SEG wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:36 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:11 pm
Because the historicity of Jesus was not at issue.
Well, it should have been. If it was well known that he walked the Earth as a human living in Nazareth, it would have been dead easy to refute that he didn't instead of quibbling about whether he was the son of God, equal to God or subordinate.
As L P Hartley said 'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there'. You may wish that people in the past had shared your concerns and approached things in the way you would have liked them to but they didn't.
They seem to be writing about him like any other mythical god like Zeus instead of an actual man that made the recent history books.
Actually the pagans did not approach their gods in this way; did not try to develop a metaphysics or a theology around their gods. Sometimes they try to fit the gods into their metaphysic as when Democritus says the gods must be made of atoms like everything else.
I've got no idea what all Christians believe about the so called "virgin birth". If I were to hazard a guess, I would think that most would believe that the Church has made a decree and they must pretend to believe it to be considered a "true Christian. I don't think anyone today would believe that a holy ghost disguised as a dove sprayed holy sperm onto a 13 year old girl to conceive the son of the Creator of The Universe which is really himself in three parts, yet one.
I think you are right no one today believes that but then no one at any time in the past believed it either as far as I am aware. Unless you can give any example of Christians believing that there does not seem much point discussing it.
I think what hapened is that for hundreds of years Christians, both Catholic and other, were using the words 'Church Fathers' in a particular way and then around a century or so ago scholars started using the word in a different way.
Yes, it seems to me that Christianity is just another branch of Judaism.
Jews of course would not agree. The main reason for this is that all forms of Judaism, unlike Christianity, are based around an orthopraxy not an orthodoxy and Christianity stands outside that orthopraxy. However most Jews would exclude Messianic Judaism from being a form of Judaism even if it does try to include the Jewish Orthopraxy.
I might ask my new brother-in-law, he is an educated Christian, though he doesn't bother with church. I'll let you know what his answer is when I see him.
It will be interesting to see how he answers because since the nineteenth century not all modern Protestants would accept the historic teaching on this point. I chose that chapter because it is one where Athanasius is clearly going beyond what is directly taught in scripture.