Ben C Smith

Not sure. Maybe he could coin one.

....

Jake, perhaps you already have it in mind, but you might find Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods (in English), interesting for its approach to what I am awkwardly calling broad docetism. In 1.18 (or 1.49; must be two different numeration systems for it), for instance, we have:

Since, moreover, it is understood that the gods are supremely blessed, and since no being can be blessed without virtue, and virtue cannot exist without reason, or reason be found anywhere except in a human form, it must be admitted that the gods have the outward aspect of man, though this is not body, but quasi-body, and does not contain blood, but quasi-blood(nec tamen ea species corpus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem).

FYI. Thanks for the insights.

Ben.

the_cave

The difference is also in the timeframe. The Time of Legends (where you might expect a theophany) vs. Recent History (where you might not).

rlogan

I may have been grammatically incorrect with the use of the quotes if doing so is reserved strictly for making the statement that the thing being quoted is not what it claims to be.

I quoted the word "argument" for the opposite reason. Because it was your argument. Then I quoted the argument itself.


It seems as if you take whatever I say to be a personal slam, and I would ask, once again, that you just chill. If I made a mistake, then sorry.


OK? Next time you think you see a personal attack - see if you can find a different interpretation.

All we have are the documents that made it through the gauntlet of the Church forgery machine and political apparatus.

I have stated the Ignatia are forgeries. That is my position. You have therefore obviously what someone very manipulative wants you to think. Not what someone thinks. I know less about the Iranaeus and origen matters, but I think you are not picking up on something I have tried to express in multiple places. Maybe not coherently enough, but:

The HB says seed of David. (Branch of Jesse, actually). Therefore Jesus is seed of David. Not because he actually is.

Why is Jesus from Galilee? Why did he come out of Egypt? All of this from out of HB text. As time passed, more and more detail was mined out of the HB for details.

This is a completely different type of religious mystical theory alternate-reality world as compared to say a legal case over property division on account of his blood descent from David.

What is their evidence for "Seed of David", Ben? There is absolutely zero, and you are thinking exactly backwards IMHO.

You seem to be implying that they encountered someone who was a descendant of David and then looked to the HB prohecy and lo - it says "seed of David"! Therefore he must be the messiah!!

No. They are hunting through the HB for what their mystery religion icon needs to have - and they find "seed of David". Therefore Christ is "Seed of David".

The purpose of this terribly important feature is to validate the entire theory before adherents. It is not true by virtue of it being fact.

I do not know what you call it when people rationalize in their minds something that is not true at all in order to justify themselves. But this is vastly easier in the alternate reality worlds of mystery religions than it is say in law.


It is very interesting to see the trivialization of power and profit motives from the Church in the last part of your response. But what you need to do is state these things directly instead of posing them as lighthearted mocking ridicule. Because then you have to defend a positive assertion that actually looks pretty bad - that these people are fundamentally different from others: inhuman.

Vorkosigan

Jake, where in OCS does Ehrman discuss those texts? AFAIK OCS doesn't mention Paul, its great failing. Still given that the debate over Jesus' nature extended over the first four centuries of Christianity -- heck, right down to the modern day, with Arians like Newton and William Whiston -- it seems inexplicable that Paul was not altered. Can you show that these two verses were altered?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

On post 94 of this thread Stephen gave the page numbers. Ehrman has a brief, brief discussion of Paul, as I recall, but (as you say) majors on the gospels.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Not strictly, but perhaps usually.

Personal slam? I took it to be a slam against my argument. Do what you will to me, but please take care with my arguments.

No problem at all.

I understand, and it is a position that has tempted me at times in the past, too. That leaves Irenaeus and Origen, as far as you are concerned.

Maybe, maybe not. But this thread is not about what Jesus actually is. It is about what Paul thought him to be.

That may well be; in fact I am sure of it in at least some cases.

Not relevant to the case at hand. What is relevant is what Paul believes to be the case, evidence or not.

Not only am I not implying that scenario, I furthermore do not hold to it at all. I am in fact quite skeptical as to the Davidic ancestry of Jesus of Nazareth.

You do not know how much I loathe power and profit in the church. I think you have misdiscerned my position(s) from the start, as have others on this board (Joe Wallack even tried to get me into a seminary).

I tell you the truth, I like posting on IIDB because it is just about the only place on the planet where I can feel like a conservative.

Your comments were humorous to me, the religiously insane remark and so forth. I did not immediately see the relevance to what Paul thought of κατα σαÏ?κα.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Thanks! It's not in the index, and I couldn't remember it.

Michael