Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-01-2007, 09:37 AM

This is another version of Jesus the Christ in Against Heresies by Irenaeus in the 2nd century.
Book 1 ch XXVI section 1-2: The doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites and Nicolaitanes.

Quote:

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far seperated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the Universe, and ignorant of him who is above all.

He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.

Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme ruler, and that then he proclaimed the Unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus and that then Jesus died and rose again, while Christ remained impassable inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called the Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinion with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus andCarpocrates. They use the the gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

As one reads Against Heresies, it becomes clearer that Jesus the Christ and his Father are all folklore, and that Jesus the Christ is whatever persons imagined him to be.

aa5874 · 04-01-2007, 11:01 AM

I have another Christ from Against Heresies, book 1 chXXX section 1.

Quote:

1. Others, again, portentously declare that there exists, in the power of Bythus, a certain primary light, blessed, incorruptible and infinite: this is the Father of all, and is styled the first man. They also maintain that his Ennoea, going forth from him, produced a son, and that this is the son of man the second man.

Below these, again, is the Holy Spirit, and under this superior spirit the elements were seperated from each other,viz, water, darkness, the abyss, chaos, above which they declare the Spirit was borne, calling him the first woman.

Afterwards, they maintain, the first man, with his son, delighting over the beauty of the Spirit-that is, of the woman -and shedding light upon her, begat by her an incorruptible light, the third male, whom they call the Christ, the son of the first and the second man and of the Holy Spirit, the first woman

.

So, here we have another Christ conceived by some type of spiritual intercourse by father and son, the first and second man, simultaneously with the woman, the Holy Spirit.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless.

Huon · 04-01-2007, 12:56 PM

Justin (about 100 – about 165) Apologies. Chapter XXVI. Magicians Not Trusted by Christians.

Quote:

There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:-"Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his.

Note : It is very generally supposed that Justin was mistaken in understanding this statue to have been erected to Simon Magus. This supposition rests on the fact that in the year 1574, there was dug up in the island of the Tiber a fragment of marble, with the inscription "Semoni Sanco Deo," etc., being probably the base of a statue erected to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus.

Simon means "obedient". This Simon Magus believes in a supreme god, and is considered a god by his believers. He does mighty acts of magic. He ridiculously offers eternal life to his followers.

Helena (Selene ?) can be compared to the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11) and Jesus was anointed by a woman (Matt 26:6-10), so the virtuous disgust of Justin about Helena can be called pharisaism or prudery. Hippolytus of Rome (died about 236) describes at length (Refutation of Heresies, Book VI) Simon's System of Sensible and Intelligible Existences. According to Hippolytus, Helena plays an important role in the Simonian gnosis. Simon claimed that she was the first conception (ennoia) whom he, as the "great power of God", had freed from bondage.

A difference between Simon Magus and Jesus is their different origins. Simon is a Samaritan, and this origin may be put together with some favorable quotations of the Samaritans in Luke 10:33, Luke 17:11-19, and John 4:1-29. In John 8:48-49, Jesus is accused by the Jews of being a Samaritan.

Of course, we have not the genuine opinion of Simon Magus about the followers of Paul, Peter or James.

aa5874 · 04-01-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Simon means "obedient". This Simon Magus believes in a supreme god, and is considered a god by his believers. He does mighty acts of magic. He ridiculously offers eternal life to his followers.

It appears that this Simon Magus is also covered in Against Heresies in Book 1 ch XXIII.

There are also many persons who proclaimed that they were Jesus Christ, in book 1ch XXV section 2 is the following:

Quote:

The soul therefore, which is like that of Christ can despise those rulers who were the creators of the world, and in like manner, receives power for accomplishing the same results.

This idea has raised them to such a pitch of pride, that some of them declare themselves similar to Jesus while others, still more mighty, maintain that they are superior to his disciples, such as Peter and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, whom they consider to be in no respect inferior to Jesus.

mountainman · 04-01-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Therefore even if there was a tribe of Christians, it may have been the tribe as it relates to Balisides, Simon Magus, or some other weird non-Eusebian model.

Both Basilides and Simon Magus are only known in their
"purportedly christian context" by the Eusebian model.
aa5874, the Eusebian ("history") model is all that exists
for the prenicene epoch.

Try and get your head around the fact that all
we know of "christian history" for the prenicene epoch
comes to us alone and insularly from the testiment of
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, and unknown monk,
during the period 312-324 CE.

Ammonias Sacas, the purported "ancient founder" of the
"tribe of neopythagoreans, is testified by Eusebius to be
"christian". That is why modern historians say that there
must have been two people of the second century called
Ammonias Sacas --- because the one that Eusebius describes
as "christian" is certianly not the one described by other
independent authors of antiquity.

Steve Weiss · 04-01-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigart14

Funny, but also a good point. The Santa Claus we revive every year (earlier and earlier for marketing reasons) bears about as much resemblance to the historical St. Nicholas as the Easter Bunny does to a rabbit. I don't doubt that there was a historical Jesus; there might have been thousands of them. To call him "the Christ," though, is begging the question, since whether or not he was the messiah or son of god would by no means be established even if we had absolute proof of his existence. The claim of a historical Jesus is not the same as the claim of a historical Christ. And even if James Cameron does have his bones in a box, that certainly doesn't prove that he could heal the sick with a touch or turn water into wine, let alone that he crawled alive out of the tomb. He may have been the leader or rabbi of a small Jewish sect. Who cares? The sayings gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene are just sayings; no miracles, no proof of divinity. Paul's letters, both those accepted as genuine and those of the Pauline school, claim he did perform miracles. That's where I get off the train. (Of course Paul says Jesus appeared to James and Peter, then to 500 others, and lastly to him, but he also says that Jesus appeared to him in a vision, not in the flesh. If he appeard to others in the same sort of vision, then we have hallucinations--or unverified claims of such--NOT real physical appearances with a handy open wound for doubting Thomas to stick his hand into.) As Doherty points out, pre-Markan writings contain no details about Jesus' life and ministry. People were undeducated and credulous; they routinely believed in miracles, in sexual unions between gods and women and goddesses and men. They liked miracle stories and visions of the apocalypse, when, as John says, the Romans would get what was coming to them. Mark fleshed out the sayings with a little hagiography borrowed from the OT, Matthew and Luke built on Mark, and John borrowed from Matthew and added a good bit from his own feverish brain, and voila! The Christ! That there was a Jesus is a perfectly ordinary claim. That there was a Christ who performed miracles and raised the dead is impossible.

Craig

If there were such a person as a Jesus character that was none of the things the bible claims him to be, why bother ourselves about him? So much debate about a non-entity, a fiction, and an exaggeration. He said, she said. Just reclassify the bible as fiction and move on.

aa5874 · 04-01-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Both Basilides and Simon Magus are only known in their
"purportedly christian context" by the Eusebian model.
aa5874, the Eusebian ("history") model is all that exists
for the prenicene epoch.

Try and get your head around the fact that all
we know of "christian history" for the prenicene epoch
comes to us alone and insularly from the testiment of
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, and unknown monk,
during the period 312-324 CE.

I always have your hypothesis in mind, but I just can't get it to work. The 2nd century appears to me to be a reasonable period for the development of the tribes.

With regards to the historicity of Jesus the Christ as it pertains to Irenaeus in Against Heresies, I cannot see that Eusebius would invent all these so-called heresies and then invent refutations. To me, Against Heresies highlighted some of the prevalent and contemporary beliefs of Jesus the Christ, however there maybe some tampering although I have not been aware of any.

spin · 04-02-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Main character? Compared to whom? Moses, Abraham, Jesus?

Different books have different figures. You should read a bit more, widen your horizons, or at least let a little light in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

And the true stories central to the religious theme of the bible that you find to be credible are?

Read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Yes, the bible is dirty, on that we can agree.

Such an incoherent response deserves a

.

spin

Steve Weiss · 04-02-2007, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Different books have different figures. You should read a bit more, widen your horizons, or at least let a little light in.

Read it.

Such an incoherent response deserves a

.

spin

I have read all that I can stomach of the murder, child abuse, torture and genocide advocated by the Judeo-Christian god. The bible is one of the most perverse doctrines available anywhere, especially since its adherents claim that these heinous acts are endorsed by an all-wise and infallible deity. Dirty doesn't describe the scope of this anti-human, irrational mythology. But you may find human sacrifice and cannibalism to your taste. I emphatically do not.

spin · 04-02-2007, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I have read all that I can stomach of the murder, child abuse, torture and genocide advocated by the Judeo-Christian god.

Can't you read with a little analytical ability? How different is the violence in the Hebrew bible compared with the violence in the Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite or Egyptian chronicles? Answer: they're about the same. It was a more violent world. Doh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The bible is one of the most perverse doctrines available anywhere, especially since its adherents claim that these heinous acts are endorsed by an all-wise and infallible deity.

The bible isn't a doctrine. You are falling over your presuppositions. The bible is a collection of traditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Dirty doesn't describe the scope of this anti-human, irrational mythology.

More logorrhea. There is little irrational in the bible. In that regard you have a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

But you may find human sacrifice and cannibalism to your taste.

:boohoo:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I emphatically do not.

As you are too busy wasting your time over your own handwrenching, you'll never find time to understand the text, so why bother continuing to show your inabilities. Forget the bible. It's apparently too difficult for you. Take up makrame.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.