Ben C Smith

You have to figure out what is being denied, since two things are on the table (coming and in the flesh). On its face, Jesus did not come in the flesh could mean at least two different things:

1. Jesus did not come in the flesh; he came, but not in the flesh (docetism).
2. Jesus did not come in the flesh; in fact, he did not come at all (mythicism).

To affirm that Jesus has come in the flesh is logically to affirm both statements. To deny that Jesus has come in the flesh is to deny at least one, possibly (but not certainly) both.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Correct, but there is still no evidence that these Christians were preaching that Jesus was born, ate food, and died here on earth.

Which refutes any argument from silence, as it is begging the question to say that they did.

Steven Carr

After 150 AD, did any sect survive that still taught that Christians must be circumcised and eat kosher food - beliefs which were part of some Christian sects in the first century?

Alf

I guess all americans of african origin must be close family then since they tend to call each other "brother" or "bro"?

Point is, even in acnient times they often used the term "brothers in faith" etc without literally meaning a family relation. "Brother of the lord" could very well be a title indicating that he had a specially high leadership position in the sect in that region without meaning literally that he was a brother of a person referred to as "lord".

Alf

RUmike

As far as I know, no. But the point is we still heard about them, otherwise you couldn't have asked the question. But we never hear the MJ sect referenced, ever. It's like the entire world suddenly forgot that Jesus never existed on earth, portrayed him as historical, and no one ever batted an eye. Why did no one ever say, "Hey, that's not true!"

RUmike

I was just reacting to your argument that Mark is ridiculous and since Matt is less ridiculous it supports a HJ but Mark for all intents and purposes doesn't. It seems your using this odd logic to support only one witness to an HJ when in fact we have 3 or 4 (i.e. Mark, M, L, Q).

darstec

How can there be a sect involved with unbelief about something/someone that did not exist? Are there non-unicorn sects today? How about non-fairygodmother sects today? Do you belong to a sect that doesn't believe in a wazakazadoodle?

RUmike

From this quote it would seem you do not understand what an ancient "MJer" would believe in our context. Not that no Jesus ever existed (which would be as nonsensical as the situations you postulated) but that Jesus was merely a spirit and did not exist on Earth at all, or something similar.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Pardon?

The early Christian record is full of sceptics and doubters and disagreements.

The NT book 2 John warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".


Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour... ”


Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"


Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the denied the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"


Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies that the incarnation and the crucifixion are Christian beliefs - along with other horrible accusations.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -


Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as lies and fables based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"


Hegesippus, late 2nd century, reports sects that did not believe in the resurrection :
' Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, ... asked him [James]: "What is the door of Jesus? " And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; '


Some Sadducees, doubted the resurrection (according to Tertullian in early 3rd century) :
“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Opponents of 4th century Hilary of Poitiers :
“You assert His creation, proclaim His adoption, deny His birth.”


Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


Some who denied the incarnation, according to 5th century John Cassian :
“By denying also that the Son of God was born in the flesh, you are led also to deny that He was born in the Spirit, for it is the same Person who was born in the flesh who was first born in the Spirit. If you do not believe that He was born in the flesh, the result is that you do not believe that He suffered. If you do not believe in His Passion what remains for you but to deny His resurrection?”


So,
the early years show :

* numerous Christians and their sects who did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh
* a Christian who claims the incarnation and crucifixion are NOT Christian beliefs
* sceptics who claim the Gospels are fiction, fables, based on myths...


Iasion

darstec

How would you know what an ancient MJer would believe, if, as jjramsey surmises and to whom the reply was directed, they didn't exist? And who says that an ancient MJer or a modern one in fact didn't believe there was no Jesus at all? There are all flavors of MJers today, and I think that would have held true 1900 years ago.

Why do you think you have the right to define what an MJer might have been? If you get to make up your own definitions you can define anything into existance, even a god.