spin

So by "historical" you had no notion of any pursuit of history at all. You just mean by "historical" something that is held to be real. This is a modern debasement of the more technical use of the term "historical", ie after the technical significance had been established and allowing for its entry into modern parlance with the debased meaning.

In short, it has nothing to do with the modern notion of the historical Jesus in any sense. There was no notion of a historical Jesus until religious studies scholars started trying to use notions of history derived from the enlightenment in order to rationalize their understanding of Jesus in a more scientific world. To talk of Eusebius believing that Jesus Christ was a historical individual is anachronistic by well over a millennium. I certainly agree that Eusebius held to the view that Jesus Christ was a real human being, but such beliefs as that of Eusebius have nothing to do with history per se.

aa5874

Please, we already know what is found in "Church History" and it specifically declares that Jesus had a TWO-FOLD nature.

Jesus was DIVINE --the Logos made flesh--God Incarnate.

Eusebius "Church History" 1 Do you not even understand the basic concept of God Incarnate--the Logos manifested in the Flesh?

We have the writings of Eusebius in front of us yet people are makinng all sorts of blatant erroneous claims with the intention of promoting propaganda.

Please, have a look at the letter of Eusebius on the Council of Nicea.


the Letter of Eusebius about the Council of Nicea. It would appear that Eusebius contradicts you.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance.

Jesus was fathered by a Ghost according to Eusebius but just holy.

spin

From the forum guidelines:

1. c) Cite exact references for the materials you give as evidence, so that readers can consult the material themselves.

mountainman

Did Eusebius hold to the view that Jesus Christ was a real (water-walking, cloud-ascending, ghost-seeded) human being? aa5874?

Eusebius is viewed by historians as an historian - an inventor of 'ecclesiastical history'.

Eusebius was the editor-in-chief of the first widespread Greek bible codices.

Eusebius has tendered documents in the saga of Christian origins.

only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity. [A.M.]

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

And do you not think that those who 'wrote the mystery of faith' understand the mystery of faith? . . . that according to Golding was "as easy as eating and drinking" while in England the pple are still wondering which Spire he was writing about?

Chili

They look with Christian spectacles and would never even recognize a Christian of they saw one. IOW they haven't got a clue. 'Clueless' they are, I like that word, don't you? And would crucify Christ all over again while Jesus is one who should be crucified. Clueless!!!!!!!!!!

Chili

Let me correct you here in that Catholicism is about Christ and not Jesus for whom Christ was born and Jesus was crucified and they will crucify him over and over again to set Christ free in the flock.

. . . and will consume the body of Christ and never the body of Jesus and not even the body of Jesus Christ.

"Corpus Christi" = Amen, we say wherein the body is real food and transformation takes place in our own mind to agree in the end.

. . . and so 'consubstantiation' is an abomination all in itself. Clueless they are. And I do not want to say millions and millions of them but each one of them for sure.

Chili

Correct, but must add that for the definition of real wherein 'Adam is real' Adam was not a material man or he could not be real, but was 'like god' not as of yet spelled with a capital G.

And true "past Adam" as 'like god' for whom second Adam must die to set the God free in him and it is he who is called Christ to see in us, and for that the first Adam must be raised to be crucified by Jesus as the sleeper in us.

spin

I do realize that you have singlehandedly, without a minimum trace of evidence, asserted for the last several years a conspiracy theory of massive proportions--that would make anyone supporting it look ridiculous--concerning the sort of wholesale invention by a lone author that is so unprecedented that it is incredible, especially given the fact that the touted author shows no sign of any creative or perceptive qualities in those writings issued in his name. There is no sign that he was particularly able in any of the fields that would be necessary for you to even sustain your theory, but then, as you don't have any of the necessary scholarly skills to deal with the issues, that would only aid you to promote your unfalsifiable silliness.

So it is no wonder that still without any reason to suppose your theory has any validity you are back touting it once again. It's the sort of thing the following was designed for:

and this:

and this:

and without any evidence your position is:

and this

Robert Tulip

I do know quite a bit about Christology actually, but in this thread we are just talking about why mythicists dispute the human nature of Jesus Christ, and have not discussed the separate topic of His alleged divine nature.

If Jesus had no human nature then there was no Historical Jesus, regardless of spin's tendentious restriction of the meaning of history. A solely divine Christ is compatible with a mythicist reading of the Gospels, if 'divine' is understood to mean 'imagined', following Feuerbach's theory of God as psychological projection of human imagination.

The theory of word made flesh in John's Prologue produced the core Christological concept of the hypostatic union of the two divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. Hypostasis cannot really be termed a "basic concept", if by 'basic' we mean an idea that meets rational standards of clarity and distinctness. As Hume explained, Aristotle's concept of substance (akin to hypostasis) lacks content.

The unity of the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History is a highly mysterious, obscure, metaphysical, controversial, archaic, political and dogmatic topic, quite lacking in what you call "basic concepts", if by that you mean ideas with clear objective meaning. The "basic concept" of hypostasis lacks any scientific meaning and is purely an article of faith, especially considering that one of its legs, Jesus of Nazareth, is pure fraud and skullduggery.

I have my own views on the meaning of the so-called basic concepts of Christology, as grounding the eternal Christ in astronomical observation of natural cosmic reason, and imagining the presence of this eternal Son in history. But such "basic concepts" are not found in traditional Christianity, with its false concepts of heaven and hell, entification of the trinity, and treatment of mythical fiction as historical fact.

Jesus may have said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away, but he could not have imagined the iota controversy of Semi-Arianism, where the "basic concept" of whether He was the same (homoousios) or similar (homoiousious) as God generated schism and accusations of heresy.

Yes Eusebius believed in the Eternal Christ. But Eusebius also believed in the Historical Jesus. This latter point is what is at issue here, since spin denies it because of his misunderstanding of the nature of history.