Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-17-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It has always been traditionally assumed that Arius's five sophisms related to the theological nature of Jesus, as you say above, that Jesus was not preexistent, etc, etc, etc and all the other theological variants.

All I have been attempting to point out is that Arius's five sophisms may be related to the historicity of Jesus, or the nature of the historical jesus. If this is the case, then Arius five sophisms are consistent with a fabricated Jesus.

If my aunt had wheels, she would be a tea tray.

I take it she does not have a set of wheels.
Maybe she prefers the public transport.

Quote:

We have had this discussion before. The historicity of Jesus was just not an issue in the 3rd century.

Here we have a report from the 5th century that theories of fiction abounded.
What do you make of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NESTORIUS Ex-Archbishop of the City of BULLNECK

I see many who strongly insist
on these [theories of fiction]
as something [based] on
the truth and ancient opinion

SOURCE

and also ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nestorius

1. [Some] of them in fact say that
the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema
and in order that he might appear
unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

See The Bazaar of Heracleides (Syriac)

Littlejohn · 10-17-2010, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have taken the liberty of adding a column which clearly discloses the range or spectrum or strength of belief various classes of theories associate with the "historical Jesus". These values are arbitary - I just made a guestimate, we coould alter these figures, but the main trend is described as follows.
.

Pay attention .. as will be much difficult that I will come back again on this subject, which for me it represents a waste of time: you and all those who share your beliefs, although with different nuances, you're right when you say that the catholic-christianity was an invention, a halucinating invention led forward 'a tavolino' (Italian slang for say 'designed ad-hoc').

You are right when you say that to the origin of all there was the figure of an emperor, and, especially, of those who advised this person to undertake such an 'adventure'. However, you are deeply in error when you say that this emperor was Constantine I, inasmuch this happened long time before the birth of the latter ...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn · 10-17-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.....I reject the notion that people - especially the Gnostics - doubted the historicity of Jesus at Nicaea.
.

Sorry ... but who exactly were the Gnostics, for you ?.... I'm afraid you're making a coarse confusion ...

By keep to mind that the 'gnostic' term was ABSOLUTELY a generic term!...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Toto · 10-17-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Here we have a report from the 5th century that theories of fiction abounded.
What do you make of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nestorius

I see many who strongly insist on these [theories of fiction] as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion

You have inserted "theories of fiction" in this. See the source

Quote:

and also ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nestorius

1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

See The Bazaar of Heracleides (Syriac)

I cannot find this quote using the search function. This source talks about "the Incarnation of God the Word."

:huh:

mountainman · 10-17-2010, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Here we have a report from the 5th century that theories of fiction abounded.
What do you make of it?

You have inserted "theories of fiction" in this. See the source

The translator himself inserted the "[theories]" and I inserted "of fiction" since of the 14 heresies or "theories" being presented and sicussed by Nestorius, many make reference to a "fictional jesus".

Here is the entire context.

First the preface by Nestorius.

Quote:

THE BOOK OF MY LORD NESTORIUS
PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
AND THE CANON OF ORTHODOXY
BOOK I. PART I.14

Preface.

Now in my opinion whoever is about to investigate the truth in all seriousness ought not to compose his discourse with preconceived ideas, but should bring forward and explain everything which is opposed to the truth. As those who have a knowledge of gold show the distinction between good gold and that which is poor by a comparison of the one with the other in the sight of those who wish to accept what is alloyed as though it were pure, and even in preference to the pure (for many choose evil instead of good and falsehood instead of truth, in that both are equal to them, and their readiness is the greater to dispute and to defeat one another [in argument] than to establish the truth); so, since different people confess different opinions about Christ and hold fast / only to the name,

we ought to set out the fictions of each one of these heresies concerning Christ, in order that the true faith may be known by comparison with [these] heresies, and that we may not be shaken, falling into the one or the other like men who do not see.

So Nestorius is about to make a list of these 14 heresies.
Here it starts ...

Quote:

1. Wherefore the Heathen do not call Christ God ....

The heathen indeed are not content to name Christ God because of the suffering of the body and the cross and the death, and they consider that the miracles were [accepted] in error. And they are not differentiated in name, because there is indeed no distinction between them, in that all of them are heathen.

2. Wherefore the Jews do not admit that he is Christ.

But the Jews do not confess that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of Christ in all great glory and dominion.

3. Wherefore the Manichaeans do not admit that Christ is also man by nature, but only God.

The Manichaeans also, and those who have sprung up from them and among them, declare that he is not man but only God because of the miracles; but as touching his human [qualities], they place them in schema and illusion and not in nature.

Here is one heresy defined by the heretics defining Jesus as fiction.

Quote:

4. Wherefore the Paulinians 16 and the Photinians profess that our Lord Christ himself is only a man and that he is not also God.

But the Paulinians say that he is not God but only man because of the birth and death; but they attribute to him miracles as to any of the saints.

5. Wherefore the Arians profess that Christ is neither God whole and without needs, nor yet a man, but half God and half man.

The Arians confess that he is half God and half man of soulless body and of created divinity; deeming him inferior to men in saying that there is not a soul in him and again deeming him inferior also to God in saying that he is not uncreate and without needs. But because of the incarnation and the birth of a woman and the death they consider that in his human [qualities] he became God, and they confuse his divine with his human [qualities], attributing his incarnation not to [his own] authority, but to an overruling command, saying that the union with the flesh resulted in one nature and not / according to the use of the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf, but even as the soul and the body are bound [together] in one nature and [the soul] suffers sensibly the sufferings of the body whether it will or not, even though it has not of itself [the means] to accept them in that it has not a body in which to suffer. So also they say that God has only one nature in the body, suffering of necessity, whether he will or not, the sufferings of that nature which he took upon himself, as though he was not of the nature of the Father impassible and without needs. And this they say in order that they may not show him alone to be endowed with authority and command, so that even the command which he accepted is a punishment, and from a punishment which lies in his nature there is no escape; and, while he wished it not, he suffered the sufferings of the body by virtue of the sensibility of the nature: he hungered and thirsted and grew weary and feared and fled and died, and he rose not by his nature but by the authority and the might of the Father; and in short they say that he naturally endured whatsoever appertained to the sensible nature which he assumed.

6. Which the sects are which agree with the Manichaeans.

In the midst of these there sprang up heresies, some of the Manichaeans
and others of them from the Paulinians.

More people in the same category.

Quote:

7. And which those are which agree with the Arians.

NB: Footnote ... Marginal Gloss. There was not an answer to the seventh question in the original, nor was there even a place for it.

8. And wherein they are far removed from them, and in what again they adhere to them.

They are far removed from them ....

9. Wherefore he has not written [the names of] the chiefs of these sects but only their dogmas.

But we wish to decline to [give] the names of their chiefs, so as not to prolong our discussion nor to be found to have omitted any point in the inquiry by first becoming entangled in [questions of] names.

10. What the statements are of those who say that by nature God the Word became flesh without having taken a body.

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying
that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly
a nature but a fiction and an illusion;
but they tolerate miracles for the most part only of God,
either as though it were impossible or even as though it
were not decent that they should come about through the body.

...[...]...

Another mention of belief in a fiction.

Quote:

13. How they take the [words] 'truly and not in nature', and in how many ways 'truly' is said.

Nestorius. Truly then they say that God became flesh?

Sophronius says: We confess / that he became flesh truly but not by his nature, in that he who became, became [so] in truth, and he is the nature but not in the nature. Indeed the flesh has not always existed, but, as flowing water when frozen has the nature of ice though it is not so in its nature but has become [so], thus also has God truly become flesh, and he is the nature of the flesh and not in his nature, in that he is not it always but he became [so] afterwards.

For this is truly the Incarnation, in his nature to become flesh and man

and not in illusion nor in schema nor in fiction without hypostasis, which truly would be no incarnation. He therefore who wants to suppose that it came about in fiction flees from the truth.

So here is a third and fourth mention of heretical belief in "fiction".

Quote:

14. Wherein those who say [this] agree with the Manichaeans and wherein they are supposed to be distinct from them.

Has it then been revealed to thee wherein they are imagined [to be] the same and wherein they are supposed to have differences and abide by the same? And we ought to leave out the things which follow these, in order that
we may not vainly suppress the truth in what is confessed.

Remember what has already been noted above about the heretical belief of the Manichaeans's belief in a fiction. This last type of heretic #14 takes in all those who share this belief in a fiction, but perhaps are not Manichaeans. Nestorius then responds to this last set, and summarises ....

Quote:

Nestorius says: I for my part say: Let us not entirely neglect this point,
although thou dost wish to run over it as one which is confessed. Since it has been so unscrupulously said as to / be accounted absurd by the hearers,
I suppose that it is so also to thee. I will now explain this inquiry to any one who wishes in order that that which surely is supposed may come to explanation; for I do not see in it anything like or akin to anything [else].

For they are quite as far removed from one another
as fiction is far from truth and
[as] the body of fiction [is] from the body [of truth].

I see many who strongly insist on these [theories]
as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion.

And for this reason I wish thee to examine them not cursorily but with all care, in order that the words of the faith may not be [treated] without investigation and lightly, but may be clear and known to all men, as things which are somehow defined by definitions and natural likenesses, and not like things which are represented by their shadows [and] resemble this or that so long as they are figured in the same likeness.

When Nestorius writes "I see many who strongly insist on these [theories]
as something [based] on the truth and ancient opinion." he is refering to the 14 types of heretical "theories" which he just listed and discussed above. His impartial testimony in his closing words indicate he wanted to examine these opinions - or heresies - very carefully and he does.

Many of these 14 heresies are listed as being involved with believing that Jesus was fictional. It was public opinion at the time. Julian had written and read his book "Against the Christians". Nestorius was just impartially reporting the public opinion, but Cyril wanted Nestorius to keep silent and stop talking about the public opinion, since the public opinion was largely heretical. The anathemtizing Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril was known as the "Seal of the Fathers" since he silenced everything very effectively, including Hypatia.

mountainman · 10-17-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ
took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men
and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

I cannot find this quote using the search function. This source talks about "the Incarnation of God the Word."

:huh:

Sorry the link should have pointed to this page

Quote:

Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.87-95. Book 1 Part 2.

BOOK I. PART II.
Concerning the Faith.

Sophronius says:

Because then many accept the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen which was laid down at Nicaea, both persons who believe in various ways and those who understand the Divine Scriptures some in one way and some in another and in various ways He was made flesh and was made man may it please thy Reverence to pass [in review] their intentions and their opinions; and do thou write and make known unto me how it appears unto thee and what thou dost approve as well-pleasing, and give no cause to them that seek cause to calumniate thee.

Nestorius.

1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

So the very first heretical opinion addressed by the objective reporter Nestorius is that Jesus was fictional.

There we have it, and not only that, but that this opinion had been around since Nicaea and the 318 "Fathers".

We must remember that Cyril attempted to burn these books of Nestorius, but this was preserved in the Syriac and escaped the flames of the censorship of the orthodox state christian church which wanted to get rid of the evidence that anyone held the belief that Jesus was fictional.

Toto · 10-17-2010, 06:48 PM

I don't read these as saying that Jesus was a literary fiction, but that his body was an illusion - the usual docetic heresy.

mountainman · 10-17-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't read these as saying that Jesus was a literary fiction, but that his body was an illusion - the usual docetic heresy.

Have another closer look at the statement .... I dont see any reference to the "body of Jesus" at all.
I see reference to fiction and I see reference to the literature of the gospels.
Dont forget these events being reported are after Emperor Julian's time as well.

[Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ
took place in fiction and schema
and in order that he might appear unto men
and teach and give the grace
of the Gospel unto all men.

But the "grace of the Gospel" was the bible itself - the new testament. And this was the physical codex, not the body of jesus in the 4th and 5th centuries. I read these as objective reports of people (ie: "heretics") who rejected the historical jesus.

They - the heretics of the 4th and 5th centuries - claimed Jesus was incarnated in literary fiction. The schema or plan was physically represented by the literature of the gospel. The gospels are literary. And so is Jesus.

The controversy over the historical jesus, which included Emperor Julian's invectives, was later "harmonized" by the "Church Historians", as an obscure type of "docetic heresy" subscribed to by vile dispicable heretics, gnostics, and other forms of orthodox societal misfits.

Thus I argue that not only is hereticism as a reasonable position on the Historical Jesus, but that it has been around since the historical Jesus was floated on the surface of the literary waters at Nicaea by the Emperor and "Pontifex Maximus".

Toto · 10-18-2010, 12:04 AM

Incarnation refers directly to the body of Jesus.

Incarnation

Quote:

Incarnation which literally means embodied in flesh or taking on flesh, refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature (generally a human) who is the material manifestation of an entity, god or force whose original nature is immaterial.

... Briefly, it is the belief that the First Person of the [Holy Trinity], God, became flesh in the second person [Holy Trinity] also known as the Son or the Logos (Word), when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of the Son of God was perfectly united with human nature in one divine Person. The vast majority of churches believe this person, Jesus, was both truly God and truly man.

Everyone agrees that Jesus "existed" but for some factions, he existed as a spiritual entity, not as an incarnated being.

None of the text that you cite makes any claim that Jesus was a literary fiction, or a fraud. It's all about the nature of Jesus as God. It is not an argument that makes any sense to modern secularists, and really has nothing to do with the historical Jesus.

Quote:

the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

You would need to know the exact meaning of the words translated as fiction and schema, but this appears to say that Christ appeared and taught men on earth. There is no indication here that anyone thought that Jesus was a fictional creature in a novel.

mountainman · 10-18-2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Incarnation refers directly to the body of Jesus.

Quote:

Incarnation

The historical existence of the body of Jesus is being critically questioned. Did Harry Potter or Bilbo Baggins undergo an incarnation?

Did the HJ have an historical human body?

Quote:

Everyone agrees that Jesus "existed" but for some factions, he existed as a spiritual entity, not as an incarnated being.

The tabulated data already presented above establishes that your assertion is in error. There are a number of parties who emphatically do not agree that Jesus "existed" in the plain and simple common historical sense of the word. There is a spectrum of disbelief from these various theories, in positions from weak to strong, that we are dealing with an imperial forgery of some description. Your claim that "everyone agrees that Jesus existed" is thus myopic.

In fact where do you estimate the greatest credence of support and confidence in regard to the above spectrum of belief from 1 through 8? What position is it of yours that am I trying to argue against? Also, dont you understand that the writings of the heretics against Jesus were destroyed?

Quote:

None of the text that you cite makes any claim that Jesus was a literary fiction, or a fraud.

"the historical existence our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema" - this does not give me great confidence that our Lord Christ had an historical existence. Try again.

Quote:

It's all about the nature of Jesus as God. It is not an argument that makes any sense to modern secularists, and really has nothing to do with the historical Jesus.

The OP is about heretical ideas against the nature of Jesus as God or indeed as an historical figure. I think that the heretical position on the HJ is a very reasonable to explore given the range of opinions cited above in the table.

Quote:

the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men.

You would need to know the exact meaning of the words translated as fiction and schema,

Well I am open to questions about this.

Quote:

but this appears to say that Christ appeared and taught men on earth.

It might also be taken to say that the appearance of Christ in the gospel literature was fiction. Dont forget we are examining the fragments of the beliefs of those vile heretical gnostics and other misfits.

Quote:

There is no indication here that anyone thought that Jesus was a fictional creature in a novel.

But your statement now opens the whole can of worms inside the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc", in which Jesus does appear as a fictional creature, alongside a cast of many fictional creatures and unbelievably outrageously miraculous events of the Apostles.

The text from Nestorius appears to be reasonably consistent with that class of theories that explore the historical possibility that Jesus has been fabricated.

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

10-17-2010, 06:48 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't read these as saying that Jesus was a literary fiction, but that his body was an illusion - the usual docetic heresy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.