Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 03-24-2012, 02:13 PM

to Mountainman,

Quote:

Thanks for quoting the RSV instead of the KJV.
People here appear fond of citing the RSV.
How does this version appear at Blue letter bible?
Here is the translation according to the NIV:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIV 2Jo 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The question is whether these people, so decribed as deceivers, would have believed that Jesus existed, or whether these people would have believed that he did not exist.

Quote:

The vast majority of modern translations are based upon the Greek text in this lower scroll (i.e. the "Alexandrian" text type). The Blue Letter Bible here provides this Greek text with an important note: the King James Version (KJV) is not based upon this Greek text. The KJV is based upon the "Textus Receptus" above. The Alexandrian-based text shown here on the Blue Letter Bible combines the Westcott-Hort (1881) edition with the Nestle-Aland 26th edition (and its variants).

Most modern translations do not have the added words in 4:3, so most ancient manuscripts.
Footnote in the NKJV: (4:3) NU-Text omits that and Christ has come in the flesh.

2Jn1:7 was most likely written much later by a different author.

aa5874 · 03-24-2012, 03:11 PM

As I stated before Ehrman is INCOMPETENT and employs logical fallacies as evidence.

It is completely ridiculous to give the notion that because the claim Jesus did NOT exist is recent that it is likely to be false.

Ehrman needs to tells us if it is NOT also a MODERN notion that the Pauline writings contain forgeries.

If modern notions are likely to be false then it is likely that HJ of Nazareth was NOT an Obscure Apocalyptic preacher.

Obscure Apocalyptic Jesus is a modern notion.

Sheshbazzar · 03-24-2012, 03:58 PM

Now that's conking Ehrman's claim on the 'ol noggin aa! :thumbs:

Ehrman cannot claim the one without the other.

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

He could do that by claiming that the writer was referring to docetists. They believed that Jesus existed but was incorporeal although he looked as if he were corporeal.

In order to make use of this claim in COMBINATION with the description of the belief of the docetists, he must rely implicitly upon the writings of the victorious heresiological orthodoxy, who burnt the original claims and opinions of these so-called ANTICHRISTIAN DOCETAE, and left for posterity's purposes, their own pseudo-historical polemic against these heretics.

You asked how he could make the claim. I told you how he could make it.

Yes. I agree.

Quote:

Whether he could formulate the claim in such a way that you personally would pay any attention to it is another matter entirely.

He seems to be making all sorts of claims that other people personally seem to question. These other questions, from other people, point to the same type of hypothetical failure. Namely, that his interpretations are constructed by means of a specific view of the evidence, and that this view of the evidence may be entirely an overappreciation of this evidence - and in some cases accompanied by appeals to evidence that is not physical but hypothetical.

The idea that every source of antiquity may be interpretted as supporting the notion that there was not one person in antiquity who expressed any doubt about the existence of Jesus (in an historical sense) is of course not new in the domain of Christian theological debates.

The problem I have with such a view is addressed above - namely that an investigator may independently point to negative evidence against this view in the form of statements regarding mass unbelief at and after Nicaea. Both the positive and negative evidence should be examined and discussed in a rational and freethinking manner.

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Without ancient historical evidence one word covers such certainty: faith.

whats worse is the myth plattform is more faith, then HJ

The myth platform is based on the absence of any corroborating ancient historical evidence for the orthodox and heresiological claims that may be inferred from the books of the NT canon. The HJ platform requires rational evidence from the field of ancient history. Where is that evidence? Go ahead and cite some evidence. OVER.

Sheshbazzar · 03-24-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The idea that every source of antiquity may be interpreted as supporting the notion that there was not one person in antiquity who expressed any doubt about the existence of Jesus (in an historical sense) is of course not new in the domain of Christian theological debates.

Whether these did or did not question the existence of Jeebus as being a real historical figure, it is pregnantly evident to the modern mind, that they should have, as being the most basic of needs to have built any confidence of faith upon.
If they did not -think- to question the existence of a real historical Jeebus, that lack of -thought- and open discussion, does nothing at all to support the existence of any historical Jeebus.

Actually if early opposing opinions and debates still existed, it would add to the credibility of Christian claims.
That they burned books and writers to expunge any dissenting views does not speak well for their ethics, honesty, or methods.
Only makes it look like there was something that they were willing to go to any ends to destroy and hide.

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

The vast majority of modern translations are based upon the Greek text in this lower scroll (i.e. the "Alexandrian" text type). The Blue Letter Bible here provides this Greek text with an important note: the King James Version (KJV) is not based upon this Greek text. The KJV is based upon the "Textus Receptus" above. The Alexandrian-based text shown here on the Blue Letter Bible combines the Westcott-Hort (1881) edition with the Nestle-Aland 26th edition (and its variants).

Most modern translations do not have the added words in 4:3, so most ancient manuscripts.
Footnote in the NKJV: (4:3) NU-Text omits that and Christ has come in the flesh.

2Jn1:7 was most likely written much later by a different author.

Thanks for that. Here is how that verse is represented in various translations ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Available Translations and Versions for 2 John 1:7 via Blueletterbible

KJV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
© Info: - King James Version 1769 Info

NKJV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
© Info: - New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - 2Jo 1:7 - I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came* in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Footnote:
* Or will come.

© Info: - New Living Translation © 2007 Tyndale House Foundation

NIV - 2Jo 1:7 - Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - The Holy Bible, New International Version© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - English Standard Version © 2001, 2007 Crossway Bibles

RVR - 2Jo 1:7 - Porque muchos engañadores han salido por el mundo, que no confiesan que Jesucristo ha venido en carne. Quien esto hace es el engañador y el anticristo.
© Info: - Reina-Valera © 1960 Sociedades Bíblicas en América Latina

NASB - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, [even] they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - American Standard Version 1901 Info

YLT - 2Jo 1:7 - because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.
© Info: - Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

DBY - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh -- this is the deceiver and the antichrist.
© Info: - J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

WEB - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and an antichrist.
© Info: - Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - 2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Yeshua the Messiah came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Anti-messiah.

There still appears to be a statement here that there were MANY people who did not appear to be convinced that Jesus was the real deal.

You have mentioned this may be an interpolation. Are there many commentators who make this hypothesis? What reason is provided for this hypothesis?

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

I take it that you have read about the Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea from the Philip of Side fragment, written over a century after Nicaea.

100 years after [facepalm]

but lets look

Quote:

For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius

Arius was a bishop and did not fight against god.

This statement has certain negative evidence against it.
Perhaps the most extreme evidence is from Constantine.
Constantine calls Arius an Ares. That's fighting words. Ares was the god of war.
Athanasius and other orthodoxy refer to Arius as the Antichrist.

Here is what Constantine says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullneck writes about Arius in a very nast letter to Arius c.333 CE

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church

Quote:

They are painting him in a light they personally chose.

The victorious orthodox heresiologists, writing a century after the conflict at Nicaea, are painting Arius is a light that they personally chose.

Quote:

...he only argued the divinity of HJ, and did not claim him to be of the same substance and power as yahweh.

You are correct in pointing out that Arius was comparing Jesus to Arius's compehension of the Supreme Being, however the question arises in the broader context as to whether the divinity so descrived by Arius was the Hebrew divinity found in the LXX, or the supreme being found in the books of the Platonist philosophers and theologians of Alexandria c.325 CE.

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now that's conking Ehrman's claim on the 'ol noggin aa! :thumbs:

Ehrman cannot claim the one without the other.

Ehrman has been trained to address the converted.
He needs to lift his gameplay.
We're not all in church.

Unless its a church of the open sky.

mountainman · 03-24-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The idea that every source of antiquity may be interpreted as supporting the notion that there was not one person in antiquity who expressed any doubt about the existence of Jesus (in an historical sense) is of course not new in the domain of Christian theological debates.

Whether these did or did not question the existence of Jeebus as being a real historical figure, it is pregnantly evident to the modern mind, that they should have, as being the most basic of needs to have built any confidence of faith upon.

If they did not -think- to question the existence of a real historical Jeebus, that lack of -thought- and open discussion, does nothing at all to support the existence of any historical Jeebus.

Actually if early opposing opinions and debates still existed, it would add to the credibility of Christian claims.

Hence the suspicious presence of obscure and vehement heresiologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian in the earlier centuries, who appear to rail against the early heretics, well before any orthodoxy was established. Were these sources cooked up in the 4th century in order to ameliorate the massive Nicaean controversy? These questions need to be openly asked IMHO.

Quote:

That they burned books and writers to expunge any dissenting views does not speak well for their ethics, honesty, or methods.

Only makes it look like there was something that they were willing to go to any ends to destroy and hide.

Precisely Sheshbazzar.

Usually, if it is known and openly acknowledged that an organisation has commited crimes of mass execution, censorship, burning of public records, etc, etc, etc, then the criminal investigation of these matters is handled by an organisation (such as Scotland Yard, etc) that is at least one or more steps removed from the criminal organisation.

But the fact is that despite this conflict of interests, the very histories authored by incumbent people deeply entrenched in that criminal organisation, a hundred years removed from Nicaea, have been permitted to twist the actual historical truth to their own ends.

Sooner or later the truth will be discovered.
But it will not be discovered by the believers.

Every coin has two sides. The far side of the very familiar and high-profile "heads" of the canonical Jebus is clearly represented by the "tales" of the heretical gnostic non canonical authors. Nag Hammadi was a slap in the face for orthodox mainstream opinion, who are collectively back-peddling to try and conjecture these texts to have been written centuries earlier than their mid 4th century codex manufacture date. Suddenly the gnostics begin to speak after sixteen centuries of earthly silence. What do they say?

Our future scholarship, free from the shackles of 4th century Christian pseudo-history, will hopefully sooner, than later decide.

My early opinion is that the entire Arian controversy was about the historical existence of Big J.

Unbelief was burning bright,
in the forests of pagan light;
what immortal hand or eye
has framed this fearful heresy?

Dear Arius, my friend, my brother, we must speak man to man ...

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

03-24-2012, 03:11 PM	#52
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	As I stated before Ehrman is INCOMPETENT and employs logical fallacies as evidence. It is completely ridiculous to give the notion that because the claim Jesus did NOT exist is recent that it is likely to be false. Ehrman needs to tells us if it is NOT also a MODERN notion that the Pauline writings contain forgeries. If modern notions are likely to be false then it is likely that HJ of Nazareth was NOT an Obscure Apocalyptic preacher. Obscure Apocalyptic Jesus is a modern notion.

03-24-2012, 03:58 PM	#53
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Now that's conking Ehrman's claim on the 'ol noggin aa! :thumbs: Ehrman cannot claim the one without the other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.