For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Yes, as I said, Irenaeus's commentary is part of the evolution of orthodoxy, not the consequence of it.

If things were settled, why was Irenaeus repeating this stuff, or philosophizing over it? (A: coz it hadn't been settled when he wrote)

He was repeating it because he thought it was the raving of heretics, which was the subject of the treatise in which he discusses it.

 

[Mcreal]

He was repeating it because he thought it was the raving of heretics, which was the subject of the treatise in which he discusses it.

Why was he repeating it? Perhaps it all is the raving of lunatics.

btw, Is 'him' in Heb 11:11 Abraham? -

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.​

 

[Craig B]

Why was he repeating it? Perhaps it all is the raving of lunatics.

btw, Is 'him' in Heb 11:11 Abraham? -

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.​

The one man, as good as dead, from whom she conceived ... is that more likely in your opinion to be her aged husband Abraham (to whom God had made a promise to this effect) or is it likely to be a reference to the Holy Ghost? Is the HG "as good as dead"?

May I also counsel you to pay heed to dejudge's view of Irenaeus and his works?

The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus appears to be a massive forgery or heavily mutilated by multiple unknown authors ...

 

[Mcreal]

The one man, as good as dead, from whom she conceived ... is that more likely, in your opinion, to be her aged husband Abraham (to whom God had made a promise to this effect) or is it likely to be a reference to the Holy Ghost? Is the HG "as good as dead"?

It seems more like a reference to Abraham, though under the influence of the 'Holy Ghost'.

It's theology. It's infused with the existentialism of those times.

May I also counsel you to pay heed to dejudge's view of Irenaeus and his works?

Originally Posted by dejudge
The writing called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus appears to be a massive forgery or heavily mutilated by multiple unknown authors ...

Sure. I agree with dejudge. That's part of my point: These writings attributed to Irenaeus are probably doctored to make it look like there was then an orthodox 'us' vs the heretical 'them', but it's likely to be a smoke-screen.

The accounts of early-Christianity & it's origins are a house of cards.

 

[Craig B]

It seems more like a reference to Abraham, though under the influence of the 'Holy Ghost'.

It's theology. It's infused with the existentialism of those times.

Sure. I agree with dejudge. That's part of my point: These writings attributed to Irenaeus are probably doctored to make it look like there was then an orthodox 'us' vs the heretical 'them', but it's likely to be a smoke-screen.

The accounts of early-Christianity & it's origins are a house of cards.

If you're right about all these influences, infusions, existentialism, smokescreens, and doctoring, being a house of cards is the least of the problems confronting Christian origins, it seems to me. Nonetheless I remain optimistic that, if the subject is approached with prudence and reason, sensible things can be said about it.

 

[Mcreal]

If you're right about all these influences, infusions, existentialism, smokescreens, and doctoring, being a house of cards is the least of the problems confronting Christian origins, it seems to me. Nonetheless I remain optimistic that, if the subject is approached with prudence and reason, sensible things can be said about it.

The only sensible thing that can be said about Christianity is that it was used by Constantine and later Byzantine-Roman emperors to unite people to control them.

"influences, infusions, smokescreens, and doctoring" = "being a house of cards"

 

[GDon]

Since flesh contained earth and water, it was naturally weighed down to earth. So to me those mythicist theories that claim that "flesh" could exist in the air have a burden of proof that I don't think they can meet.

This is imputing modern thinking to the ancients.

Well, no, my view is formed from extensive reading of the ancient writings (in English translation only, as I have no skill in ancient languages). Still, I admit I might be wrong. Perhaps we can give sources for the ancient views, and work together on this? I'll give some examples of ancient texts below. Anything you can contribute would be most welcomed.

That is, below the moon spirits were not pure eternal spirit compositions but mixtures of elements that made them corruptible.

We see this concept in texts that portray a being putting on more and more heavier elements as it descends to earth and shedding them as it rises to the highest heaven.

Yes, that's exactly right. But that's my point. Here is Clement of Alexandria:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-exhortation.html

How, then, can shades and demons be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits, acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs, about which they appear dimly, being but shadowy phantasms?​

The place in the air between the earth and moon was occupied by corruptible spirits, invisible but nonetheless not pure spirit -- they had corruptible elements in them.

They were made of air or fire, but unable to ascend above the firmament because of their 'earthly' desires, like envy and jealousy. But should they take on 'weighty' carnal desires, they sank to earth, as per the text above. Human souls still obsessed with their carnal desires could not ascend into the heavens, but came back to earth and reincarnated.

They did not therefore keep falling to earth because gravity was not understood until modern times.

The ancient Greeks didn't have a modern view of gravity certainly. But they had their own view of why things rose and fell. Plutarch summarizes them in his "Concerning Nature":
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/nature/book1.html

A body is that being which hath these three dimensions, breadth, depth, and length;—or a bulk which makes a sensible resistance;— or whatsoever of its own nature possesseth a place.

Plato saith that it is neither heavy nor light in its own nature, when it exists in its own place; but being in the place where another should be, then it has an inclination by which it tends to gravity or levity.

Aristotle saith that, if we simply consider things in their own nature, the earth only is to be judged heavy, and fire light; but air and water are on occasions heavy and at other times light.

The Stoics think that of the four elements two are light, fire and air; two ponderous, earth and water; that which is naturally light doth by its own nature, not by any inclination, recede from its own centre; but that which is heavy doth by its own nature tend to its centre; for the centre is not a heavy thing in itself.

Epicurus thinks that bodies are not limited; but the first bodies, which are simple bodies, and all those composed of them, all acknowledge gravity; that all atoms are moved, some perpendicularly, some obliquely; some are carried aloft either by immediate impulse or with vibrations.​

I'd welcome any further contributions to understanding ancient thoughts on the matter of gravity and why things 'tend to the centre'.

 

[dejudge]

The mere fact that there are Christian writings against so-called heretics is evidence that there was never any actual historical evidence of the character called Jesus since at least the 2nd century.



Incredibly, Christians gave multiple contradictory accounts of the time period when their Jesus lived and was crucified--some even claimed their Jesus lived without birth or was some kind of phantom.

"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is evidence that the Jesus character never ever had any known historical data.

Virtually every sect fabricated their own Jesus with complete fiction.

Examine the teaching of the Christian called Saturninus.

Jesus lived without birth.

"Against Heresies" 1.24

Against Heresies 1.24

2. He has also laid it down as a truth, that the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man..

.

Examine the teaching of Cerinthus.

Jesus and Christ were two different entities. Jesus was human and Christ was some kind of spirit in the form of a bird.

"Against Heresies" 1.26

.....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 suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

Examine the teachings of Marcion.

The Son of God came down from heaven in the time of Pilate.

"Against Heresies"

But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea......

Examine the teachings of the Ophites. Christ was born by light.

"Against Heresies" 1

..... 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 Christ,-the son of the first and second man, and of the Holy Spirit, the first woman....

It is clear that Jesus Christ was always a product of fiction without any known historical evidence even among so-called Christians.

 

[David Mo]

It is clear that Jesus Christ was always a product of fiction without any known historical evidence even among so-called Christians.

Of course, the Jesus of the gospels is a legendary figure. However this doesn't prevent that he could be a real man infused with a supernatural nature (vale) by their followers after or before his death. You can stack mountains of data about the supernatural nature of Jesus in the gospels and after. These claims are irrelevant on this subject, except for the more or less ortodox Christians and I don't see any in this forum.

Excuse me if I don't follow you in your sterile journey. I am little tired.

 

[Mcreal]

Of course, the Jesus of the gospels is a legendary figure. However this doesn't prevent that he could be a real man infused with a supernatural nature (vale) by their followers after or before his death.

In the absence of good evidence, all there is is wishful thinking: Hoping the possible is more than a notion.

 

[Mcreal]

Incredibly, Christians gave multiple contradictory accounts of the time period when their Jesus lived and was crucified--some even claimed their Jesus lived without birth or was some kind of phantom.

"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is evidence that the Jesus character never ever had any known historical data.

Virtually every sect fabricated their own [Christ] or [Christ-] Jesus with complete fiction.

Yes, it's clear Irenaeus was recording that's what had been happening through the 2nd century.

 

[vridar]

How the inhabitants between the moon and earth attained perfect poise in the realm of air, neither floating higher nor sinking lower

The following is from Apuleius.

For since there are four most known elements, nature being as it were quadrifariously separated into large parts, and there are animals appropriate to earth and fire;

since Aristotle asserts, that certain peculiar animals, furnished with wings, fly in burning furnaces, and pass the whole of their life in fire [see Aristotle, in book v, ch. xix of his History of Animals], rise into existence with it, and together with it are extinguished;​

and, besides this, since, as we have before said, so many various stars are beheld supernally in ether, i.e. in the most clear flagrancy of fire,​

– since this is the case, why should nature alone suffer this fourth element, the air, which is so widely extended, to be void of every thing, and destitute of [proper] inhabitants?

It looks as though air is the only sphere of the cosmos that is void of life, empty. But nature tells us that this cannot be so.

I earlier said that the birds inhabited the lower realm of the air but I was misremembering. The sphere of the earth extends as high as the mountains:

Are not animals, however, generated in the air; in the same manner as flame-coloured animals are generated in fire, such as are unstable in water, and such as are glebous in earth? For you may most justly say, that his opinion is false, who attributes birds to the air; since no one of them is elevated above the summit of mount Olympus, which, though it is said to be the highest of all mountains, yet the perpendicular altitude of its summit is not equal, according to geometricians, to ten stadia;

So what of the vast expanse between earth (which extends as high as the mountains according to the above) and the moon? Can such a vast expanse really be the only region that is a complete void of life?

but there is an immense mass of air, which extends as far as to the nearest spiral gyrations of the moon, from which ether supernally commences. What, therefore, shall we say of such a great abundance of air, which is expanded from the lowest revolutions of the moon, as far as to the highest summit of mount Olympus? Will it be destitute of its appropriate animals, and will this part of nature be without life, and debile?

Those birds again -- easy to get confused by them when trying to organize the cosmos into a neat philosophical system, so here is further explanation:

But, if you diligently observe, birds themselves may, with greater rectitude, be said to be terrestrial than aerial animals; for the whole of their life is always on the earth; there they procure food, and there they rest; and they only pass through that portion of the air in flying which is proximate to the earth. But, when they are weary with the rowing of their wings, the earth is to them as a port.

So what of that region of air which is actually above the mountains and below the moon?

If, therefore, reason evidently requires that proper animals must also be admitted to exist in the air, it remains that we should consider what they are, and what the species is to which they belong. They are then by no means terrene animals; for these verge downwards by their gravity.

Damn. And I only recently said gravity is a modern concept. I suspect something has been added in the translation here. Let's assume he is speaking of mass or weight.

But Apuleius is observing the problem here. Animals or living things of some sort have to inhabit the air. That's a fact that simply stands to reason, he says. But they can't be like creatures on earth who would just fall down to earth.

So are they made of the element of fire then?

But neither are they of a fiery nature, lest they should be hastily raised on high by their heat.

Nope. Reason tells us that they cannot be entirely made of earthy stuff nor fire.

A certain middle nature, therefore must be fashioned for us, of a temperature adapted to the middle condition of the place, so that the disposition of the inhabitants may be conformable to the quality of the region. Let us then form in our mind and generate bodies, so constituted as neither to be so heavy as terrene, nor so light as ethereal bodies, but after a manner separated from both, or mingled from both, whether they are removed from, or are modified by, the participation of each. They will, however, be more easily conceived, if they are admitted to be mingled from both, than if they are said to be mingled with neither.

How perfectly reasonable. They have enough earth in them to keep them from ascending higher than the moon, but enough of something else in them to keep them from falling to earth.

These bodies of daemons, therefore, will have a little weight, in order that they may not proceed to supernal natures; and they will also have something of levity, in order that they may not be precipitated to the realms beneath.

In other words they are half and half. Half angel and half man.

Not that the ancients were overly burdened by rigid demands for consistency. We know these creatures of the air could and did descend to earth and even sometimes to a higher heaven on occasion. Many of them meanwhile lived on the moon itself. Meanwhile they could cause each other all sorts of grief by fighting among themselves just like the humans below them.

 

[GDon]

Thanks vridar. That is a nice complement to the quotes I gave.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, but the word can mean "semen" by figurative extension, as you say. The one and only NT occurrence where it might mean that is Heb 11:11, where the usage is ambiguous. But even if it is taken to mean descendants, I have shown that descendants of Abraham are explicitly intended by the wording of the text.

But we know that Paul had no problem with descent being in a spiritual sense. Here's Paul specifically about Abraham's seed:

Galatians 3:29: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

And yes, it's the same "spermatos" word, or rather its declension.

He doesn't claim that those guys literally are the biological descendants of Abraham. In fact, most of them would be very much NOT descendants of Abraham by any reckoning except Paul's metaphorical one.

It seems weird to me to see basically claims that, oh noes, Paul couldn't have used that word to mean anything but literal biological descendants, when in the same frikken epistle he pulls the above quoted metaphor.

And generally, the early Xians, Paul included were NOT taking the OT literally, They just quote-mine it for stuff to take out of context and distort to be about Jebus instead of what was actually meant.

 

[dejudge]

Of course, the Jesus of the gospels is a legendary figure. However this doesn't prevent that he could be a real man infused with a supernatural nature (vale) by their followers after or before his death. You can stack mountains of data about the supernatural nature of Jesus in the gospels and after. These claims are irrelevant on this subject, except for the more or less ortodox Christians and I don't see any in this forum.

The claims by Christian writers of antiquity about the character called Jesus must be relevant to the subject.

Your belief or speculation that Jesus could be a real man does not alter the fact that Christian writers of antiquity publicly declared their Jesus was a water walking transfiguring son of a Ghost without a human father, God Creator, the Logos--- the Lord from heaven--the firstborn of the dead.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of fiction who never existed is supported by the claims made by the Church writers.

In addition, even if you assume the transfiguring son of the Ghost was really a human being you will never be able to provide any historical evidence.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a fiction character as described by Christians from conception to ascension .

 

[vridar]

Thanks vridar. That is a nice complement to the quotes I gave.

Or corrective. We all see what we expect to see, I suppose.

 

[Craig B]

But we know that Paul had no problem with descent being in a spiritual sense. Here's Paul specifically about Abraham's seed:

Galatians 3:29: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

And yes, it's the same "spermatos" word, or rather its declension.

He doesn't claim that those guys literally are the biological descendants of Abraham. In fact, most of them would be very much NOT descendants of Abraham by any reckoning except Paul's metaphorical one.

It seems weird to me to see basically claims that, oh noes, Paul couldn't have used that word to mean anything but literal biological descendants, when in the same frikken epistle he pulls the above quoted metaphor.

And generally, the early Xians, Paul included were NOT taking the OT literally, They just quote-mine it for stuff to take out of context and distort to be about Jebus instead of what was actually meant.

Paul in that frikken Epistle said "heirs according to the promise" but he says in frikken Romans

3 ... concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith​

Paul clearly distinguishes physical from spiritual affinity. He is saying, it is of no moment if you are of physical Jewish descent or not, you are "Abraham's seed" spiritually, which is all that matters to Paul. But when he states that Jesus was of the seed of David in the flesh, he means a physical descendant, and one with recognised messianic qualifications.

 

[GDon]

More data for ancient beliefs on the same topic:

Minucius Felix's Octavius: (2nd C/3rd C CE)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

There are some insincere and vagrant spirits degraded from their heavenly vigour by earthly stains and lusts. Now these spirits, after having lost the simplicity of their nature by being weighed down and immersed in vices, for a solace of their calamity, cease not, now that they are ruined themselves, to ruin others; and being depraved themselves, to infuse into others the error of their depravity and being themselves alienated from God, to separate others from God by the introduction of degraded superstitions. The poets know that those spirits are demons...

Thus they weigh men downwards from heaven, and call them away from the true God to material things: they disturb the life, render all men unquiet; creeping also secretly into human bodies, with subtlety, as being spirits, they feign diseases, alarm the minds, wrench about the limbs; that they may constrain men to worship them...

The same man also declared that demons were earthly, wandering, hostile to humanity. What said Plato, who believed that it was a hard thing to find out God? Does not he also, without hesitation, tell of both angels and demons? And in his Symposium also, does not he endeavour to explain the nature of demons? For he will have it to be a substance between mortal and immortal--that is, mediate between body and spirit, compounded by mingling of earthly weight and heavenly lightness...​

Athenagoras's "Plea for the Christians": (around 180 CE)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html

Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels...

These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged...

They who draw men to idols, then, are the aforesaid demons, who are eager for the blood of the sacrifices, and lick them...​

Tatian's Address to the Greeks: (around 160 CE)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html

But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance; for they are the reflection of matter and of wickedness.​

The Ascension of Isaiah: (1st C/2nd C CE)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html

Chapter 10

29. And again He descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world, and He gave the password to those on the left, and His form was like theirs, and they did not praise Him there; but they were envying one another and fighting; for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles.

30. And I saw when He descended and made Himself like unto the angels of the air, and He was like one of them.

31. And He gave no password; for one was plundering and doing violence to another.​

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Paul in that frikken Epistle said "heirs according to the promise" but he says in frikken Romans

3 ... concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith​

Paul clearly distinguishes physical from spiritual affinity. He is saying, it is of no moment if you are of physical Jewish descent or not, you are "Abraham's seed" spiritually, which is all that matters to Paul. But when he states that Jesus was of the seed of David in the flesh, he means a physical descendant, and one with recognised messianic qualifications.

Well, in Galatians he doesn't only say "heirs according to the promise." That's not the use of "spermatos" I was mentioning. The word for word phrasing is "you are Abraham's seed according to the promise heirs." Punctuation wasn't really a thing back then. So while we do have a natural way to attach "according to the promise" to heirs, that leaves "seed" entirely unqualified by such qualifiers. He doesn't say that they are seed according to the promise too. He just says that they're Abraham's seed.

Now we can agree that it's obviously still a metaphoric sense, but, you know, that's what I'm saying: he can get metaphorical on your ass too.

Moving on... Well, that "kata sarka" and exactly what relationship to flesh it represents, is itself a whole discussion, rather than something the rest of us somehow missed. The interesting thing is that Paul uses that phrase repeatedly in more than one context, and it's a bit of a wth on the whole.

For example, look at 2 Corinthians 10, which has exactly the same "kata sarka" construct in verse 3 and close enough in 4. And while 3 ('while indeed we walk according to the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh") can be glossed over, then comes 4 where Paul pulls the following doozy: "indeed our weapons are not of the flesh."

Clearly Paul can't mean LITERALLY "flesh". If he does, I want to know exactly what weapon made of flesh he has even ever heard of.

It seems to me like his use of "according to the flesh" or "of the flesh" is more like meaning material or physical, as opposed to spiritual.

So while he does seem to be talking about a PHYSICAL messiah -- and really, the Carrier/Doherty version of mythicism is about a physical messiah too -- I'm not sure he means flesh as literally as you seem to think.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That said, I should probably repeat that I'm not really in the mythicist camp either. I'm granting it the status of possible, but that's about it.

It's just that some of the cases made pro or against it on the forum seem to be a bit too based on oversimplifications to be really making a case at all. So I'm more like just making sure we're all on the same page when it comes to "seed" or "according to the flesh" or such terms.