Someone named Polycarp came up on another thread.Since I had never heard of him,I did some research to see what I could find out.As best I can figure out he has the same problem as most religious figures. There is no historical evidence he ever existed.No mention in Roman,Greek or any other historical record.The only mention of Jesus by a historian is by Flavius Josephus.This mention has since been proven to be a forgery,since it was not in his original records and was added to a later copy of his work.Some people think Jesus was a composite of many itinerant preachers in Rome,since the first gospel came out 40 years or so after his death.
Welcome Guest!
The Polycarp problem
- Thread starter bulletbob
- Start date
stringmusic
Senior Member
There is a bunch of historical evidence Jesus existed. A lot of prophets wrote about him in the Bible.
Never heard of Polycarp?
Never heard of Polycarp?
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
When the first council met in Nicea to figure out if God was a Trinity or Oneness, Polycarp's quotes were used to point to a pro-Trinity vote. Even now, most Protestant follow the votes of those councils in Nicea. So in that respect, Polycarp's quotes and letters are important if one is pro-Trinity and they believe those councils were inspired by God. They also picked those books of the Bible that showed the evidence that Jesus existed.
So maybe, in a strange sort of way, we all have to a little bit pro-Catholic even though we later left when they progressed away from what Luther felt was more than what those councils came up with.
In doing so, a modern Protestant who believes in the Trinity can be pro Polycarp for showing the council that view.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Outside of the Bible, what evidence exists about Jesus? Can you name the evidence and show us why it is evidence?
I mean Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and Yosemite Sam all talk about Daffy Duck inside of their own fictional world. If you use only the one source of fictional writings to confirm the fictional writings the only evidence you are showing is that fiction resides within fiction. Outside of fiction it cannot be backed up.
What, who and where outside of the Bible can you show us the supposed Son of God existed?
j_seph
Senior Member
Did Samuel Adams exist?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Yes, if this is the man you are talking about.
https://www.geni.com/people/Samuel-Adams-II/6000000064636343830
If you discount Birth records, Death records, His DNA, his mentioning in records regarding his role as a Student of and Graduating from Harvard, The historical records of our Government, his reorganization of the Boston Committee of Correspondence,...then I guess No he did not exist..
But
Multiple sources show he existed as a : Tax-collector; Elected to Massachusetts Assembly, 1765; Delegate to the First Continental Congress, 1774; Signed Declaration of Independence, 1776; Member of Massachusetts State constitutional convention, 1781; Appointed Lieutenant Governor of Mass., 1789; Elected Governor of Massachusetts, 1794-'97.
Sam was obviously more important, more noticed, more revered and more recorded by multiple sources which are backed up historically and scientifically than what some people believe is the son of god.
Good example J_seph
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Are you trying to say that there is only one source of Sam's existence and only that source is used to back up the source?
And, that no other outside sources recorded his existence and that historically, physically and scientifically he cannot be proven to have existed?
j_seph
Senior Member
How do you know that he did? Because someone wrote about him? Jesus birth was documented, no death records are available back then and if there were he still would not be on them. No body, so DNA cannot be there. There is mention of Jesus being taught in the bible. Someone wrote that. How many of those multiple sources began from one or two documentations of SA? Were you there to see what SA did? Have you ever met SA in anyway? Yet all you have to base your theory on is that someone wrote about what he did. No one is writing anything about him now or any reports about what he did unless they read something someone else wrote and write a new paper or book. I met Jesus at 19 no matter how dumb, foolish, crazy the "A" group thinks it is. I heard of 2 more that met him Sunday night, I saw one that met him the first week of January and know another one that met him that same week. Jesus existence is still being felt and seen today. There is still being new records of his existence everyday in peoples lives. Multiple people of varying cultures, races, different levels of education, and different levels of wealth. Have a great and blessed day
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
J_seph,
I am not talking about stories about what Sam Adams did.
I gave examples of his life recorded in official records by multiple official sources. You and I and anyone can find all these records and check their accuracy. They are not written by anonymous writers who wrote them decades if not a hundred years later. These things were recorded by officials who's existence also can be verified who worked for institutions and government agencies that are also verified. Sam Adam's descendants are alive today.
To counter all that you say that the birth of Jesus was documented. Where?
You cite some people that say they met Jesus over the weekend.
And your evidence is various people feel Jesus daily.
With that "evidence" you have placed the reality of Jesus in the same boat as Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Aliens, Unicorns, Ghosts, Gobblins, Hobbits, Trolls and every type of god and creature that humans have conjured up in their minds.
Not a single shred of evidence anywhere outside of a fictional book written by anonymous authors and the believers of that book.
Meanwhile Sam Adams is more provable.
Turned out to be a great day indeed.
Last edited:
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
Are you paraphrasing or did you read this somewhere about the trinity debate at the council of Nicea? The trinity was not on the table yet at this time. It had not evolved yet. It was only whether Jesus was divine or not. If you read otherwise, it's someone working backwards, trying to insert the trinity into antiquity in an effort to substantiate it. I can give 100% compelling proof that it was not, even that they opposed the idea.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
Bart Erhman , being an atheist historian, tells how they make a case of whether anyone ever existed. Mythological figures do exist, and in multiple documents.... so, nothing is without question. To the point.... Multiple sources are used to increase likelihood. The more sources, the more likely that person existed. Of those sources, those expected of using a source for a source, are usually counted as 1. Such as Matthew, Mark and Luke... counts as 1. However, Erhman's argument is that the bible is not 1 source. It's many sources compiled. And... being that it came from multiple locations, builds validity exponentially. This in reference to Jesus. Polycarp, is a harder sell. However, content, also validates the validity of the source. For example, if context speaks to .... I can't think of how to convey this..... less than perfect... then we lean towards it being legit. Who would fabricate a story that had so many loose ends? Who would fabricate a story of conflict over the insignificant... who would fabricate a story with so much missing context.... Who, quite frankly would fabricate the most controversial book in the world that is the result of such varying interpretation, etc.
j_seph
Senior Member
Interesting read, https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/201...-how-about-god-the-father-son-and-holy-spirit
Never thought about that McFarland added, "Historians look for eyewitness accounts, multiple accounts, early accounts and even what they call hostile accounts.
Never thought about that McFarland added, "Historians look for eyewitness accounts, multiple accounts, early accounts and even what they call hostile accounts.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
At best a Jesus type figure existed minus the Embellishments. Truth is in Jewish history, many of those types existed. All are a far cry from the Western-ized version we have today.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
When I think of Polycarp, my mind goes straight to his writings.... about how they sound exactly like our other NT writings. Not implying that they validate anything, but rather... as if he were copying them... that's not what I wish to convey... thinking.... I don't think he copied them, however, nor do I think, it was just the talk of the day, his lingo, or how you might expect him to sound. However, I do assume, possibly wrong, that the NT letters had not yet fully circulated, that his letters may even have preceded some of Paul's???? my point, I wish I could downplay this statement.... Who does he think he is... that he assumes anyone want's to receive a letter from him? I don't mean that fully, I just use it to attempt to convey the point, for a lack of words. We seem to be missing context of Polycarp's life and influence in the church. Thinking of Paul... I would have said the same thing, if it were not for Acts
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
This is from an Atheist. Nevertheless, the points are compelling and probably why he is an Atheist.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
Just paraphrasing as to Trinitarians using the Councils to prove the Trinity by some quote Polycarp supposedly wrote. Perhaps the actual councils were just to prove the divinity of Jesus more than the Trinity. Yet denominations and the Catholic Church use the writings of those early teachers and those councils as the gospel so to speak.
The way I see it is, at some point a bunch of men supposedly smarter than all of us, sat down and wrote what the Bible was and what it said. And that all of this was inspired by God.
I can't say that I'm buying all of that nor that we should just blindly follow those men's decisions. Men are men and I'm sure it was all very political. Probably even a bit of hey, if you vote yes for my Jesus divinity, I'll vote yes for your water baptism requirement.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
The council of Nicea addressed several things. Mostly and most note worthy was the Arian view verses the Oneness [Not the same oneness as we know today, but just my name applied to those whom believed Jesus as "Fully God"] Fully God, gives indication to the Arian view, that he did believe Jesus to be God, just that his opposition believed he did not go far enough . Arius held on to verses like, "the Father is greater than I". His view... Not just him, but likely 50% of the field, him just being the main voice, thus his view was credited to him. Constantine sought to once in for all try to overcome the EXTREME division and argument among his people. An effort to be a stronger economy. No intentions regarding religion. It was terribly a trying time, almost exactly as it is now with Rep and Dems. Imagine if Trump would step in and say, I'm tired of this, we will have a council, call in all the big guns, and put this to rest. After we decide "orthodox", we will formulate a creed to define those outside the circle, ban them and all their writings, making any unapproved literature a capital punishment. We will have huge book burnings out in the street.... and be done with it. This is what they did. And it worked... in the sense that Christianity went from a sect to the denomination of the Roman Catholic church. Opposition continued to seep in over time, Constantine even getting saved supposedly from the influence of his believing sister, even later taking the belief of the Arian side of the specrum. Interesting was that Arius's views were not in strong opposition to the Fully God crowd in terms of the division we now would call splitting hair. Also, they addressed the conflict or battle over "inspired" books. Some put much stock in writings that others saw as man's writings. Constantine commissioned Eusibius to copy 50 bibles, those books decided upon to be the standard. He wanted all them exactly the same, so no interpretation variance could arise. Speaking of Creeds... A creed is a well thought out, assumed, once in for all, line in the sand, as to what is defined as the parameters of right belief. We have the apostles creed, long and short version, the long version of creeds usually reversed placed in antiquity, and the socalled short version, likely the original. The Nicene Creed having a short and long. At the time of the creed formulation, the Holy Spirit is mentioned, but no where close to defining it as a coequal, 3rd person, of a triune godhead. A belief/creed coming that states this was in the 400's as it evolved along. My opinion, after and only after, the NT was well circulated, this belief coming not from oral but rather from those whom took the intent of the NT writers and interpreted what they said differently than what they intended. Now for the most interesting tid bit about the Nicene council. Think of how the democrats try to discredit a republican by means of association.... Imagine the fuel... if, Trump had as much connection with Jeffrey Epstine as Clinton did. There was a man named Valentinous, labeled a knostic by the now claiming "orthodox". In the arguments over scripture about Jesus as Fully God, or not, one opponent, I don't know his name, but we do have good records, to this day, of all that was said, as court room secretary's record the words today, he, in an effort to discredit Arius, stated that Arius was know to have spoken with Valentinous, giving the reason why this Valentinous was so appalling, stating that this vile man, actually has taught that Jesus was , I can't recall the exacts, it can be found googling, but is the exact wording of the trinity, as we know it today. IF, If, the trinity had of been on the table at this time period, this association would have been an endorsement, not a slap in the face. The reading of the internal council arguments are tedious, yet interesting. It has been likely 15 years since I went through it. It's more words than the sum of the bible.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I will conceded though, a tid bit, that Esebius, up to the time of the council, In all his writings as "early Church Fathers" argued scripture, and we have tons of writings in the debates of that time period, similar to current day "op eds", used the so called, short version of the Matthew ending, "in Jesus name". We even have early church fathers writing about this specific point about Eusibius, in addition to his own writings. Up until the commision of the standard bible of Constantine, or shortly after, Eusibius then made a switch from "in Jesus name" to, "in the name of the Father, Son and HS. Why did he make this change? Scholars have proposed that he used his original short version based on what he believed to be so, likely having oldest manuscripts available o him, but changed under the direction of the council's terms.I find it interesting but don't read into it so much as to say it was a trinitarian conclusion. It looks "tri" but no allusion yet to 3rd person, co equal godhead. However, apart from the record of Valentinous, it would seem to be the seeds of later interpretation that evolved into the full blown trinity
stringmusic
Senior Member
Why does the starting point have to be “outside of the Bible”? That would be like me saying outside of this forum I don’t know that you exist even though this forum is evidence that you do.
The Bible isn’t one book in the same sense as most books. There are multiple writers from different places that all speak of Jesus. That’s evidence. You might want more evidence or different evidence but like I already stated there is plenty of evidence Jesus existed.
