Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

........And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

But, Tertullian did MENTION Jesus Christ in other writings and he UTTERLY DESTROYS all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

And when I say "UTTERLY DESTROYS", I mean "TOTAL DESTRUCTION".

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" 18 attributed to TERTULLIAN.

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.

"On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian RIPS HJ of Nazareth to SHREDS.

J-D · 09-28-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

........And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

But, Tertullian did MENTION Jesus Christ in other writings and he UTTERLY DESTROYS all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

And when I say "UTTERLY DESTROYS", I mean "TOTAL DESTRUCTION".

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" 18 attributed to TERTULLIAN.

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.

"On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian RIPS HJ of Nazareth to SHREDS.

Tertullian was wrong.

J-D · 09-28-2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the ENTIRE gMark, the author does NOT claim Pilate was called

1. Pontius

2. Governor of Judea

3. Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Must we say that gMark does NOT mention Pontius Pilate the Governor of Judea under Tiberius because he ONLY mentioned Pilate?

Mr 15:1 -

Quote:

And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus......and delivered him to Pilate.

The Pilate that Mark mentions is the Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified. Either there was a Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified or there wasn't. If there was a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, there must have been a Jesus who was condemned to be crucified. If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea.

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

........And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

But, Tertullian did MENTION Jesus Christ in other writings and he UTTERLY DESTROYS all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

And when I say "UTTERLY DESTROYS", I mean "TOTAL DESTRUCTION".

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" 18 attributed to TERTULLIAN.

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.

"On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian RIPS HJ of Nazareth to SHREDS.

Tertullian was wrong.

Writings attributed to Tertullian appear to be a PACK of LIES, FICTION, MYTHOLOGY and IMPLAUSIBLILITIES about Jesus Christ.

J-D · 09-28-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

........And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

But, Tertullian did MENTION Jesus Christ in other writings and he UTTERLY DESTROYS all claims to an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth.

And when I say "UTTERLY DESTROYS", I mean "TOTAL DESTRUCTION".

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" 18 attributed to TERTULLIAN.

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.

"On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian RIPS HJ of Nazareth to SHREDS.

Tertullian was wrong.

Writings attributed to Tertullian appear to be a PACK of LIES, FICTION, MYTHOLOGY and IMPLAUSIBLILITIES about Jesus Christ.

Very probably.

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the ENTIRE gMark, the author does NOT claim Pilate was called

1. Pontius

2. Governor of Judea

3. Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Must we say that gMark does NOT mention Pontius Pilate the Governor of Judea under Tiberius because he ONLY mentioned Pilate?

Mr 15:1 -

Quote:

And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus......and delivered him to Pilate.

The Pilate that Mark mentions is the Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified. Either there was a Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified or there wasn't. If there was a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, there must have been a Jesus who was condemned to be crucified. If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea.

Your post is illogical.

Pilate could have been governor of Judea but did NOT condemn Jesus to be crucified.

Washington did NOT have to cut down the cherry-tree to be President.

Horatio Parker · 09-28-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

Is Tertullian a second century apologist?

J-D · 09-28-2011, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the ENTIRE gMark, the author does NOT claim Pilate was called

1. Pontius

2. Governor of Judea

3. Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Must we say that gMark does NOT mention Pontius Pilate the Governor of Judea under Tiberius because he ONLY mentioned Pilate?

Mr 15:1 -

Quote:

And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus......and delivered him to Pilate.

The Pilate that Mark mentions is the Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified. Either there was a Pilate that condemned Jesus to be crucified or there wasn't. If there was a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, there must have been a Jesus who was condemned to be crucified. If there was not a Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified, then he can't have been Governor of Judea.

Your post is illogical.

Pilate could have been governor of Judea but did NOT condemn Jesus to be crucified.

Washington did NOT have to cut down the cherry-tree to be President.

And Jesus could have come from Nazareth and been crucified but not been the child of a virgin and a ghost.

GakuseiDon · 09-29-2011, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

And note that in this letter Tertullian, like M. Felix, does not refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", or whether Christianity's founder was mortal or god, crucified or not. Nor does he try to show how Jesus is an exception from his comments above. But nowhere will you find this in Doherty's 800 book.

That's why Doherty's views on the Second Century apologists are not only wrong, but laughably wrong, to anyone who is familiar with the material.

Is Tertullian a second century apologist?

He was thought to have born around 160 CE, but probably wrote the bulk of his work in the Third Century. But Doherty barely refers to Tertullian. It is his views on Tatian, M. Felix, etc that are laughably wrong (esp on Tatian).

Doherty has painted himself into a corner. He can't back down on M. Felix even if he wanted to, because if he did then all his analysis on what they SHOULD have written would turn against him when examining similar texts in the period. And then his point on the similarities between First and Second Century writings would then work against his use of silence in the First Century.

andrewcriddle · 09-29-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Well, Bauer's exhaustive investigation is pretty convincing - "heresy" came first, "orthodoxy" later. (Of course that's an odd way of talking about it. What it really means is that a bunch of varied ideas about a Redeemer/Intermediary figure loosely based on the Jewish concept of the Messiah - "Christ" - came first, and then they were eventually - so to speak - "condensed" into the hard-dated and semi-consistent "story" we know today.)

Well, I've read about his investigation, but I've never read the investigation itself, so I can't comment. And therefore nor will I disagree. Did you link me to the book earlier? :]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me. And I have to include it as a possibility.

Might I just add that I would love to see you discuss it with a chap called Graham Budd (Grahbudd) at ratskep.

Or Andrew Criddle (first example that comes to mind) here.

One issue with Bauer's very interesting work is that it may blur together two rather separate issues.

In one sense orthodoxy clearly is a late development. If you define orthodoxy as the teaching one finds in Athanasius Augustine and later figures, then you do not find all these doctrines in the 2nd century.

Figures like Origen who were mostly regarded as basically orthodox in their own lifetime would later be declared heretical.

Later orthodoxy developed out of debate, it was not fully formed at the beginning.

Modern scholarship recognises this by referring to proto-orthodoxy in this early period recognising that this is not entirely the same as later orthodoxy.

However Bauer is claiming something more than this, ie that at the beginning in most places most Christians were not even proto-orthodox and the later triumph of orthodoxy is a result of the spread of orthodox ideas from those places where they were the norm to the rest of the Roman Empire.

In some places this does seem to have happened. Most Early Syrian Christians were probably clearly unorthodox and the dominance of anything that could be called orthodox Christianity in that area seems to have been a later development.

However in the majority of places the majority of early Christians appear to have been proto-orthodox and Bauer's model does not seem to apply.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.