Iasion

Greetings Vinnie,

Thanks for posting that helpful info about the standard Gospel's datings.

There are some good arguments there - but also some weak ones.


...so clearly attested Ignatius for that area in the decade before 110.
...it most likely was written before the time of ignatius (110)
...Furthermore Ignatius in Eph. 19 may show knowledge of matt


Hmm .. a lot seems to ride on Ignatius - yet his writings are some of the most corrupt and problematic of all early Christian writings.

Some authors argue Ignatius was forged in the 130s, or even later.

I tend to agree with Yuri's (hyper?) scepticism on this issue - there seems to be a lot of assumptions and circular reasoning and argument from silence 8) involved in these datings.

Quentin

Peter Kirby

Where does this "14 year exile in Tarsus" idea come from?

What evidence is there that the majority of inhabitants of Tarsus in the first century were Mithraists?

Where does Paul talk about 7 sacraments? For that matter, where is that found in Mithraism?

When would this borrowing have happened?

What is the source of this story?

This may be right!

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings,

Thanks ConsequentAtheist (and Peter) for your comments.

Indeed, I concede my views about Justin's Trypho's comments went a little too far.


The issue of exactly what was doubted is central to my argument, and the record shows a variety of expressions of doubts.

I see a cluster of doubts related to whether Jesus came "in the flesh", or was merely a illusion of phantasm, starting from 2 John through the Gnostic debates of the 2nd century.

This distinction is essentially the same that Doherty is making about a Jesus who belonged to the higher planes only.

Many of the early doubters argue against Jesus Christ being physical (being "of the flesh"), which supports Doherty's argument that early Christians saw JC as a spiritual, not physical being.

That is not quite the same as being "fiction", "fake", "not real".

Paul seems to have been one of those rare people who had a spiritual epiphany(s) (his trip to the 3rd heaven, vision of Christ) and wrote to tell of his experiences of the Christ.

The Gnostics, who revered Paul as the Arch-Gnostic, followed that lead, and saw JC as a spiritual entity of some sort.

Paul's writings belong to the genre of religious polemic based on personal spiritual revelations - such works being popular in those days - c.f. Enoch, Hermetica inter alia.

Then, by about the turn of the century, 2 John suggests that the argument of flesh Jesus vs spiritual Jesus had started (with a nod to luvluv).

The 2nd century was consumed by the debate whether Jesus was "of the flesh" - by late 2nd century it was all over bar the shouting.


All of this points to the original Iesous Christos being seen as a spiritual being - belonging to a higher plane or world (these people really believed this stuff about the planes of existence).

Quentin

Iasion

Greetings all,

1) If papias knew of matt a 2d century date is ruled out.

Pardon?

A 4th century account (by Eusebius the master-forger, no less), says Papias, perhaps around 130, refered to Matthew compiling the Sayings of the Lord in Hebrew.


"the Sayings of the Lord in Hebrew" can hardly be said to be the same as G.Matthew, although it may have contributed to it.

That is not proof that Papias knew G.Matthew.

Furthermore, even if our G.Matthew DID exist in Papias' time, that does NOT rule out it being written in early 2nd century, before Papias.


Quentin

Iasion

Greetings luvluv,

I could very easily read most of your citations above as being examples of individuals denying the historical accuracy of several facets of Jesus' existence. Denying that Christ was born from Mary, for instance, does not equal denying that Christ existed.

Here is the crux of the whole matter -

I never claimed Jesus did "not exist".

I do not deny Iesous Christos existed.

Iesous Christos did exist, and he does exist.

He exists as a spiritual entity, the Logos, an emanation from the Godhead, a spiritual being. Of course, the deeper meaning behind that is not clear, and is beyond the scope of this board.

But such is the view of the founder of Christianity, and many others after him - especially the Gnostics.

But he did NOT exist "kata sarka", he did not exist physically.


And that is the key to my argument, and to Earl's - to people who had a neo-platonic, mystic attitude to religion - Iesous was very REAL - but he lived in a higher plane, not on earth.

Sure, Paul mentions Iesous Christos appearing to others - and it sounds just like the appearance to Paul - in a vision. All of Paul's alleged mentions of the historical Iesous are like this - they can be interpreted literally OR spiritually - but none are clearly ONLY literal and historical.

e.g. Iesous Christos was "born of woman" - sure, but he gives no name, no place, no time, no date. Even Hercules was "born of woman" (and we know her name) as were numerous other mythic figures even Iasius, son-of-god, born of the virgin woman Electra.


Iesous Christos was very "real" to Paul - just not a physical, historical person.


Quentin

Iasion

Greetings luvluv,

Further, do you admit that whoever wrote the John 2 chapter you cite was a contemporary to Paul of the epistles? If so, then your own quote from 2 John would seem to PROVE that Christians DID BELIEVE that Christ came in the flesh, unless 2 John comes from a much later date.

No.
2 John is more likely dated to the 120s.

The John letters reflect a time when the debate about Jesus coming "in the flesh" had started, yet the Gospels were not yet known.

Earl has a fascinating analysis of 1 John where he argues that it contains evidence for a group of Christians who saw themselves as authentic, "real" Christians, but who nonetheless denied the Son - denied that Jesus was Christ. Earl's page on this letter is a must read and can be found here :
Earl on 1 John

Quentin

Peter Kirby

Any idea what the original Greek or Syriac for this passage of Aristides is? I have been looking for a used copy to no avail.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Quenten,

Eusebius 'the master forger'? Do you have any evidence to back this up given that the CBQ article has been debunked by Layman on these very forums.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

About Aristides -
I can't help with the Syriac.

But,
it turns out the Apology can be found in Greek at chapter 27 of Barlaam and Ioasaph. The key passage is at section 253.

Unfortunately, this version does not seem to have the key phrase, at least not in English.


The Loeb version has this English :

".. thou mayest learn, O King, by the reading of the holy Scripture, which the Christians call the Gospel, shouldst thou meet therewith."


the Greek is as follows (in crude transliteration - I don't know how to make Greek font here, perhaps someone could explain how?) :


"ou to kleos tes parousias ek tes par autois kaloumenes euggelikes hagias Graphes eksesti soi gnonai, Basileu, ean entuches."


I look forward to a competent translation

Quentin

Iasion

Greetings,

Here is the phrase mentioned above, copied from the Greek of the Loeb :



Quentin