Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-21-2010, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

CHAPTER II.--OBJECTIONS TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members. But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith. And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it partakes of salvation.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...urrection.html
There is an incredible amount of extrabibilical early christian writings concerning a HJ.

You seem not to understand what is an HJ. As far as I understand HJ refers to a human only Jesus.

Historical means something/someone actually existed, regardless if it/they were human or not. For example, Neanderthals (which aren't human) were historical, rather than mythical, because they actually existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

MJ refers to the non-human Jesus believed to have existed.

Now, there is no abundance of evidence for an human only Jesus Christ.

Virtually all the Church writers claimed Jesus Christ was a God or the Son of a God, the Creator, born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost of God.

Justin Martyr's Jesus was non-human or a combination of the Holy Ghost of God and a Virgin, a MYTHOLOGICAL entity.

Justin Martyr's Jesus was not a man, since he would not have asked people to worship Jesus as a God.

Justin Martyr believe such a person actually existed, therefore he believed in HJ rather than a MJ.

aa5874 · 02-21-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem not to understand what is an HJ. As far as I understand HJ refers to a human only Jesus.

Historical means something/someone actually existed, regardless if it/they were human or not. For example, Neanderthals (which aren't human) were historical, rather than mythical, because they actually existed.

You are completely mistaken.

Belief is irrelevant to actual existence.

We are dealing with HJ not Neanderthals.

You seem not to have understood what HJ means all along.

HJ is directly related to a human only Jesus.

HJers, perhaps except you, disregard all the information that show Jesus existed as a God.

If BELIEF of existence determiines HJ then Jesus can can be both Mythological and Historical at the same time.

It is historical data, artifacts and archaeological findings that help to determine historicity, NOT belief of existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Justin Martyr believe such a person actually existed, therefore he believed in HJ rather than a MJ.

But, Marcion believed his Phantom Son of God Jesus Christ existed.

Does his belief make his Phantom an actual historical figure who really was in Capernaum?

Valentinus believed his Aeonical Jesus Christ existed too.

It must be obvious by now that BELIEF is irrelevant to actual existence or actual history.

Gods are MYTHOLOGICAL entities. Justin believed in a MYTH.

arnoldo · 02-21-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Historical means something/someone actually existed, regardless if it/they were human or not. For example, Neanderthals (which aren't human) were historical, rather than mythical, because they actually existed.

You are completely mistaken.

Belief is irrelevant to actual existence.

We are dealing with HJ not Neanderthals.

You seem not to have understood what HJ means all along.

HJ is directly related to a human only Jesus.

HJers, perhaps except you, disregard all the information that show Jesus existed as a God.

If BELIEF of existence determiines HJ then Jesus can can be both Mythological and Historical at the same time.

It is historical data, artifacts and archaeological findings that help to determine historicity, NOT belief of existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Justin Martyr believe such a person actually existed, therefore he believed in HJ rather than a MJ.

But, Marcion believed his Phantom Son of God Jesus Christ existed.

Does his belief make his Phantom an actual historical figure who really was in Capernaum? .

Didn't Marcion believe that there was an actual person who was crucified but that this "Phantom" left the body right before this person's death? Therefore it would seem that Marcion believed in an actual HJ. In any event the great controversy concerning the historicity (beginning in the first century onward to the present century)of the person in question supports a historical basis for the gospel than it's complete fabrication out of thin air.

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

aa5874 · 02-21-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are completely mistaken.

Belief is irrelevant to actual existence.

We are dealing with HJ not Neanderthals.

You seem not to have understood what HJ means all along.

HJ is directly related to a human only Jesus.

HJers, perhaps except you, disregard all the information that show Jesus existed as a God.

If BELIEF of existence determiines HJ then Jesus can can be both Mythological and Historical at the same time.

It is historical data, artifacts and archaeological findings that help to determine historicity, NOT belief of existence.

But, Marcion believed his Phantom Son of God Jesus Christ existed.

Does his belief make his Phantom an actual historical figure who really was in Capernaum? .

Didn't Marcion believe that there was an actual person who was crucified but that this "Phantom" left the body right before this person's death? Therefore it would seem that Marcion believed in an actual HJ. In any event the great controversy concerning the historicity (beginning in the first century onward to the present century)of the person in question supports a historical basis for the gospel than it's complete fabrication out of thin air.

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Marcion was talking about a God, a Creator greater than the God of the Jews. Gods, Creators are mythological, regardless of BELIEF.

Quote:

...And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator....

arnoldo · 02-21-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Didn't Marcion believe that there was an actual person who was crucified but that this "Phantom" left the body right before this person's death? Therefore it would seem that Marcion believed in an actual HJ. In any event the great controversy concerning the historicity (beginning in the first century onward to the present century)of the person in question supports a historical basis for the gospel than it's complete fabrication out of thin air.

Marcion was talking about a God, a Creator greater than the God of the Jews. Gods, Creators are mythological, regardless of BELIEF.

Quote:

...And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator....

Regardless, Marcion was talking about an actual HJ who was born and died. There are many early christian writings which document accounts of a HJ. If one chooses to disbelieve these accounts that is another matter. Ignatius writes;

Quote:

CHAPTER 9
9:1 Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you
apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David,
who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and
drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was
truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven
and those on earth and those under the earth;
9:2 who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His
Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will
so raise us also who believe on Him -- His Father, I
say, will raise us -- in Christ Jesus, apart from whom
we have not true life.

CHAPTER 10
10:1 But if it were as certain persons who are
godless, that is unbelievers, say, that He suffered only
in semblance, being themselves mere semblance, why am I
in bonds? And why also do I desire to fight with wild
beasts? So I die in vain. Truly then I lie against the
Lord.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

DCHindley · 02-21-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Loomis,

I think you've read too much into Zech 3:1.

Of course you do.

Sorry to be a stickler for detail - and the fact it seems to annoy you. I'm sure you are not alone. I just like to deal with what the texts actually say, not what we would like them to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The phrase means, literally, "messenger of the LORD,"
…
in vs 6, the LORD speaks through his messenger (probably Zechariah)

Probably not. The concept of a messenger of the LORD only exists in Hebrew – not in Greek. The Greeks had angels. Angels were spirit creatures - and that’s what’s in Zechariah LXX. If you want to know the Greek word for messenger look at 2 Corinthians 8:23 or Philippians 2:25. If the Greek translator of Zechariah LXX wanted to convey the idea that the messenger was Zechariah he would have probably used apostolos.

And yet, the Liddell & Scott lexicon has:

AGGELOS [1.] a messenger, envoy, Hom., Hdt., Att.
2. generally, one that announces, of birds of augury;
3. a divine messenger, an angel, N.T.

This word is used 100s of times in the LXX.

I searched for various forms of the noun APOSTOLOS, and it is not used at all in the Greek LXX. Liddell & Scott give the meaning as:

APOSTOLOS [I.1] a messenger, ambassador, envoy, Hdt.
2. a sacred messenger, an Apostle, N.T.
II. a naval squadron or expedition, Dem., etc.

I also checked APOSTOLH, but I doubt you can find any cases where the word is used in the sense of "divine messenger" or "prophet". A form of this word is used in Deut. 22:7; 1 Ki. 5:14; 1 Es. 9:51, 54; 1 Ma. 2:18; 2 Ma. 3:2; Ps. 77:49; Eccl. 8:8; Cant. 4:13; Jer. 39:36; Bar. 2:25; Acts 1:25; Rom. 1:5; 1 Co. 9:2; Gal. 2:8
Per Liddle & Scott:

APOSTOLH [I.1] sending off or away, despatching, Eur., Thuc.
II. (from Pass.) a going away, an expedition, Thuc.
2. the office of an apostle, apostleship, N.T.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Where does it say this was in heaven?

Zechariah doesn’t explicitly say that the episode takes place in heaven. But where are the "seven eyes that look upon all the earth" in verse 4:9 [sic it's vs 10] supposed to be?

First, he is in a dream state (vs 4:1), and second he is looking at a lampstand with seven lamps, which could be anywhere. The seven eyes of the LORD "look upon all the earth" (Lxx, the Greek word is EPIBLEPW, which means to "to look upon, look attentively"). Who are they? Try the "holy angels who watch" of 1 Enoch 20:1 (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel, and Remiel). Zechariah is apparently refering to popular angelology to explain the symbolism of the lamps. The authors of Matthew and Luke both get it: "The lamp of the body is the eye." (NAB, Matthew 6:22 = Luke 11:34)

Quote:

And where are the "two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth" in verse 4:14 supposed to be?

Every commentary will tell you this is clearly supposed to refer to Joshua and Zerubabbel. There is no question about this. "Stand by" is meant figuratively. The entire book of Zechariah has to do with the return under Zerubabbel and Joshua in the 2nd year of Darius I (520/519 BC). Don't you have study bibles?

Quote:

Fwiw we also have Jesus/Joshua coming from heaven in Sibylline Oracle 5:345.

And one shall come again from heaven, a man
Preeminent, whose hands on fruitful tree
By far the noblest of the Hebrews stretched,
Who at one time did make the sun stand still.

Thanks, but that is from an edition published in 1899¹. I prefer to use a more recent one², in which the passage is lines 256 to 259. In the translation I use, it says "The only passage in Sibylline Oracles 5 that reflects Christian redaction is verses 256-259."

256 There will again be one exeptional man from the sky
257 (who stretched out his hands on the fruitful wood),^e3
258 the best of the Hebrews, who will one day cause the sun to stand,
259 speaking with fair speech and holy lips.
^e3 A least this verse is Christian

As it stands redacted, it refers to Christ and was put into a messianic passage of the Jewish written book 5 by a Christian redactor:

Sibylline Oracles 5 [is] a document composed ca. 100 CE and entirely Jewish in content with the exception of one intrusive line alluding to the crucifixion (257).
http://books.google.com/books?id=OD3...256%22&f=false

The original passage refers to a messiah who is essentially Jushua son of Nun come back to life (Joshua 10:12-13).

Quote:

The Ravenna Ammunition Plant?

Not sure what that is there for. Yes I know you are from Warren.

DCH

¹ THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES: TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK INTO ENGLISH BLANK VERSE, BY MILTON S. TERRY, PROFESSOR IN GARRETT BIBLICAL INSTITUTE, NEW EDITION REVISED AFTER THE TEXT OF RUCH [[sic this is a scanning error for Rzach, Alois, Oracula Sibyllina, Leipzig, 1891]]
NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS, CINCINNATI: CURTS & JENNINGS [1899], by Milton S. Terry {scanned at sacred-texts.com, December, 2001}
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib.pdf

² "Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introduction by J J Collins," in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1, ed. by James H Charlesworth, 1983, p317-472.

angelo · 02-21-2010, 10:59 PM

Having read through most of the thread, I have not seen a single case for a literal Jesus of history. I can not prove he didn't exist no more than you can prove he did exist.
I will say this, Outside of the N/T, there is not a scrap of evidence for. In fact, even inside the N/T there is precious little evidence for an historical Jesus, all you will find there is the exalted messiah.

ApostateAbe · 02-21-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Having read through most of the thread, I have not seen a single case for a literal Jesus of history. I can not prove he didn't exist no more than you can prove he did exist.
I will say this, Outside of the N/T, there is not a scrap of evidence for. In fact, even inside the N/T there is precious little evidence for an historical Jesus, all you will find there is the exalted messiah.

There is a common fallacy inside the debate, common in most debates that put the intellectual establishment against an ideological fringe, that the uncertainty of both positions implies that both sides are equal. Most of the time, one side is far more probable than the other.

You are right that there is little, if any, evidence for a historical Jesus outside the Christian documents that have been incorporated into the New Testament canon. The bias of those documents add to the uncertainty of the established position, but a strong case can still be made from what we have. Review my own list quoted in the OP, and compare it to the best arguments in favor of a mere mythical Jesus. There is no "default" position. You should go only with the theories that seem most probable.

dog-on · 02-22-2010, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Are you saying that Justin thought that the sons of Jupiter were a myth?

I don't know if he considered them myth or not, but it seems he considered them false gods and things that were said about them were invented by devils.

Do you believe that they, the false gods, were invented by devils?

aa5874 · 02-22-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Having read through most of the thread, I have not seen a single case for a literal Jesus of history. I can not prove he didn't exist no more than you can prove he did exist.
I will say this, Outside of the N/T, there is not a scrap of evidence for. In fact, even inside the N/T there is precious little evidence for an historical Jesus, all you will find there is the exalted messiah.

There is a common fallacy inside the debate, common in most debates that put the intellectual establishment against an ideological fringe, that the uncertainty of both positions implies that both sides are equal. Most of the time, one side is far more probable than the other.

You are right that there is little, if any, evidence for a historical Jesus outside the Christian documents that have been incorporated into the New Testament canon. The bias of those documents add to the uncertainty of the established position, but a strong case can still be made from what we have. Review my own list quoted in the OP, and compare it to the best arguments in favor of a mere mythical Jesus. There is no "default" position. You should go only with the theories that seem most probable.

So, you have admitted that there is simply no abundance of historical evidence for Jesus. You have already admitted that the history of Jesus is based on guesswork.

The default position must be the description of Jesus given in the Canon and the Church writings.

There is no need to guess that Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.34-35 ARE in the Canon and that Church writers claimed that the passages reflect the truth of the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus.

Jesus was a mythological entity until historical evidence can be found to overturn Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.34-35.

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

02-21-2010, 10:59 PM	#77
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Having read through most of the thread, I have not seen a single case for a literal Jesus of history. I can not prove he didn't exist no more than you can prove he did exist. I will say this, Outside of the N/T, there is not a scrap of evidence for. In fact, even inside the N/T there is precious little evidence for an historical Jesus, all you will find there is the exalted messiah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.