Early doubts about Jesus and the Gospels

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Further to the subject of the Gospels, it should be noted that there were many doubts about the Gospels and their stories expressed by Christians and non-Christians alike from the very earliest times, as follows :


2 John warns of those who don't

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


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...”


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

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

“...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...”

“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.”


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"


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

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


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?" -


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”


Simon and Cleobius, according to The Acts of Paul :

“For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only: and that the body of man is not the creation of God; and also concerning the world, that God did not create it, and that God knoweth not the world, and that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but it was an appearance (i.e. but only in appearance), and that lie was not born of Mary, nor of the seed of David.”


Dionysius of Corinth, in late 2nd century,

claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord ".


Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"


Celsus also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) :

“Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. “


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; '


Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :

"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."


Sadducees, doubted the resurrection (according to Tertullian in early 3rd century) :

“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :

"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Opponents of 4th century Hilary of Poitiers :

“You assert His creation, proclaim His adoption, deny His birth.”


Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :

"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


Heretics, mentioned in the 4th century Constitution of the Holy Apostles :

“ ... avoid all heretics who ... also deny His generation according to the flesh; they are ashamed of the cross; they abuse His passion and His death; they know not His resurrection;”


Faustus, according to Augustine, denied the incarnation and the reality of the crucifixion :

“...still you deny His birth from a virgin, and assert His death on the cross to have been feigned, which is equivalent to denying it too;”


Some who denied the incarnation, according to 5th century John Cassian :

“By denying also that the Son of God was born in the flesh, you are led also to deny that He was born in the Spirit, for it is the same Person who was born in the flesh who was first born in the Spirit. If you do not believe that He was born in the flesh, the result is that you do not believe that He suffered. If you do not believe in His Passion what remains for you but to deny His resurrection?”


In sum,
the veracity of the Gospels was doubted from the very beginning.


Iasion

[dizzle]

I am not tryng to be rude.. but I read your post, and all that comes to mind is... so?? The Bible itself records doubters... that is nothing new under the sun. Your reasoning is quite simply bizarre.

[undead]

Yes, you are mainly quoting gnostics. They early separated from the orthodox church. See 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John. They could not obey the church teaching. Especially they were given over to sexual immorality and teaching equality of women. In order to justify themselves, they gave themselves over to human philosophy in their attempts to portray themselves as God's servants.

And as Polycarp said to Marcion (so it is recorded) "Son of Satan"!

And as DeeDee said, "so"?

You can hardly use what is referenced and prophecied in the NT, to discredit the NT.

[ItalianGold]

whoa - I think all Iasion is saying is that there has always been discord in the church and that indeed the early church fathers weren't sure exactly what they were going to officially adopt.

The knee-jerk reaction of shrieking:

"sexual immorality" and "teaching equality of women" and "Son of Satan" is a bit overboard isn't it?

[spl_cadet]

03-07-2003 @ 06:43 PM
ItalianGold:

whoa - I think all Iasion is saying is that there has always been discord in the church and that indeed the early church fathers weren't sure exactly what they were going to officially adopt.

The problem is that he hasn't quoted a single ECF. Simply Gnostic heretics.

[ryukyuk]

it should be noted that the history of the bible states clear and plain that there were 50 books to be used by the apostles but CONSTATINE a ROMAN ZUES WORSHIPER ONLY PERMITED WHAT HE SAW FIT AND ALL bibles are translated from his cannon

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies.

spl_cadet: "The problem is that he hasn't quoted a single ECF. Simply Gnostic heretics."

This is patently and demonstrably FALSE.

The Johannine epistles (allegedly written by the beloved disciple John) refer to Christians who do not believe in a physical Jesus of Nazareth. These are writings allegedly from one of the most respected of ECFs - so your claim is false.

Minucius Felix EXPLICITLY denies that Christians believe in a cruficixion or the incarnation. Minucius Felix can be found in the ECF library - so your claim is false.

Tatian admitted the Christian stories are just like the pagan stories, his writings can be found in the ECF library - so your claim is false.

Dionysius of Corinth complained the scriptures of the lord had been corrupted, he was an early Christian bishop, definitely an ECF - so your claim is false.


Furthermore,
many of the earliest Christians and Christian writings WERE Gnostic or esoteric, including Paul, deutero-Paul, the Johanine writer, Revelation, the Naassene fragment, Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus (almost became Pope), the Vision of Isaiah, Ptolemy, Tatian, Heracleon, Theodotus, Hegessipus, Athenagoras, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria.

Original Christianity was Gnostic or esoteric.

After Jerusalem was erased and the Jews dispersed, LATER Christians came to mistakenly believe Jesus was historical and this lteralist view eventually dominated.

Only THEN were Gnostics labelled "heretics" - which really only means "those who disagree".

You seem to think that by labelling somone a "gnostic heretic" that automatically proves they are wrong.

Not so.
It simply means they are people who disagree with you.

Well,
we already know that, spl_cadet - but you do not seem able to come up with any facts, evidence, or argument to prove your case.

If you disagree, produce some evidence, facts, arguments to support YOUR view - merely repeating that you disagree is not much of a debate, merely a statement of faith.

Iasion

[Gavin]

All this thread proves is that there have always been skeptics.

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

Undead : "Yes, you are mainly quoting gnostics. They early separated from the orthodox church. See 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John. They could not obey the church teaching."

Actually,
the earliest Christians WERE Gnostics.
Later literalist Christians (now called orthodox) separated from the original Gnostic Christianity and eventually came to dominate the church, THEN they labelled their opponents "heretics" and destroyed most of their writings.

The Gnostics were widespread BEFORE the Gospels ever came to light, but AFTER the total destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersal of the Jewish nation, only THEN did the stories of a historical Jesus of Nazareth come to light, eventually replacing the original Gnostic Iesous Christos of Paul et al.


Undead : "Especially they were given over to sexual immorality

Well,
accusations of sexual immorality were common in those times, even OF Christians, BY Christians themselves :

* Paul, 1 Cor. 5.1 criticises Christians for "immorality such as is not found even among the pagans"

* Jude 11 also talks of Christians who "walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Barlaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion", and Jude 10 "they walk in the ways of the flesh and corrupt themselves".

* Tertullian provides analogies to the Christian agape feast from the cults of Attis, the Bacchae and Serapis, suggesting they had similar outbursts of licentiousness.

* Epiphanius describes Christian sects who practice bizarre love-feasts of a most unsavoury nature (I will avoid the offensive details).

* Even worse, Marcus Cornelius Fronto describes Christian love feasts as abominations of the worst possible kind (these accusations are so offensive I will NOT detail them here).

Do you believe the accusations of sexual immorality about the Gnostics by their oponents?, yet not believe the accusations of sexual immorality about Christians, BY Christians (and others)?

Such a biased view would be nothing but blind faith.


Undead : "...and teaching equality of women. In order to justify themselves, they gave themselves over to human philosophy "

So,
are you arguing that equality for women is wrong?
Are you arguing against human philosophy?


Undead : "And as Polycarp said to Marcion (so it is recorded) "Son of Satan"!

So?
Christians always hurl this sort of invective at their foes.
It means nothing.


Undead : "And as DeeDee said, "so"?

So?
* Many early Christians (and others) specifically argued AGAINST a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians (and others) specifically claimed Iesous Christos was a spiritual being, not a physical person.
* Many early Christians and other early writers specifically argued the Gospels were false history, and based on Myth.

This is clear evidence that Iesous Christos was originally seen as a spiritual entity, not a historical person, and that the Gospels were late productions, MISUNDERSTOOD as history.


Undead : "You can hardly use what is referenced and prophecied in the NT, to discredit the NT.

Yes I can, and I did.
Christians often attempt to prove the veracity OF the NT from statements IN the NT - the most blatant form of circular reasoning I can imagine.

Yet when Christian writings IN the NT itself throw doubt on the veracity of the NT writings, you dismiss these doubts with NO reasoning at all.

Sorry, that is nothing but blind faith.


To recap,
the evidence presented above clearly shows that many of the early Christians disagreed with the idea of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Iasion
(Quentin)

[Iasion]

Greetings ItalianGold et al,

Thank you
for your thoughtful response, and measured tone :)

ItalianGold : "whoa - I think all Iasion is saying is that there has always been discord in the church and that indeed the early church fathers weren't sure exactly what they were going to officially adopt."

Indeed, yes,
the early church Fathers were NOT in agreement, our modern Christianity beliefs are NOT supported by the earliest Christian writings.

The history of Christian writings (when read in Chronological order) shows 3 phases :

1. 1st century Christianity - largely Gnostic or esoteric, no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.
2. 2nd century Christianity - stories of a historical Jesus of Nazareth begin to circulate - Gnostics Christianity battles with literalist Christianity.
3. late 2nd century onwards - literalist Christianity dominates, Gnostic and their writings DESTROYED.

Readers may like to check my Chronology of the Gospels. (http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html)


ItalianGold : "The knee-jerk reaction of shrieking:
"sexual immorality" and "teaching equality of women" and "Son of Satan" is a bit overboard isn't it?

Wonderful,
it is most pleasing to see this comment, all too often these debates descend into base name-calling and rude invective. Well done, ItalianGold, for upholding traditional Christian values.

I noted a poster here insulted Joseph Alward with very rude comments and then suggested it was a good way to get the point across.

Pardon?
Did Jesus teach that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?
Do Christians teach and believe that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?
Do members of this board thinkg that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?

No.
Being rude and insulting is patently NOT a good way to get a point across - on the contrary it alienates the listener, and usually causes arguments.

Our history, and our growing understanding of human nature, clearly shows that being rude and insulting is the WORST method imaginable of getting one's point across.

I hope to see more of these polite and measured responses, and less of the rude and insulting ones.


Iasion
(Quentin)

[spl_cadet]

03-09-2003 @ 05:05 PM
Iasion:
The Johannine epistles (allegedly written by the beloved disciple John) refer to Christians who do not believe in a physical Jesus of Nazareth. These are writings allegedly from one of the most respected of ECFs - so your claim is false.

1. The Apostles aren't considered ECF's, they are a seperate class.
2. I ws referring to quotations in favor of your position. :duh:


Minucius Felix EXPLICITLY denies that Christians believe in a cruficixion or the incarnation. Minucius Felix can be found in the ECF library - so your claim is false.

My bad. But context rather blows your claims to heck and gone. Proves you got your stuff off a website and simply copy and pasted.


"...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",

Well, let's see the context of this quote. The second part of that is from chapter 29 "For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God." When you look at it in context, it's refuting the idea that He was put up on the cross because of His "crimes." The first part of the quote is from Chapter 9! Just a little bit skipped there :doh: And in that case it is anti-Christian claims that he'll later reply to. For example, the next sentence states "Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds."


Tatian admitted the Christian stories are just like the pagan stories, his writings can be found in the ECF library - so your claim is false.

I'm sorry, but I need you to cite just where that quote from him is from because I can't find it.


Dionysius of Corinth complained the scriptures of the lord had been corrupted, he was an early Christian bishop, definitely an ECF - so your claim is false.

1. Are you referring to Dyionysius the Great? Because there is no Dionysius of Corinth that I can find.
2. Cite the work and chapter to find it.

Furthermore,
many of the earliest Christians and Christian writings WERE Gnostic or esoteric, including Paul, deutero-Paul, the Johanine writer, Revelation, the Naassene fragment, Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus (almost became Pope), the Vision of Isaiah, Ptolemy, Tatian, Heracleon, Theodotus, Hegessipus, Athenagoras, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria.[/quote]

No they weren't.


After Jerusalem was erased and the Jews dispersed, LATER Christians came to mistakenly believe Jesus was historical and this lteralist view eventually dominated.

I suppose that the historical records that show Him to be a historical figure conveniently couldn't possibly be true?


If you disagree, produce some evidence, facts, arguments to support YOUR view - merely repeating that you disagree is not much of a debate, merely a statement of faith.

Well, how about you show some referenced quotes for starters? You havent' referenced any of them and the one that I was able to find had been massively ripped out of context.

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

Dee Dee Warren - "The Bible itself records doubters... "

Gavin - "All this thread proves is that there have always been skeptics."

You both seem completely unaware what obvious double-standards this represents.

Christians here, and elsewhere, regularly quote the early Christian writers to support their views (e.g. quoting Polycarp calling Marcion "son of Satan" as if that actually proved something).

Yet when I quote early Christian writers who DISAGREE with your views, they are dismissed.

In other words, you believe Christian writers when they support your views, but dismiss them as mere "skeptics" and "doubters" when they disagree with yout views.

This is blatant double standards.

These posts show nothing more than blind faith based on biased readings.

Iasion
(Quentin)

[spl_cadet]

Iasion, you had only three actual ECF's and horribly mangled the cntext of one and didn't provide any method of finding the quotes by the other two. It's hardly a bunch of Christian quotes.

[Iasion]

Greetings spl_cadet,

Thanks for your reply,

spl_cadet - "1. The Apostles aren't considered ECF's, they are a seperate class."

So?
Are you saying the views of the alleged Apostles are worthless?
I adduced a PROMINENT Apostle (allegedly) in support of my view, you seem to think you have won a point by noting John was not an ECF - surely the words of a prominent Apostle is even more weighty than an ECF?


spl_cadet - "2. I ws referring to quotations in favor of your position.

Pardon?
I gave many quotes in support of my position, you have ignored most, and attempted to dismiss others without grounds.


spl_cadet - "My bad... Proves you got your stuff off a website and simply copy and pasted."

False.
I got this statement from the Anti-Nicene Fathers library (which I have on disk), and I have quoted it on my web-site. Please stick to facts rather than making wild claims and emotive polemic. The context is entirely consistent with my statements.

I will deal with this in a separate post on Minucius Felix.


spl_cadet - "I'm sorry, but I need you to cite just where that quote from him is from because I can't find it."

Fair enough -
Tatian, Address to the Greeks, Ch. 21 - various translations are available, one that comes to hand has this :
"Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your
approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own"
The context has him comparing and contrasting pagan myths (unfavourably of course) with Christian "legends", suggesting they were of the same class of writing.


spl_cadet - "1. Are you referring to Dyionysius the Great? Because there is no Dionysius of Corinth that I can find.
2. Cite the work and chapter to find it.

No,
Dionysius was bishop of Corinth in late 2nd century, his works remain only in fragmens, one of which contains this :
"For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such"

You can research these fragments (and other early writings) at Peter Kirby's site (which is the PREMIER site for this purpose) :Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
Highly recommended.


spl_cadet - "No [,the early Christians] weren't [Gnostic].

A complex and very debatable subject, I will deal with it in another post.


spl_cadet - "I suppose that the historical records that show Him to be a historical figure conveniently couldn't possibly be true?

Wrong.
There are no such records, this is a very common Christian mis-conception - I will deal with it in another post.


spl_cadet - "Well, how about you show some referenced quotes for starters?

Fair enough.
I hope this is a sign that our debate is moving on to facts and evidence :)

Iasion.
(Quentin)

[ItalianGold]

Undead...Especially they were given over to sexual immorality and teaching equality of women.

Hey, in the next breath you are quoting Dee Dee. Which is it? Is she an equal, worthy of debate? Or is she unequal as a woman?

On another thread, many of you were quick to point out that "oh no, Christianity is not anti-female. Even in the Bible, they are equal, just different."

Socrates even says disingenuously: ...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women

And shame on every woman on this web who owns property, votes, is educated and has opinions - for perpetuating this nonsense. It's one thing to honor your differences, your feminine desire to nurture and show compassion. It's another to sit by and let some lunkhead tell you that teaching that women are equal is akin to sexual immorality and Satan's work! Shame on you.

Christ was a rebel. He was a strong, outspoken, pacifist - not the wimpy emasculated caricature that eventually was portrayed by writers decades later. He had female disciples. If the truth were known, some were probably closer to him than male apostles who were known to be jealous and disapproving. And Christ did have gnostic and esoteric teachings. He taught on many levels. If you insist on hearing only that which he taught to the illiterate, then you will benefit accordingly. Take from his words what you will and allow others the same choice. There are many levels of understanding. Yours may not be the deepest one.

And shame on you moderators for allowing Socrates and Undead to insult the women members of this forum with impunity.





-It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible-

[spl_cadet]

03-09-2003 @ 08:51 PM
Iasion:
So?
Are you saying the views of the alleged Apostles are worthless?

No, I'm saying that their views were put into Scripture (or Tradition) while ECF views weren't.


I adduced a PROMINENT Apostle (allegedly) in support of my view, you seem to think you have won a point by noting John was not an ECF - surely the words of a prominent Apostle is even more weighty than an ECF?


Pardon?
I gave many quotes in support of my position, you have ignored most, and attempted to dismiss others without grounds.

And you are blatantly ignoring the fact that that was in reference to your John quote. And yes I ignored most. Why should I care about non-ECF's? It's like introducing the writings of the Albigensians as what real Christian doctrine was.


False.
I got this statement from the Anti-Nicene Fathers library (which I have on disk), and I have quoted it on my web-site. Please stick to facts rather than making wild claims and emotive polemic. The context is entirely consistent with my statements.

:cough:horseballs:cough:


Fair enough -
Tatian, Address to the Greeks, Ch. 21 - various translations are available, one that comes to hand has this :
"Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your
approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own"
The context has him comparing and contrasting pagan myths (unfavourably of course) with Christian "legends", suggesting they were of the same class of writing.

Chapter 21 states only:
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal.

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves; for, if the demons with you are such as they are said to be, they are worthless as to character; or, if regarded as symbols of the powers of nature, they are not what they are called. But I cannot be persuaded to pay religious homage to the natural elements, nor can I undertake to persuade my neighbour. And Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed. But these things we have put forth only for argument's sake; for it is not allowable even to compare our notion of God with those who are wallowing in matter and mud. "

It doesn't have your quote.


No,
Dionysius was bishop of Corinth in late 2nd century, his works remain only in fragmens, one of which contains this :
"For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such"

Looks to me that he is speaking out against those who tried to edit the Gospels. Now then, can you show that he was talking about us non-Gnostics?


You can research these fragments (and other early writings) at Peter Kirby's site (which is the PREMIER site for this purpose) :Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
Highly recommended.

www.newadvent.org/fathers is better in my opinion.


Wrong.
There are no such records, this is a very common Christian mis-conception - I will deal with it in another post.

So Josephus and Tacitus and the Talmud never wrote about Him? Gee, how did I manage to see the quotes there then?


Fair enough.
I hope this is a sign that our debate is moving on to facts and evidence :)

Iasion.
(Quentin)


Just as soon as your provide some.

[spl_cadet]

ItalianGold,

I think that they meant it in the sense that the modern feminazi's mean it. Ie, aside from biological differences there are no real differences between men and women.

[Celsus]

Iasion:
Tatian, Address to the Greeks, Ch. 21 - various translations are available, one that comes to hand has this :
"Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your
approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own"
The context has him comparing and contrasting pagan myths (unfavourably of course) with Christian "legends", suggesting they were of the same class of writing.

03-10-2003 @ 01:26 PM
spl_cadet, quoting Tatian:
Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

...

It doesn't have your quote.
Yes it does.

[spl_cadet]

03-09-2003 @ 09:39 PM
Celsus:




Yes it does.

My bad. In any case though, context renders his argument false. It's basically saying "Lend us the same amount of trust" type thing.

[johnransom]

03-09-2003 @ 11:25 PM
ItalianGold:

Undead
...Especially they were given over to sexual immorality and teaching equality of women.

Hey, in the next breath you are quoting Dee Dee. Which is it? Is she an equal, worthy of debate? Or is she unequal as a woman?...blah, blah..

Does it occur to you that JUST MAYBE Undead mistyped and meant to write inequality? Which actually happens to have been the Gnostic position?

Socrates even says disingenuously:

...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women

And shame on every woman on this web who owns property, votes, is educated and has opinions - for perpetuating this nonsense. It's one thing to honor your differences, your feminine desire to nurture and show compassion. It's another to sit by and let some lunkhead tell you that teaching that women are equal is akin to sexual immorality and Satan's work! Shame on you.

Does it occur to you that JUST MAYBE Socrates understood what Undead was actually trying to say, or even that he simply hadn't seen it?

Christ was a rebel. He was a strong, outspoken, pacifist - not the wimpy emasculated caricature that eventually was portrayed by writers decades later. He had female disciples. If the truth were known, some were probably closer to him than male apostles who were known to be jealous and disapproving.

So what's your point? That would actually agree with what Socrates was saying, wouldn't it?

And Christ did have gnostic and esoteric teachings. He taught on many levels. If you insist on hearing only that which he taught to the illiterate, then you will benefit accordingly. Take from his words what you will and allow others the same choice. There are many levels of understanding. Yours may not be the deepest one.

Aah, the argument from presumed intellectual superiority and/or self-accredited exegetical competence. The onus is on you to show Gnosticism in Christ. Tough, considering Christ was here a hundred years or more before Gnosticism came about, and never travelled outside Palestine, which was utterly resistant to foreign religious influence at the time.

And shame on you moderators for allowing Socrates and Undead to insult the women members of this forum with impunity.

Well, Dee Dee doesn't appear insulted, AFAICS.

-It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible-

A surprising statement, considering you seem exactly the kind of wacko who thinks Luke was a woman.

[Celsus]

03-10-2003 @ 01:51 PM
spl_cadet:
My bad. In any case though, context renders his argument false. It's basically saying "Lend us the same amount of trust" type thing.
Are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing then? Because from what I see, Iasion wrote, concerning the Tatian passage:
The context has him comparing and contrasting pagan myths (unfavourably of course) with Christian "legends", suggesting they were of the same class of writing.
Which is exactly what you have now concluded, only that you somehow think his argument is false. Tatian does state to the effect that "my legend is better than your legend", but comes up with no evidence for it. Instead, he launches into a polemic against the Greek gods. Tertullian also does not refute the dying-godman parallels, but instead declares that the devil foreknew the coming of Christ to explain them. The early Christian defenses against borrowing from Pagan cults is weak to say the least.

Joel

[Iasion]

Greetings spl_cadet et al,

spl_cadet - "No, I'm saying that their views were put into Scripture (or Tradition) while ECF views weren't."

Hmmm,
you've twisted and squirmed so far on this issue that you seem to have forgotten what you are talking about.

I argued that even early church fathers admitted other early Christians doubted the standard Christian view.

Now you agree that even a APOSTLE (more than an ECF) also agreed with my view.

So,
your statements support my view, but you don't even seem to realise it.

Also,
you state that the views of the ECFs did NOT become church tradition - this is the exact opposite of Christian belief - I begin to wonder if you have studied Christian history AT ALL.


spl_cadet - "And yes I ignored most. Why should I care about non-ECF's? "

No, you just ignored anything that disproved your faithful opinions.


spl_cadet - "Looks to me that he is speaking out against those who tried to edit the Gospels. "

Yes, clear early evidence that the Gospels were corrupted.

spl_cadet - "Now then, can you show that he was talking about us non-Gnostics?

Now then, can you show that he was talking about the Gnostics?


spl_cadet - "So Josephus and Tacitus and the Talmud never wrote about Him?

The T.F. (the famous passage in Josephus) is clearly a later Christian interpolation -

* it is a blatantly Christian passage and could NOT have been written by a devout Jew like Josephus.

* one of the main themes of Josephus' book was how the Jews got lead astray by false Messiahs, he goes out of his way to avoid calling any of these figures the "Messiah" - thus the passage does NOT fit the rest of the book.

* the passage interrupts the flow of the work, showing it is a later addition.

* Josephus spends whole pages on minor criminals, yet supposedly wrote a single passage about the most significant person in history - showing it is a later addition.

* Origen notes that Josephus did not call Jesus the Messiah in the copy Origen read, showing the passage is a later addition.

* No church father quotes this passage until Eusebius, centuries later.

Some aplogists try to argue that this passage is a tampered version of an authentic original mention of Jesus.

Such is the incredible WEAKNESS of the alleged "evidence" for Jesus - an attempted RECONSTRUCTION of an FORGED passage - this is the best evidence the Christians can come up with.

In any field of study, this would be laughed out of court outright.


Tacitus wrote a vague comment about 80 YEARS afterwards which merely repeats later Christian beliefs - there is NOTHING to suggest this is evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth -

* he used the term 'procurator' which was used in Tacitus' time, it is not at all clear this was the correct term used in Pilate's time.

* he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ ' - e.g. "Today we executed the Messiah"), they would have said "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph"

* and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

So,
this alleged "evidence for Jesus" turns out to be late, vague comments merely repeating Christian beliefs of that time, no evidence at all.


The Talmud has a few tales which MAY be about Jesus (the names used are varied and unclear) - but they all date to CENTURIES after the events, and are merely responses to Christian beliefs (and one of the stories place Jesus a century before his accepted time).

So,
these later Talmud tales carry ZERO weight as evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.


So,
your 3 alleged pieces of "evidence for Jesus" don't hold up to scrutiny at all.


spl_cadet - "My bad. In any case though, context renders his argument false. It's basically saying "Lend us the same amount of trust" type thing.

Not false at all,
that is EXACTLY my point that you just agreed with (as Celsus pointed out).

Tatian argues that Christian legends (stories in some translations) are just as true as pagan myths.

So,
your statements seem to mean you agree that pagan myths are just as true as Christian Gospel stories ?


spl_cadet - "Just as soon as your[sic] provide some"

Hmmm..
I have spent hours writing pages of quotes, names, title, dates and arguments - and you make this patently ridiculous claim?

In short spl_cadet,
your posts have evinced -

1. Rudeness and insults (:cough:horseballs:cough:)
2. Repeated gross errors ("My Bad" twice)
3. Ignorance of the background (Dionyius of Corinth)
4. Woeful English comprehension (Tatian)
5. Inability to follow the issues (ECF / Apostle)
6. Ignorance of Christian history (ECF as tradition)
7. Wild assertions unsupported by facts (e.g. Talmud)
8. False allegations (copy and paste)
9. Ridiculous polemic (soon as you provide some)

So,
I will not be responding to any more of this pathetic, ignorant apologetics.


I look forward to rational debate with knowledgeable members of the group.


Iasion
(Quentin)

[efesus]

03-10-2003 @ 03:13 AM
Iasion:

Pardon?
Did Jesus teach that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?
Do Christians teach and believe that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?
Do members of this board thinkg that being rude and insulting is a good way to get a point across?


I may be missing your point here - it seems to me that your main point (in this and other posts) is that Jesus was not a historical person. In which case it hardly behoves you to quote His teaching - since accoring to you He did not exist and so could not be quoted as teaching anything.

Or are you pointing out the inconsistency of the 'orthodox' christians who have dared to disagree with you?

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Or are you pointing out the inconsistency of the 'orthodox' christians who have dared to disagree with you?

Indeed,
I thought ir rather ironic that a Christian should be rude and attacking - what happened to peace and brotherhood and turning the other cheek?

I wonder why other Christians here did not speak to this babe-in-Christ and instruct him in the ways of Jesus, meek and mild :brow:

I am tempted to turn my tongue to my other cheek and say:
"I call for the elders of the church - let them pray over him"
:smile:

Iasion
(Quentin)

[spl_cadet]

Only have a couple minutes that I know of at the moment (I'm in class).


03-10-2003 @ 12:11 AM
Iasion:
In short spl_cadet,
your posts have evinced -

1. Rudeness and insults (:cough:horseballs:cough:)

You think that was rude and insulting? Wow, you've had a real sheltered life.


2. Repeated gross errors ("My Bad" twice)

Yes, that's right, no one ever makes mistakes or doesn't quite see something.


3. Ignorance of the background (Dionyius of Corinth)

I'm sorry if the ECF sites that I used only mentioned Dionyius the Great and Dionyius of Rome.



4. Woeful English comprehension (Tatian)

Poor English comprehension? Then why did I get 99th percentile for that in both the SAT9 and the ASVAB? Now then with Tatian, it isn't a suggestion that they are the same class of writing, but rather a "don't automatically dismiss our stuff if you guys hold to that."


5. Inability to follow the issues (ECF / Apostle)

Excuse me? I pointed out that the Apostles were not considered ECF's, the ECF's were after the apostles. Ask anyone on that.


6. Ignorance of Christian history (ECF as tradition)

Mind explaining? Because your little side quote can be taken two ways.


7. Wild assertions unsupported by facts (e.g. Talmud)



8. False allegations (copy and paste)

Well gee, the context was so mangled that I figured that it was a cut and paste job. How else do you skip thirteen chapters and try to pass it off as a complete thing?


9. Ridiculous polemic (soon as you provide some)

You haven't provided any actual evidence for your position.



Hmmm,
you've twisted and squirmed so far on this issue that you seem to have forgotten what you are talking about.

I argued that even early church fathers admitted other early Christians doubted the standard Christian view.

Now you agree that even a APOSTLE (more than an ECF) also agreed with my view.


Also, you state that the views of the ECFs did NOT become church tradition - this is the exact opposite of Christian belief - I begin to wonder if you have studied Christian history AT ALL.

The individual views of the ECF's didn't. The collective views did.


I argued that even early church fathers admitted other early Christians doubted the standard Christian view.

Actually you've been arguing that all the early Christians were Gnostics.


No, you just ignored anything that disproved your faithful opinions.

No, I simply don't care about what Gnostics wrote, they weren't ECF's and they don't count.


Yes, clear early evidence that the Gospels were corrupted.


Ok, prove it. If the Gospels actually were corrupted (instead of just the attempts) you should be able to show us a non corrupted Gospel to compare with the corrupted ones.


Now then, can you show that he was talking about the Gnostics?

Sorry, challenge went to you first. You have to answer it.


The T.F. (the famous passage in Josephus) is clearly a later Christian interpolation -

Hmm, you didn't realize that there were two passages in Josephus?
Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.


* he used the term 'procurator' which was used in Tacitus' time, it is not at all clear this was the correct term used in Pilate's time.

Your point being?


* he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ ' - e.g. "Today we executed the Messiah"), they would have said "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph"

The Romans couldn't care less about calling Him Christ, they didn't believe in a Messiah. And seeing as we called Him Christ, it's only natural that they would refer to Him that way, not caring what it meant.


* and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Which would explain why Rome persecuted them.


this alleged "evidence for Jesus" turns out to be late, vague comments merely repeating Christian beliefs of that time, no evidence at all.

Merely repeating Christian beliefs?

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind

How is that repeating it?


The Talmud has a few tales which MAY be about Jesus (the names used are varied and unclear) - but they all date to CENTURIES after the events, and are merely responses to Christian beliefs (and one of the stories place Jesus a century before his accepted time).

However, if there was any evidence that Christ hadn't existed, don't you think that they would have used that?


Tatian argues that Christian legends (stories in some translations) are just as true as pagan myths.

So,
your statements seem to mean you agree that pagan myths are just as true as Christian Gospel stories ?
/quote]

Same amount of trust means "Give us the same benefit of the doubt, don't automatically say that they are wrong." I am not in any way agreeing with you.

[quote]
I have spent hours writing pages of quotes, names, title, dates and arguments - and you make this patently ridiculous claim?

You only quote three ecf's and tore their writings horribly out of context. You haven't provided any evidence. Now then, what do you say about Polycarp's Epistle to the Phillipians, chapter 7?
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation," as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna (might be mispelled, I suggest you look up what Revelation has to say about them) during the first century. Rather earlier than all of your "quotes" and comes with a rather good letter of recommendation from Christ in Revelation.

[ItalianGold]

johnransom:Does it occur to you that JUST MAYBE Undead mistyped and meant to write inequality? Which actually happens to have been the Gnostic position?

Uhhhh, actually when I read a post - I generally do NOT conclude that there is a typo and that the author MUST have meant just the opposite.

johnransom:Does it occur to you that JUST MAYBE Socrates understood what Undead was actually trying to say, or even that he simply hadn't seen it?
Generally I leave my crystal ball in the drawer when I reply to posts.

johnransom: So what's your point? That would actually agree with what Socrates was saying, wouldn't it?
No. If Socrates believes that "...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women" then I think his position on the equality of women is abundantly clear.

johnransom:considering Christ...never travelled outside Palestine, which was utterly resistant to foreign religious influence at the time.
Absolutely astounding information. I'm sure that every Biblical scholar on the planet will be contacting you post-haste to learn Christ's whereabouts for the 20 or so years that we all assumed were not recorded. And by the way, last time I checked Egypt wasn't in Palestine.

ItalianGold:"-It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible"-

johnransom:A surprising statement, considering you seem exactly the kind of wacko who thinks Luke was a woman.

No, but I am the kind of wacko who thinks Paul had some major issues regarding women, an opinion shared by many :brow:

[johnransom]

03-10-2003 @ 09:49 PM
ItalianGold:

Uhhhh, actually when I read a post - I generally do NOT conclude that there is a typo and that the author MUST have meant just the opposite.

Except of course the post made absolutely no sense otherwise.

Generally I leave my crystal ball in the drawer when I reply to posts.

And use your Magic 8 ball instead, no doubt.

No. If Socrates believes that "...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women" then I think his position on the equality of women is abundantly clear.

Yes, it is. 100% pro-woman. What's your beef?

Absolutely astounding information. I'm sure that every Biblical scholar on the planet will be contacting you post-haste to learn Christ's whereabouts for the 20 or so years that we all assumed were not recorded. And by the way, last time I checked Egypt wasn't in Palestine.

Aha, hyperliteralist criticism strikes again. I think the infant journey to Egypt would be understood as excluded from my statement by pretty much every Biblical scholar on the planet. However, they would probably ding me for not taking Syrophoenicia into account. But my argument still holds. And if the unrecorded period of Christ's life is the basis for your argument, you of course are admitting to resorting to data not in evidence. Of course, the Gnostics, who liked the apocryphal gospels, would not agree with you that this period was unrecorded, so you lose about every way you look at it.

No, but I am the kind of wacko who thinks Paul had some major issues regarding women, an opinion shared by many :brow:

Well, at least you got one part of that sentence right.

[roger_pearse]

I see that the same old stuff is being recycled again. This time the complaint is that people didn't believe the gospel. Well, frankly, this I think we knew!

Most of this stuff you were posting to support the idea that Jesus never existed. Since some people might think this, I have commented on it.

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...”

This is from Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, ch. 8.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4152_809533

But in chapter 32:
And when I had ceased, 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 does not deny that Jesus exists, merely that he is the Christ.

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

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

“...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...”

“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.”

These I presume are from Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem. But since Marcion gave an account of his deeds on earth, at length, he didn't dispute the existence of Jesus. He merely asserted that he was not really human.

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"

Why is it that you don't ever give references? It is, to say the least, discourteous.

I don't know the source of this, but again he doesn't deny that Jesus existed -- merely has a dogma about his flesh.

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

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

Reference? But again, how does this advance your case? He doesn't deny the saviour existed.

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?" -


This passage demonstrates neither view. All he is doing is denying that the god of the christians is a crucified criminal. So do we all.


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”


We have had this out before. This appears to be a strange version of Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, chap. 21. :-

"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. [various silly myths] But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? [more] Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales." [etc]

That sounds rather like a testimony to the incarnation, and the exact opposite of the point supposed to be made.

<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-37.htm#P1248_351200>

Simon and Cleobius, according to The Acts of Paul :

“For there were certain men come to Corinth, Simon and Cleobius, saying: There is no resurrection of the flesh, but that of the spirit only: and that the body of man is not the creation of God; and also concerning the world, that God did not create it, and that God knoweth not the world, and that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but it was an appearance (i.e. but only in appearance), and that lie was not born of Mary, nor of the seed of David.”

Again, none of this disputes the existence of Jesus.


Dionysius of Corinth, in late 2nd century, claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the &quot;scriptures of the Lord &quot;.

This has nothing to do with the issue, but even so this is not right. He complained that heretics had circulated faked versions of his own letters, and had done the same to the scriptures. Probably Marcion is in mind? Here's the real text:

<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-166.htm#P12252_3590383>

Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

&quot;Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction&quot;

These are not the words of Celsus, but of R.J. Hoffmann, who issued a bogus 'translation' of Celsus excerpted from Origen. Only 2 scholarly journals bothered with it; one asked why he hadn't read the stuff in his own bibliography, and the other commented how Hoffmann had 'improved' Celsus to make him sound like a modern atheist.

See <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/celsus/celsus.htm> for this and other examples, compared word by word against the real text of Origen "Contra Celsum".


Celsus also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) :

“Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. “
Again why no citation? -- Hoffmann too was very vague about just where his text appears from -- but this appears to be a reference to gnostic ideas. But Celsus certainly did not dispute that Jesus existed, for he called him a magician.

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]: &quot;What is the door of Jesus? &quot; 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; '


This has no relevance to the existence or otherwise of Jesus. That people made up stories we know. Why is the existence of liars proof that there is no-one truthful?


Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :

&quot;For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ...&quot;


Quentin, you wretched excuse for a human being, WHY IS THERE NO REFERENCE???? What is this, a comment about his VISA bill? It could be anything.

Sadducees, doubted the resurrection (according to Tertullian in early 3rd century) :

“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”


Tertullian's opinion? Or Paul's? But what is the relevance of this?

Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
&quot;... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

So? We know he called them liars. So what? This, of course, is from the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes II.12, as well you know, so why don't you give a reference?

[Heretics omitted]

In sum, the veracity of the Gospels was doubted from the very beginning.

Why yes. People didn't believe Jesus was God. The gospels tell us that! So what? But no-one denied he existed -- they just deplored the fact.

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse

[Jaltus]

Iason,

Origen notes that Josephus did not call Jesus the Messiah in the copy Origen read, showing the passage is a later addition. However, it does point out that Jesus was mentioned in Josephus.

In fact, your entire case shows that "Messiah" was the interpolation, but that Jesus was not.

I think I would buy that. However, it ends up showing that Jesus did in fact exist, so your point is moot.