Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Meta, you really ought to pay attention to your spelling and attempt to achieve a proper arrangement of your posts. Its the most basic thing! presentation!

Otherwise, cool work guys. Good stuff.

thaks.

what do you man proper arrangement? I try to use standard outline. I don't see what's wrong with it.

As for spelling, do you know much about dyslexia?

Peter Kirby · 04-23-2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
I'm refurring to a statment Koester makes that Crosson agrees with him about the Passion Narrative ending with the empty tomb. That's not necessarily where he places the end of the Cross Gospel, because that plugs in other sources. Apparently Koester says that Crosson agrees with his (Koester's) theory that the PN is all one long source ending in tomb, but epiphanies coming from other sources are added in the PreMarkan material.

I would really like to see the quote by Koester.

Of course, I give precedence to the writings of Crossan for determining what Crossan thinks. I've already indicated the sources in which Crossan gives his opinion on the origin of the empty tomb story, and it isn't a pre-Markan passion narrative (according to Crossan).

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Kirby,
Whats your take on Iasons response concerning early skeptics questioning the historicity of Jesus? Especially as per his link on early doubters on page 7?
You had stated:

And you later asserted in response to my arguments:

So, does your statement above still hold up - in the face of QuentinJ's page? Especially 2 John, Trypho, Marcion, Heretics, Faustus, John Cassian and Socrates Scholasticus.

On another note, and especially connected to Toto's post above, I think its remarkable that even these "deniers" do not make any temporal statements about Jesus and from their statements, one can't tell whether Jesus lived 10 or 200 years earlier.

I think a fine argument can be made from this.

I feel badly about offending QuintinJ because he seems like a nice guy. I guess I shouldn't accuse him of being dishonest, but i do find his approach to be misleading. Maybe he doesn't mean to be, but he is.

He says that "man authors argue that Jesus didn't exist." Well big deal! who are they? People like Frank Zendler! Wow, the head of the American atheist deal doesn't believe Jesus existed. I can't feature that. But can he come up with one major historian? No, and doesn't ever dawn on you guys that historians don't take that stuff serliousy becasue there's nothing there! We just can't make history on argument from silence!

what ever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? Then in Zendler's article he tries to put the burden of proof on those who accept an historical Jesus. Well I don't see how it could be that we have the burden of proof when we are clealry the status quo! These pople apparently don't know anything about argument. They need to read some basic handbook for the National Forensic league or something.status quo always has presumption--those who seek change have burden of proof!

But they think because they can goad us into defending the position, then we are the one's trying to prove the argument. But of course if we don't try to prove it they go, look see they wont try to prove it! WEll that's becasue historical Jesus is the accepted position of all historians and has been for 2000 years. It definatly has presumption, that means those seeking to change that view must prove their case, not we ours!

I find that very--misleading. I could say "Many authors believe that UF0's are abducting peole." big deal, right?

Here are some more things I find dishonest or misleading from his wesite:

Quote:

2 John warns of those who don't

"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Meta =>As you will see below, these people probably did not deny that a being called "Jesus" was claimed to be seen by people. Now what would that mean in real terms. Come on now! Its' so much more logical to think that there was a real guy who people saw, and 200 years latter when all the witnesses were dead those with Gnsotic leanings just said he was a spirit illusion. But that makes a lot more sense than saying that it was a myth with no reference to history, then they made up a conceteized history for it, which is backwards to the way mythology usually works.

Trypho, (possibly Rabbi Tarphon), in early 2nd century , reportedly claimed (in the Dialogue with Justin Martyr) :

�But Christ - if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere - is unknown...�

Meta => come on now, a Jew would use the term Christ as a title (Messiah) not as a name. Clealry he's saying "no one has yet been born who fills the office of Messiah" he's not saying Jesus of Nazerath hasn't been born. That doesn't really make sense, it's so awkward gramatically. If you were goign to say someone was a fictional character would you say "he hasn't been born?" Or would you say "he didn't really exist?" Santa Clause hasn't been born. Have you told your kid that Santa hasn't been born? Wouldnt' you say Have you told you kid that there is no Santa?

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

[]b]Meta =>[/b] again, they obviously don't deny that there was someone people saw and called "Jesus," they just have to make that reality fit their theology so they deny that he was corporial. But they aren't denying that there was a being on the scene historically.

�Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...�

Meta => How come not one of these guys acutally comes out and says "there was no Jesus?" It's all awkward "not born of Mary." Is he denying that there was Jesus? Or is he denying that the viriginal conception?

Quote:

�...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...�

Meta -> same deal as above.

Quote:

�Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ... [who] independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.�

Meta => still agreed he was seen on earth.

Quote:

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and 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"

Meta => He's just taling about gnostics. They did not deny that some being called Jesus was seen on earth. So it didn't even occur to them to say he was ficitonal. And moreover, they were not in any speicial situation to know the facts of Jesus' historicity. They were in late second or third century and up, and there's no proof they knew anything.[colored] It was their theology that led them to deny his fleshly nature, not any historical knowledge.[/color]

Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :

"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;

Meta =>Ibid.

Quote:

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion 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?" -

Meta => late second or third century, not an important apologist, and the passage is hard to figure out. The context before the quote used makes it appear that he's actually talking about the Roman's crucification of someone else, not Jesus. I quoted it in the thread.

Quote:

Tatian, in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:

�Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories�

Meta => this one is really misleading, becasue it just turns on a misunderstanding about the nature of apologetics in the second century. Justin argued the same thing. In that day, the point was to get Romans to stop killing Christians. So they tired to make the Romans like Christians, becasue prejudcies were going around that Chrsitans were canibals and that they worshped the head of an ass and so forth. So they tried to make it seem that the christian gosples were like the pagan stories.

So the situation was reversed, these christians were arguing like the mythers, they wanted pagans to think that christains had mythology, in a sense. Becasue they wanted to create a sense of commanlity between the pagan population and christians.

but read further on, because both he and Justin reverse it latter, and try to come back and show differences and ultiamtely argue that it's not exactly like pagan mythology. Nowhere in that do they deny that Jesus existed. Justin speaks of Jesus' words being handed down. How would he have words had he not been on earth. read it and you will see that he did not deny it.

so I find all of this to be very very misleading.

Peter Kirby · 04-23-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
Yea, i know. Greek was my undergrad language. But even so, if he said "you invent Christ" it would the same meaning. Because the Jews (of which Tripho was one) did't think of Christ as his first name, they thought of it as a title to which many people might aspire. The context was not provided. But just looking at the quote come on now, does that really telll us "Jesus didn't exist?"

The context is The Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, chapter 8. It is easily available in English translation online.

Dialogue with Trypho on Early Christian Writings

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Trypho is not referring to the non-existence or obscurity of Jesus, whose historicity he takes for granted throughout the debate, but the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah. He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown. The idea that Christ is unknown, if he exists, does not fit well the erroneous substitution of the meaning "Jesus" (as in "Jesus--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all") for the story of Jesus is known, and Jesus could not be alive in the time of Trypho and needing Elias to anoint him.

The Jewish opponent Trypho accepts the historicity of Jesus throughout the Dialogue yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek). In chapter 32, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified." (Trypho is referring to Deut. - Anyone hung on a tree is accursed!) In chapter 36, Trypho said, "Let these things be so as you say--namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man [Jesus] be He of whom these prophecies were made." In chapter 49, Trypho said, "But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man [Jesus] is not He [the Christ]." In chapter 74, Trypho said, "We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him [Jesus] who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ." Justin Martyr concludes by saying in chapter 142, "I can wish no better thing for you, sirs, than this, that, recognising in this way that intelligence is given to every man, you may be of the same opinion as ourselves, and believe that Jesus is the Christ of God." It is pretty clear that Trypho accepts the historicity of this man, Jesus, who was crucified, yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ").

(I am not making any claims to the historicity of the dialogue itself--as far as I am concerned, Trypho could be entirely the invention of the writer. I refer to the character speaking in the text.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I would really like to see the quote by Koester.

Of course, I give precedence to the writings of Crossan for determining what Crossan thinks. I've already indicated the sources in which Crossan gives his opinion on the origin of the empty tomb story, and it isn't a pre-Markan passion narrative (according to Crossan).

best,
Peter Kirby

I quote Koester at length on my Jesus Puzzell II page, but I don't know if I quote that in particular. It would take a long time to find and I'm already badly procrastinating writting on the diss. I'm trying to finnish the diss this summer, so I really shouldn't even be doing this.

Get the Koester book, you'll like it.

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
The context is The Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, chapter 8. It is easily available in English translation online.

Dialogue with Trypho on Early Christian Writings

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Trypho is not referring to the non-existence or obscurity of Jesus, whose historicity he takes for granted throughout the debate, but the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah. He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown. The idea that Christ is unknown, if he exists, does not fit well the erroneous substitution of the meaning "Jesus" (as in "Jesus--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all") for the story of Jesus is known, and Jesus could not be alive in the time of Trypho and needing Elias to anoint him.

The Jewish opponent Trypho accepts the historicity of Jesus throughout the Dialogue yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek). In chapter 32, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified." (Trypho is referring to Deut. - Anyone hung on a tree is accursed!) In chapter 36, Trypho said, "Let these things be so as you say--namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man [Jesus] be He of whom these prophecies were made." In chapter 49, Trypho said, "But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man [Jesus] is not He [the Christ]." In chapter 74, Trypho said, "We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him [Jesus] who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ." Justin Martyr concludes by saying in chapter 142, "I can wish no better thing for you, sirs, than this, that, recognising in this way that intelligence is given to every man, you may be of the same opinion as ourselves, and believe that Jesus is the Christ of God." It is pretty clear that Trypho accepts the historicity of this man, Jesus, who was crucified, yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ").

(I am not making any claims to the historicity of the dialogue itself--as far as I am concerned, Trypho could be entirely the invention of the writer. I refer to the character speaking in the text.)

best,
Peter Kirby

thank you! I hate to say "I told you so" but that is in perfect agreement with my interpretation of the passage. As my reading comprehension skills were questioned, I feel vindicated.

but on the other hand, they would not have been questioned had I not lost my temper with QJ. So I feel guilty. Sorry.

I will try not to get so excited in the futre.

Metacrock · 04-23-2003, 01:40 AM

Here's another one from QJ's page that i think shows real problems. I mean seeking to be charitable I have to assume slipshod scholoarship at best. Heggesipus is famous for this by the way. Here's what QJ says:

Quote:

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; '

Meta => Doesn't say what the sects in question were. But that doesn't say that they didn't believe in a historical guy called Jesus. However, there is clear evdience that Hegessippus did believe in historical Jesus.

this is from Eusebius originally, (that's about all we have of his works, what Eusebius quotes). But this is in the book Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity by Gerd Luedemann (Fortress, 1989) p119.

Quote:

Hegiseppus reports the following event: "After the death of James, Semieon, son of Cleopas, an uncle of the Lord was named Bishop..."

Now did this guy relly believe that fictional, or purely mythological being had flesh and blood relatives?

Peter Kirby · 04-23-2003, 02:16 AM

Metacrock writes: Doesn't say what the sects in question were. But that doesn't say that they didn't believe in a historical guy called Jesus. However, there is clear evdience that Hegessippus did believe in historical Jesus.

I didn't see Quentin say that Hegesippus disbelieved in an earthly Jesus.

But I don't think that the reference from Hegesippus to these sects is relevant to finding ancient doubters of the existence of a Jesus.

Here is the quote of Hegesippus in Eusebius, Church History, Book II, Chapter 23:

Quote:

8 Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs,265 asked him, `What is the gate of Jesus?'266 and he replied that he was the Saviour.

9 On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works.267 But as many as believed did so on account of James.

10 Therefore when many even of the rulersbelieved, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole peoplewould be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, `We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ.268 We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons.269

Here is Eusebius in Book IV, Chapter 22.

Quote:

1 Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs152 which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

2 His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus153 was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

3 And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus,154 whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord."

4 The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: "And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas,155 was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. "Therefore,156 they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

5 But Thebuthis,157 because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects158 among the people, like Simon,159 from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius,160 from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus,161 from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthaeus,162 from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus,163 from whom came the Masbothaeans. From them sprang the Menandrianists,164 and Marcionists,165 and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ."

6 The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: "There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothaeans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees."166

7 And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue,167 showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews,168 and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

Here is footnote 166 from Roberts-Donaldson: "These are the seven Jewish heresies mentioned above by Hegesippus. Justin (Dial. chap. 80) and Epiphanius (Anaceph.) also name seven Jewish sects, but they_ are not the same as those mentioned here (those of Justin: Sadducees, Genistae, Meristae, Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, Baptists). Epiphanius (Vol. I. p. 230, Dindorf's ed.,-Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, Sebouaioi, Essenes, Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, 'Ossaioi, Nazarenes, Herodians)."

Note that the Christian heresies mentioned by Hegesippus do not add up to seven and that Hegesippus says that these heretics "sprung from the seven sects." The Jewish sects mentioned by Hegesippus number seven. The conflict between James and the sects who disbelieve in a resurrection sounds like a conflict with non-Christian Jews. If we need evidence that some Jews disbelieved in a resurrection, we need only turn to the New Testament (Mt 22:23, Acts 23:8).

best,
Peter Kirby

04-23-2003, 02:30 AM

Greetings Peter,

thanks for those details I overlooked,
I see I was wrong about Trypho.

Iasion

Ted Hoffman · 04-23-2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
thaks.

what do you man proper arrangement? I try to use standard outline. I don't see what's wrong with it.

Standard Outline? Are you using MsWord? Then thats where your problem is. I would recommend you use notepad. Or your browser.

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock
thaks.

As for spelling, do you know much about dyslexia?

You have a disability? If that is the case, I am sorry.

Thanks for your take on QJ's page. I find your posts and Kirby's very edifying.
I am sure Quentin will be responding shortly...

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

04-23-2003, 02:30 AM	#209
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Greetings Peter, thanks for those details I overlooked, I see I was wrong about Trypho. Iasion

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.