Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 11-28-2011, 05:51 PM

Huh???????

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Only because the embryo grew conventionally within the mother's womb and was born from the womb....

What!!!! I am totally disappointed. I was of the opinion that I was in discourse with some one who had something to offer about the "Chronologies of the 2nd century".

Now, it is obvious that you have a lot of problems with the biology and anatomy of the human body.

Duvduv · 11-28-2011, 08:03 PM

If I understand you correctly you also argue that Irenaeus and Tertullian did not believe in a physical Jesus in the first century, but rather in a ghost being?
When did Christians then start to believe that the Christ was a physical person?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I was trying to get to the crux of reconciling the text of Justin with your arguments that in fact he did not believe in the physical Jesus. Were the references suggesting a physical Jesus just cleverly inserted interpolated, and if so, how can this be shown?...

I really don't understand what you are saying. I have NEVER stated that Justin Martyr's writings were cleverly interpolated.

J Justin Martyr seems to BELIEVE his Jesus did EXIST but born WITHOUT sexual union which is COMPATIBLE with the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

First of all, you are wrong about gMark.

The author of gMark CLEARLY implied that Jesus himself was the Carpenter, and NEVER stated that Jesus was the Son of the Carpenter or the Son of Joseph.

Mark 6:3 -

Remarkably, the author of gMark did NOT even mention Joseph at all or that he was the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus.

NOWHERE is Joseph in gMark.

Secondly, you seem not to understand that people of antiquity BELIEVED that Ghosts did actually EXIST and could reproduce.

Jesus of the NT was the seed of a SPIRIT or a Holy Ghost.

Please, read the Mythology of the Greeks and Romans of the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...In any event Justin's Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of the epistles, whose name is "exalted above all names " etc.....

Well, there are many versions of the Jesus stories. Some were early and some were late.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" appear to be an earlier version of the Jesus story and the Pauline version seem to be a later version and AFTER Justin Martyr's "Memoirs".

Up to the 3rd century, Origen seem to be using a similar version to Justin Martyr.

Based on the writings of Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras, 2nd century writers, it would appear that the Logos even predated the Jesus Christ stories.

It is AFTER Justin Martyr, AFTER the mid 2nd century that we encounter many writings WITHOUT the name Jesus but with CHRIST or the Son of God.

Tertullian's "Apology" does NOT mention Jesus just Christ.

Theophilus of Antioch "To Autolycus" does NOT mention Jesus.

Athenagoras in "Plea for the Christians" does NOT mention Jesus.

Tatian "Address to the Greeks" does NOT mention Jesus.

Minucius Felix "Octavius" does NOT mention Jesus.

Writings WITHOUT Jesus are likely to be after the mid 2nd century than before. There were Christians AFTER Justin Martyr that did NOT believe the Jesus story but still claimed that they were Christians because they were ANOINTED.

Duvduv · 11-28-2011, 08:09 PM

I am learning now ...... but I'd like others to jump in on the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This is getting increasingly confusing. I asked you specifically about two chapters in Justin and you replied by quoting Marcion from Tertullian and talk about Justin's ghost Jesus.

I still don't see the response to my questions.

You are learning why most of us who have been here a while usually pay no attention to aa5874.

aa5874 · 11-28-2011, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If I understand you correctly you also argue that Irenaeus and Tertullian did not believe in a physical Jesus in the first century, but rather in a ghost being?....

You are just asking question after question but you are NOT reading what Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote.

Forget about me. Just READ the written EVIDENCE.

1. Justin's Jesus was NOT a Man of Men.

"Dialogue with Trypho XLVIII]...

Quote:

For there are some..... who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men, with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so...

Do you SEE that Justin did NOT agree, NOR would agree, that Jesus was a MAN of Men?

Please, I hope you stop asking me about Justin's Jesus.

Justin's Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and was NOT a Man.

2. Irenaeus' Jesus was NOT a Man of Men.

In "Against Heresies" 1 Carpocrates, Cerinthus and the Ebinites were IDENTIFIED as Heretics who claimed Jesus had a human father.

"Against Heresies" 1

Quote:

1. 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............. 2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.....

It was HERETICS who claimed Jesus was a MAN, NOT Irenaeus.

I hope you will stop asking me questions about Irenaeus and READ what he claimed HERETICS believed.

3. Tertullian's Jesus was NOT a Man of Men.

Tertullian will ANSWER you about the "Flesh of Christ".

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas, — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God....

Tertullian's Jesus was NOT a Man of Men.

Tertullians's Jesus was of the SEED of the SPIRIT.

Please READ "On the Flesh of Christ".

The Jesus of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian was NOT a Man of Men but of the SPIRIT.

A Man born of the seed of a SPIRIT is not a figure of history ONLY a Figure of THEOLOGY.

I hope you don't ask me anymore questions.

Please READ the writings ATTRIBUTED to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Duvduv · 11-29-2011, 05:11 AM

I do hope you noticed that in chapter 46 of his Apology Justin mentions that "Christ was born 150 years ago." All in all the language of his text sounds like he believed his Christ had been a living breathing physical being and not a celestial being or a ghost or a hologram.
And what do you say about the places where Tertullian DOES mention the name Jesus??

aa5874 · 11-29-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I do hope you noticed that in chapter 46 of his Apology Justin mentions that "Christ was born 150 years ago." All in all the language of his text sounds like he believed his Christ had been a living breathing physical being and not a celestial being or a ghost or a hologram.
And what do you say about the places where Tertullian DOES mention the name Jesus??

Justin Martyr ADMITTED that he was UNABLE to prove Jesus was born as a man of a Virgin.

"Dialogue with Trypho" XLVIII

Quote:

.... Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin....

Justin merely BELIEVED Jesus Christ existed WITHOUT sexual union but was UNABLE to prove he existed as a man born of a virgin.

Please READ the writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian to find out who their Jesus was.

Their Jesus Christ was a Figure of Theology, NOT a figure of history.

Doug Shaver · 11-29-2011, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If Justin was writing in the middle to late second century and believed in a historical Jesus of only a century or so earlier, the question can be asked as to HOW he knew that the Jesus figure was a historical figure, especially since his *proofs* for the historical Jesus are from biblical verses!

Given that he was a True Believer, it was all the proof he needed.

He would not have known those verses as "biblical." That would be anachronistic. However, it would also be anachronistic to assume that second-century Christians would have dismissed as unauthoritative any document not officially canonized by the church of Rome.

We do not know whether Justin's sources were the gospels as we know them, or prototypes thereof. Even in the latter case, they must have portrayed Jesus in a way similar to what became the canonical portrayal. Whatever form those documents were in, from this historical distance we cannot know why Justin regarded them as authoritative. Apparently, though, he did so regard them, and he needed nothing else to convince him that Jesus was a man who had lived about a century before his own time.

Duvduv · 11-29-2011, 07:45 AM

It would seem rather peculiar to argue that the reason Tatian did not mention the name Jesus was because he did not know of the Jesus figure when Tatian was a disciple of Justin who talks about Jesus all the time.
In fact I would go so far as to argue that the treatise to the Greeks was NOT written by a disciple of Justin at all, but by a Judeophile monotheist, and the treatise was ADOPTED as a Christian document ascribed to Tatian later.

Duvduv · 11-29-2011, 08:04 AM

That's a good point, Doug. But mysteriously Justin does not tell us in any detail who pursuaded him of his belief in a historical Jesus savior figure as opposed to a celestial non-human figure.

I would also grant the argument that a person whose father is God is not the same kind of "human" as someone whose father is a human being. However, it is clear to me that Justin did believe that Jesus was a physical being in the physical world. One would imagine that he would say that some elderly person he knew was acquainted in his own youth with people who had seen the historical Christ figure, since it was just over a century that the Jesus figure had ostensibly existed. Yet Justin never says a word about this. Even the reference to the man at the seashore is said in passing.

I would prefer to say that Justin's Apology was written in the third or fourth century and backdated to the second if not for the fact that such an interpolater would not be able to resist making mention specifically of the gospel stories and epistles attributed to the beloved Paul. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was TAMPERED with later to give it a historical literal Jesus flavor, i.e. in chapters 13, 15, 16, 34 and 46.
References to Isaiah are much more plentiful than references to "Christian" sources, which themselves are maxims of behavior rather than theological doctrine.

As in the case of Tatian, I would like to make the suggestion that the writings of Athenagoras and Theophilus were not originally writings concerning Christianity at all, but were adopted by later Christians and given a Christian flavor as a literary or educational device as appropriate "Christian" arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If Justin was writing in the middle to late second century and believed in a historical Jesus of only a century or so earlier, the question can be asked as to HOW he knew that the Jesus figure was a historical figure, especially since his *proofs* for the historical Jesus are from biblical verses!

Given that he was a True Believer, it was all the proof he needed.

He would not have known those verses as "biblical." That would be anachronistic. However, it would also be anachronistic to assume that second-century Christians would have dismissed as unauthoritative any document not officially canonized by the church of Rome.

We do not know whether Justin's sources were the gospels as we know them, or prototypes thereof. Even in the latter case, they must have portrayed Jesus in a way similar to what became the canonical portrayal. Whatever form those documents were in, from this historical distance we cannot know why Justin regarded them as authoritative. Apparently, though, he did so regard them, and he needed nothing else to convince him that Jesus was a man who had lived about a century before his own time.

aa5874 · 11-29-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That's a good point, Doug. But mysteriously Justin does not tell us in any detail who pursuaded him of his belief in a historical Jesus savior figure as opposed to a celestial non-human figure....

Why do keep on talking about a "celestial non-human figure" when Justin makes NO mention of such a character?

What sources mention Jesus Christ as a purely celestial non-human figure BEFORE Justin Martyr?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....I would also grant the argument that a person whose father is God is not the same kind of "human" as someone whose father is a human being. However, it is clear to me that Justin did believe that Jesus was a physical being in the physical world. One would imagine that he would say that some elderly person he knew was acquainted in his own youth with people who had seen the historical Christ figure, since it was just over a century that the Jesus figure had ostensibly existed. Yet Justin never says a word about this. Even the reference to the man at the seashore is said in passing....

How could Justin know anyone who knew Jesus existed when Justin ADMITTED he could NOT prove Jesus did exist as a man born of a Virgin.

"Dialogue with Trypho" XLVIII

Quote:

.... Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin....

It should be obvious that once Justin ADMITTED he could NOT prove Jesus existed as a man born of a Virgin then it is extremely unlikely that he knew anyone that actually knew of his life on earth.

Hopelessly, Justin used so-called prophecies, predictions of the future, as evidence of the past.

Justin had ZERO actual history of his Jesus from any non-apologetic sources.

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

11-29-2011, 05:11 AM	#125
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I do hope you noticed that in chapter 46 of his Apology Justin mentions that "Christ was born 150 years ago." All in all the language of his text sounds like he believed his Christ had been a living breathing physical being and not a celestial being or a ghost or a hologram. And what do you say about the places where Tertullian DOES mention the name Jesus??

11-29-2011, 07:45 AM	#128
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It would seem rather peculiar to argue that the reason Tatian did not mention the name Jesus was because he did not know of the Jesus figure when Tatian was a disciple of Justin who talks about Jesus all the time. In fact I would go so far as to argue that the treatise to the Greeks was NOT written by a disciple of Justin at all, but by a Judeophile monotheist, and the treatise was ADOPTED as a Christian document ascribed to Tatian later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.