Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AlexBP" data-source="post: 57160896" data-attributes="member: 261211"><p>You're obviously very keen on this argument that since Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom, therefore any statement about Jesus being a human being can instead be interpreted as a personification of the Logos, and therefore it doesn't count as evidence that the writer in question believed Jesus to be human. However, the argument is quite weak for reasons that really ought to be obvious. Everybody knows that wisdom is not a person. Therefore when the author(s) of Proverbs could safely personify wisdom without risk of confusing anyone or being misinterpreted. Authors of other ancient Jewish works did the same with wisdom and other abstractions.</p><p> </p><p>But what about the Logos? You initially claimed that second century Christianity was dominated by belief in the Logos while those who believed in the Jesus of the gospels were "marginal". After I counted up the number in each category, you changed your mind and decided that in the second century a majority who believed in the historical Jesus existed side-by-side with a "huge swath" who emphasized the Logos instead. You've also said that these two groups interacted and shared much in common. Now if this were true, it would surely be important for every writer to be clear about which of the two groups he belonged to. Hence if the author of the Epistle to Diognetus believed in the Logos and not a historical Jesus, he would surely want to make sure that he didn't sow confusion about the point, so he wouldn't litter his letter with statements about God being "placed among men" and appearing "as man to men", because those statements could easily be misinterpreted as indicating belief in a historical Jesus.</p><p> </p><p>Indeed, if there were actually a "Logos Christianity" and a Christianity based on the Jesus of the gospels vying throughout most of the second century, we'd expect all the authors on either side of the split to go to great lengths to make clear which side of the split we were on. But we do not see that; indeed we find not one single author anywhere who says that he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus, nor do we find any who believes in a historical Jesus speaking forcefully against the Logos Christianity. So I might ask, how does your theory about the existence of the Logos Christianity account for these facts? Now suppose we imagine for a minute that the Logos Christianity is a figment of your imagination. Would that not account for the facts a lot better?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlexBP, post: 57160896, member: 261211"] You're obviously very keen on this argument that since Proverbs 8 personifies wisdom, therefore any statement about Jesus being a human being can instead be interpreted as a personification of the Logos, and therefore it doesn't count as evidence that the writer in question believed Jesus to be human. However, the argument is quite weak for reasons that really ought to be obvious. Everybody knows that wisdom is not a person. Therefore when the author(s) of Proverbs could safely personify wisdom without risk of confusing anyone or being misinterpreted. Authors of other ancient Jewish works did the same with wisdom and other abstractions. But what about the Logos? You initially claimed that second century Christianity was dominated by belief in the Logos while those who believed in the Jesus of the gospels were "marginal". After I counted up the number in each category, you changed your mind and decided that in the second century a majority who believed in the historical Jesus existed side-by-side with a "huge swath" who emphasized the Logos instead. You've also said that these two groups interacted and shared much in common. Now if this were true, it would surely be important for every writer to be clear about which of the two groups he belonged to. Hence if the author of the Epistle to Diognetus believed in the Logos and not a historical Jesus, he would surely want to make sure that he didn't sow confusion about the point, so he wouldn't litter his letter with statements about God being "placed among men" and appearing "as man to men", because those statements could easily be misinterpreted as indicating belief in a historical Jesus. Indeed, if there were actually a "Logos Christianity" and a Christianity based on the Jesus of the gospels vying throughout most of the second century, we'd expect all the authors on either side of the split to go to great lengths to make clear which side of the split we were on. But we do not see that; indeed we find not one single author anywhere who says that he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus, nor do we find any who believes in a historical Jesus speaking forcefully against the Logos Christianity. So I might ask, how does your theory about the existence of the Logos Christianity account for these facts? Now suppose we imagine for a minute that the Logos Christianity is a figment of your imagination. Would that not account for the facts a lot better? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Exist?
Top
Bottom