From: Brian Holtz [email@example.com]
October 30, 2003 5:52 PM
To: Kris Key
Subject: RE: I am an
KK: Good try Holtz, but with the exception of
Docetism they all taught a PHYSICAL resurection.Bzzt. That
article does not say that Ebionism taught a specificially physical
resurrection. You claimed that "they all taught a PHYSICAL resurection
[sic]". Now, do you have a source for your claim, or not?
BH: Do you have a source
citation that Ebionism taught a specifically physical resurrection?
the ebionites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites.
KK: the idea of the ebionites teaching a
spiritual resurrection is at best questionableI claimed that
Ebionism was an example of "early Christian heresies about Jesus' divinity and
resurrection". I didn't claim that Ebionism taught a spiritual
resurrection. You, however, claimed (apparently without any evidence) that
it "taught a PHYSICAL resurection [sic]".
BH: the existence of many mutually inconsistent
early Christian heresies about Jesus' divinity and resurrection: Ebionism,
Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Docetism
Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism;
KK: This is your statement from Jordan's website and here is why it is
Earlier you said it was a "lie". Now you say
it's merely "misleading". Perhaps soon you'll realize that you in fact
just didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
KK: a.) only one of those actually taught a
spiritual resurrection, Docetism. Your response implies that at least the
majority of them had this teaching
No, it simply implies that at
least one of the heresies was about Jesus' resurrection, and it doesn't even say
that any such resurrection heresy was about physicality vs. spirituality.
Your "majority" interpretation shows that you simply didn't read me carefully
KK: b.) Your early Christian heresies on the
whole are not that early as a whole
All but one came before the
Council of Chalcedon (451). The fact remains that rampant confusion over the
most fundamental question of the identity of Jesus is as old as the
earliest Christian commentaries, and continued for centuries despite easy access
to the textual revelation arranged by the allegedly omnipotent omniscient
Dynamic Monarchianism and Sabellianism late 2nd
-3rd centuryThese dates show that Christians were confused early and
often about the identity of the carpenter from Nazareth.
Marcionism-mid 2nd century
Nestorianism- 5th century
Apollonarianism- I could not find this one,
however I did find Apollinarianism- 19th century
Bzzt. The second
sentence of the article plainly states that Apollinaris "flourished in the
latter half of the fourth century".
Bzzt. The second
sentence of the article plainly calls it "a heresy of the seventh
century". This is the only heresy in my list that came after the Council
of Chalcedon (451).
KK: They all taught a bodily resurrection( with
the aforementioned exception [Docetism])
Again: what is your
evidence that Ebionism taught a specifically physical resurrection?
KK: and the vast are so late as they offer little
aid in understanding early Christianity.
They show that Jesus'
revelation was incompetent and muddled from the beginning.
KK: You gave the impression they( or at least the
majority) denied the bodily resurrection.Why would I mention
"Jesus' divinity" if I were claiming they were all about the resurrection? You
misread my statement, hastily called it a "lie", and now you have egg on your
KK: You gave the impression that they were from
an equally as early time as Christianity.
I called them "early
Christian heresies". That's what they are.
KK: I stand by my statement with this
("this one"? Are you admitting that you don't "stand by" the
statements that you've declined to defend from my rebuttals?)
KK: thats simply dishonesty.
simply confused by your demonstrable misreading of 1) my original statement and
2) the reference works you consulted.
KK: The longer ending of mark is from the late
4th century- http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm
confusing the dates of extant manuscripts with composition dates. (Jordan made
the same mistake in our earlier discussion.) Irenaeus (d. 202CE) cites
Mark 16:19 in Adversus Haereses.
KK: It has no value for making any points to what
on Easter Sunday, at best it is an educated guess by a 4th century
The various endings of Mark are thought to have been
composed in the early 2nd century. (Apparently your status as a "well-read"
atheist didn't include a familiarity with the composition dates of the major NT
KK: You were certainly aware of this and you
choose to use it to support your hypothesis. How is this honest
The endings of Mark were written not long after the last
gospel (John, c.90CE), by scribes who can be presumed to be in touch with the
gospel tradtions, and are consistent with the early resurrection tradition being
spiritual rather than physical. (Apologists like to claim that "oral tradition"
ensures the accuracy of texts written down decades after the events in question.
Are you backing away from that position? Or do you dare claim that the
various endings were intentionally errant?)
KK: I stand by my points.
points remain systematically rebutted, and you have still not identified a
single point by Jordan that I did not rebut.