list ancient sources that didn't mention divine Jesus"

"but look at the apologists! shouldn't we be fighting apologists! the gospels say this! they must be representative of christians everywhere of all time! only scholars extracted this information! and marcion wrote paul!"

*Sigh*

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Let's see if we can recap here, GakuseiDon:

"HJ evidence..."

"nuh-uh! look at this Cosmo issue..."

"scientific and scholarly information please..."

"uh...what?"

"do you even know Greek?"

"I know English! and that's good enough for me!"

"the "mythicists" displaying obvious fundy-like behavior"

"dude, chill. there was no hj becuz no1 in teh past sed NEting bout him"

"yes they did"

"uh...where?"

"list ancient sources that didn't mention divine Jesus"

"but look at the apologists! shouldn't we be fighting apologists! the gospels say this! they must be representative of christians everywhere of all time! only scholars extracted this information! and marcion wrote paul!"

*Sigh*

You are really a funny guy, Chris...

1. You have no "original" documents. (Isn't the Tacticus work we have dated to no earlier than the 11th century, or thereabouts?)

2. The "history" we do have has been preserved by, for the most part, Christians. See where this is going?

3. The fact that there is no contemporary record of this guy, even considering number 2 above, has got to make you scratch your head.

4. The earliest writings (which we will assume for the sake of this discussion are those of "Paul", leave much to be desired as far as making any case for an HJ).

5. The references we do have from the 1st century (Josephus), are, at best, bad interpolations by later Christians.

6. There is no "scientific" information you can share on this topic.

7. The "scholars", especially where the mainstream opinion on this issue is concerned, leaves much to be desired. (I would call them a bunch of biased lemmings, but, oh wait, I just did... :angel: )

8. The fact is that there can be no HJ without an MJ, but there could definitely be an MJ without historicity.

Is any of this provable? Probably not.

Is the evidence for an HJ better than evidence for no-HJ? Doubtful, at best.

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 03:46 AM

...and re: "Marcion wrote Paul"...

Do you have a reference to these epistles that can be proven to pre-date Marcion's (regardless of what Tertullian, sometime removed, may think...)?

Chris Weimer · 06-07-2007, 04:36 AM

Sorry, dog-on. Conspiracy theorists like you go on ignore. I've dealt with mountainman for too long, I don't need his clone. Until you have something substantial to add instead of the whole "Christiansdidit!" (the exact same fucking thing Christians say about God), good-bye.

dog-on · 06-07-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Sorry, dog-on. Conspiracy theorists like you go on ignore. I've dealt with mountainman for too long, I don't need his clone. Until you have something substantial to add instead of the whole "Christiansdidit!" (the exact same fucking thing Christians say about God), good-bye.

I take it that this is your way of saying "Uncle".... :wave:

(BTW, I fail to see why you think I believe in a "conspiracy". If nothing else, human nature being what it is and probably having remained fairly consistent over the millenia, any "amendments" by Christians would be, in my mind at least, no different then Romney's remarks about the weapon inspectors being kicked by Saddam prior to the start of the war... Maybe the jerk really believes it).

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

06-07-2007, 03:15 AM	#226
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Let's see if we can recap here, GakuseiDon: "HJ evidence..." "nuh-uh! look at this Cosmo issue..." "scientific and scholarly information please..." "uh...what?" "do you even know Greek?" "I know English! and that's good enough for me!" "the "mythicists" displaying obvious fundy-like behavior" "dude, chill. there was no hj becuz no1 in teh past sed NEting bout him" "yes they did" "uh...where?" "list ancient sources that didn't mention divine Jesus" "but look at the apologists! shouldn't we be fighting apologists! the gospels say this! they must be representative of christians everywhere of all time! only scholars extracted this information! and marcion wrote paul!" Sigh

06-07-2007, 03:46 AM	#228
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	...and re: "Marcion wrote Paul"... Do you have a reference to these epistles that can be proven to pre-date Marcion's (regardless of what Tertullian, sometime removed, may think...)?

06-07-2007, 04:36 AM	#229
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Sorry, dog-on. Conspiracy theorists like you go on ignore. I've dealt with mountainman for too long, I don't need his clone. Until you have something substantial to add instead of the whole "Christiansdidit!" (the exact same fucking thing Christians say about God), good-bye.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.