|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2001 : 10:25:52 [Permalink]
|
I'm sure that it will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that, just like their excursions into biology, chemistry, astronomy, geology and what ever "ology" you can name, the fundamentalist version of Mythology is filled with half truths, straw-men and blatant lies.
The piece by Ronald Nash was taken apart by Mythologists line by line, the day it was first posted. Years later this nonsense remains on the internet-uncorrected, untouched. It sounds like a scholarly piece of mythological study, uses all the right buzzwords, but it's just a piece of fundi garbage.
I assume D'Alogos that you cut and pasted it as a track and don't expect me to actually waste time and space on it. Just take a peak at Nash's sources-only one of them is secular and that heavily Roman Catholic. Not a surprise considering that he works for Hank Hannagraff.
EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI article from Christianity Today (March15, 1974 and March 29, 1974) is no better.
B. Reexamination of the Evidences A reexamination of the sources used to support the theory of a mythical origin of Christ's resurrection reveals that the evidences are far from satisfactory and that the parallels are too superficial.
In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar … Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. There are complaints in the OT about the women worshiping the resurrected Adonis on the steps of the Great Temple itself. The dead and resurrected Tammuz dates to pre-history. A desperate try to make this post Christian. It falls apart not only when you see that the Greek Orthodox Easter ceremony is indistinguishable from the Rites of Adonis but simply by looking at the name of the day. Easter, is nothing more than another spelling of Ishtar.
C. Inexact Parallels From Late Sources
What should be evident is that past studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity. .. All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D.140), the third, and the fourth century A.D.
This is quite simply a lie. Mithra had been in the form that was taken by Christianity since 550 BCE.
Of course there is a source, that Yamauchi chose not to use, that is proof positive that Mithraism predates Christianity. That's the New Testament itself. In the story of Jesus' birth three Mithrain priests--who had been watching the zodiac for signs of Mithra's Second Coming--show up. Not only do they save Jesus' life from the "slaughter of the innocents" (another dramatic event that wasn't in recorded history) by warning him, but they supply his folks with some ready cash so they can skip town.
If Yamauchi is interested in " phenomenological comparisons" you might think that he over looked priests from a religion that didn't exist yet (by his figuring) being in the story on purpose. In other words, he lied. Can you iMAGIne that, and him teaching at a Christian college?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 03:26:32 [Permalink]
|
  Slater you remind me of the man who thought he was dead so his friends convinced him that dead men don't bleed and then pricked him in the arm so he bled to their dismay he cried "Good lord!Dead men do bleed after all.".Your whole theory of myths influencing the origins of christianty is pure conjecture(at least In Search OF had a disclaimer at the beginning of its show).I'll make it simple for you do the math if you have heretics(Marcion,AD 140, and Gnostics ie Nag Hammadi again AD 140)quoting the NT and orthodox theologians(ie Irenaeus,Tertullian AD same time period)refuting them by quoting the same New Testament Documents they can't have been "created" under pagan myths influence by that dastardly Euesibus in the 300's AD.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 06:57:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater you remind me of the man who thought he was dead so his friends convinced him that dead men don't bleed and then pricked him in the arm so he bled to their dismay he cried "Good lord!Dead men do bleed after all.".Your whole theory of myths influencing the origins of christianty is pure conjecture(at least In Search OF had a disclaimer at the beginning of its show).
You just don't know when to quit. I will say you seem to have balls, but this is just ironic. You presume to label Slater's theory of religious origin as "conjecture"? Need I remind you that your patron diety requires complete suspension of logic and a near rewrite of linguistics simply to 'exist'?
"God exists."
"Great, where is he?"
"He's everywhere."
"So God is all matter?"
"No, god has no material form."
"So God can't interact with matter?"
"Of course he can, he created all matter."
"What did he use to create all the matter?"
"God can create anything. He's God."
Duh. If I've actually misrepresented your logical case here, I'm sure you'll let me know. By the way, go back and read Slater's last post again if you're so hung up on dates. I see nowhere that he claimed the relevant New Testament documents were created by Eusebius in the 4th Century AD.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 11:27:09 [Permalink]
|
Slater you remind me of the man who thought he was dead so his friends convinced him that dead men don't bleed and then pricked him in the arm so he bled to their dismay he cried "Good lord!Dead men do bleed after all."
That's the third time someone has posted that particular piece of drivel. Is it printed on the inside of bubble gum wrappers? Some class of Christian Bazooka Joe, perhaps?
Your whole theory of myths influencing the origins of christianty is pure conjecture
When faced with the overwhelming fact that the Jesus story was not original, in fact it was a copy of a copy of a…the early church fathers were perplexed too. You see they had already declared the originals to be false doctrine. So Augustine decided that the early myths were spread by the Devil to put doubt in good Christian souls. That's how a myth several generations on could still be a fact while the same story, told earlier, was a lie.
You've just traded Devils with little pitch forks for conjecture. Casting dispersions is easier than using simple logic. Gus had the added argument of getting doubters executed.
I'll make it simple for you do the math if you have heretics(Marcion,AD 140, and Gnostics ie Nag Hammadi again AD 140)quoting the NT and orthodox theologians(ie Irenaeus,Tertullian AD same time period) refuting
them by quoting the same New Testament Documents they can't have been "created" under pagan myths influence by that dastardly Euesibus in the 300's AD.
I'll make it a little more complex for you. Because it is obvious, despite the mockery, that you haven't done any independent research while I have.
We have no record of the Marcionites, who were supposed to be around 200CE, except what Justin Martyr is supposed to have written about them. "…by the help of devils he (Marcion) has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of the universe and to assert that some other being greater than He has done greater works." And we have nothing from Mr Martyr that dates before 325CE.
If these people in 140 CE are quoting a document which we have the records of being created in Nicaea in 325CE and they are doing so only in "copies" of their works that date from after 325CE and come from the offices of an admitted forger, you really have to stretch your credulity to believe that they are real.
[sarcasm] Since you seem more than willing to do that, how would you like to buy this authentic review of the "Harry Potter" movie that Benjamin Franklin wrote for Poor Richards Almanac"? I can let you have it, cheap. And it's absolute proof that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was fist released in 1768. [/sarcasm]
Nag Hammadi (sp.) is a place not a person--nice try. I'm sure you can fool many a Christian with ploys like that. Nag-Hamadi is in upper Egypt and there the Nazis (á la Raiders of the Lost Ark) found a large jar containing forty-eight Coptic Gnostic works-well over 700 pages. The jar had been buried around 415CE(that's two-hundred and seventy five years after you claim Nag wrote them) to save the Gnostic "Bible" -nothing like the NT, no mention of the NT in it- from the Christian mobs who were burning all the books of classical knowledge. The same mobs who under the orders of Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria burned the Great Library of Alexandria. They took the last scientist who worked at the library; {a woman named Hypatia-a mathematician, astronomer, physicist and head of the Neoplatonic School of philosophy-one of the greatest minds of that or any time} tore off her clothes and flayed the flesh from her bones with abalone shells.
Cyril was made a saint. He was your kinda guy, thought science was dangerous to people of faith. In fact it was faith that proved very dangerous for people of science.
The Dark Ages are over now, son. Time to stop believing in magic and all that hocus pokus. There's a bright new world filled with facts. Time also to stop burning (high school biology) books and start reading a few.
Put down your mollusk shell, and come out quietly! We have you surrounded.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2001 : 04:10:00 [Permalink]
|
 To Doc Slater: I'm sorry for repeating something you've heard before(the dead man bleeding),however,you really are starting to worry me.I'm sure you realize that the whole purpose of the joke is to demonstrate that some folks just won't change their minds no matter what evidence.The reason I' concerned about you is while I've given you documentation for my dates(of the writing of the NT) you come up with all different kinds of dates out the thin air(not to mention the Jack Chick kind "catholic conspiricy" reconstructionism).Anyhow here is where I got some of my info on Marcion(as far as I know there not Christian). quote:
ronounced As: märshn, märsn , c.85-c.160, early Christian bishop, founder of the Marcionites, one of the first great Christian heresies to rival Catholic Christianity. He was born in Sinope. He taught in Asia Minor, then went (c.135) to Rome, where he perfected his theory. In 144 he was excommunicated from the church. He then formed a church of his own, which became widespread and powerful. Marcion taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the stern, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful God of the New Testament. He considered the creator god the inferior of the two. Marcion also rejected the real incarnation of Christ, claiming that he was a manifestation of the Father. Though generally seen as one of the most important leaders of the somewhat loosely defined movement known as Gnosticism, he did not share some of the main premises of other Gnostic sects. He believed in salvation by faith rather than by gnosis; he rejected the Gnostic emanation theory; and he sought truth in his own truncated version of the New Testament, which included only 10 of the so-called Pauline Epistles and an edited version of St. Luke. He completely rejected the Old Testament. He explained in his Antitheses that since Jewish law was often opposed to St. Paul, all passages in the Bible that suggested the Jewish foundation of Christianity should be suppressed, even including such statements by St. Paul (see antinomianism). Marcionism emphasized asceticism and influenced the developments of Manichaeism, by which it was later absorbed. Though Its effect on orthodox Christianity was to cause a canonical New Testament to be assembled and promulgated and the fulfillment of the Old Law in the New Law to be clearly enounced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search Encyclopedia.com Again
Click here to see documents from Electric Library, a pay service.
Listing from Electric Library,
a pay service.
No relevant pictures or maps found.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press.
Feedback • Advertise • About Encyclopedia.com
Terms and Conditions • Privacy Policy
Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/30/2001 04:55:11
Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/30/2001 05:00:42 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2001 : 04:51:33 [Permalink]
|
To Phd:Here's where Slater brings up Euseb's "tampering" with the NT(on p.7 I think,and Ithink there's another place). quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(even if we threw away the N.T. the writings of the early church fathers give us98% of the N.T.circa 105ADto165AD).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Same problem with them as with the gospels- there are no copies of their work that date before Eusebius, and no real reason to think that Eusebius didn't make them up.
The ridiculous name "Justin Martyr" should, in itself, be a dead give away. It's like something out of an Ian Fleming book (ie: Pussy Galore, Oreic Goldfinger, etc.)
-------
.Also you're absolutly wrong about "suspending logic".I'm delighted when you use it after all using it -logic-can only lead to the LOGOS.That is if you don't commit the fallacies that you did,ie building Straw man.Gotta go
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2001 : 06:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Can't spend long on this as I'm heading out of town again in a bit, but I'm flummoxed. Vexed. Truly puzzled.
quote:
To Phd:Here's where Slater brings up Euseb's "tampering" with the NT(on p.7 I think,and Ithink there's another place).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(even if we threw away the N.T. the writings of the early church fathers give us98% of the N.T.circa 105ADto165AD).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Same problem with them as with the gospels- there are no copies of their work that date before Eusebius, and no real reason to think that Eusebius didn't make them up.
The ridiculous name "Justin Martyr" should, in itself, be a dead give away. It's like something out of an Ian Fleming book (ie: Pussy Galore, Oreic Goldfinger, etc.)
----
You use this to prove this point:
quote:
I'll make it simple for you do the math if you have heretics(Marcion,AD 140, and Gnostics ie Nag Hammadi again AD 140)quoting the NT and orthodox theologians(ie Irenaeus,Tertullian AD same time period)refuting them by quoting the same New Testament Documents they can't have been "created" under pagan myths influence by that dastardly Euesibus in the 300's AD.
Now I don't know a thing about Eusebius, but in following the dates, it seems obvious that you are the one conflating them.
Slater is clear in the post that you selected that he is talking about an origin in the 100's for the NT. The same as you.
So what's the issue regarding dates, because I honestly don't follow.
Now you may have a legitimate point about whether Eusebius is a creator/forger/whatever, but don't mix that point with the one about dates.
quote:
I'm sure you realize that the whole purpose of the joke is to demonstrate that some folks just won't change their minds no matter what evidence.
Yes, I'm sure Slater understood just as I and the other skeptics here understand. Let me say what I've wanted to for quite some time: We (the majority of the skeptic-atheists on this board) have proven that we are willing to change our minds. I grew up strongly Roman Catholic. It was only after attempting to justify my faith (with strong biases in favor, mind you) that I discovered it had to be abandoned; Slater has said as much.
So you see, we have demonstrated our open-mindedness and willingness to abandon cherished beliefs. Do you have such a track record?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2001 : 11:40:27 [Permalink]
|
Garrette
Now I don't know a thing about Eusebius, but in following the dates, it seems obvious that you are the one conflating them.
Slater is clear in the post that you selected that he is talking about an origin in the 100's for the NT. The same as you.
No, I'm not actually. You see bishop Eusebius was a long time friend of Constantine, since his boyhood days at the court of the Emperor Diocletian.
He was given the job, (and a large staff), after the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of correcting church history so that it would align with the version of Christianity that was newly approved by the State.
The Roman Catholic Church readily admits that he is the one who doctored Flavius Josephus. And we know that he had his hands on the writings of the early church fathers. We also know that it remained common practice for the Catholic church to correct history for several hundred years. Not until the 20th Century did they attempt to undo some of these "corrections."
The problem with the dating of the early church writings is that we have absolutely nothing that dates before Eusebius. Everything that purports to be from the second century is a copy (and I use the word loosely) from Eusebius and his crew in the fourth. We know that he is not trustworthy, the question is just how untrustworthy is he? He was charged with bringing "history" into line with policy-and we are now left with no original material.
When you consider that the early church was so mad about souvenirs of its past to the point that every church kept severed body parts (relics) of church notables it is inconceivable that every last scrap of documentation from the early church should go missing.
The question must arise-did it get lost, or was it destroyed? Or, and this is what I think is more likely, did it never exist in the first place?
We know for a fact that Christianity bore little resemblance to what we now know before 325 CE. We have the word by word minutes of the Bishops (an officer's rank in the Mithrain Chaplain's Corps) hashing out the bible at Nicaea and at Constantinople. We know the names of all those who were poisoned for supporting a form of Christianity that was not approved by Constantine. We know that Constantine had his son Crispus and his wife Fausta murdered almost immediately after summoning and presiding over the Council of Nicaea. We know that the miracle of the sign in the sky before his crucial battle with Maxentius is only recorded by Eusebius. We know that Constantine never became a Christian even though Jesus was supposed to have spoken to him and gave him his crown.
Constantine & Eusebius form a sort of historical "firewall". There is no documentation of the Christian church that predates them. All we have that is supposed to have come from before them passed through their hands and we are left with only their version and no originals. It is these versions that D'Alogos' "proofs" are referring to.
I think that it is a good possibility if not a probability that Jesus based (as opposed to Apollonius based) Christianity didn't exist at all before the late third, early fourth century.
But frankly this is all just academic, and bears little relation to the topic of this thread. Even if every last Early Christian Father back to Saul stoning Stephen were 100% historical you are still left with the fact that there is no record of Jesus or any of his accompanying miracles.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2001 : 18:59:18 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
I always enjoy your posts. My late brothers were both university historians (fascinating to have as brothers), and there is a decided ring of authenticity in everything you write. (If not, you have fooled me.)
Right now, I am in the process of finishing H.L. Mencken's *Treatise on the Gods* and find it fascinating. Of course, he is not a historian, but it is so much fun to read.
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2001 : 05:02:05 [Permalink]
|
First,I would like to thank Doc Slater for admitting I wasn't hallucinating about "The Great Eusebius Cover Up".Since some ,like Garrette, are at least for the sake of argument willing to concede that the NT was in existence by AD 100 I will move on in my attempt to provide a rational explanation of why you should accept,(at least the historical)existence of Jesus.However, there's one more point about Slater's "Eub's Conspiracy" that I need to clairify:quote:
The problem with the dating of the early church writings is that we have absolutely nothing that dates before Eusebius. Everything that purports to be from the second century is a copy (and I use the word loosely) from Eusebius and his crew in the fourth. We know that he is not trustworthy, the question is just how untrustworthy is he? He was charged with bringing "history" into line with policy-and we are now left with no original material.
When you consider that the early church was so mad about souvenirs of its past to the point that every church kept severed body parts (relics) of church notables it is inconceivable that every last scrap of documentation from the early church should go missing.
The question must arise-did it get lost, or was it destroyed? Or, and this is what I think is more likely, did it never exist in the first place?
We know for a fact that Christianity bore little resemblance to what we now know before 325 CE. We
I still don't know where he's getting all this "inside" info,however,he is defintely wrong aboutquote:
The problem with the dating of the early church writings is that we have absolutely nothing that dates before Eusebius.
In my last post I mentioned Nag Hammadi,and yes Slater I knew they were documents found at a "place" not a person,the reason they are important is the info they give us on the 'Gnostics' quote:
. Until the texts' discovery, knowledge of Christian gnosticism was confined to reports and quotations of their orthodox opponents, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian.The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press
What's important is the fact that beforethe 1949 discovery Irenaeus was criticised as "Inventing the whole thing up"(hmmm sounds familar) .However,once Scholars translated the documents they found that Irenaeus was very accurate Scholar.I'm sorry to leave you hanging but I really got to go,see ya
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2001 : 06:00:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Garrette
Now I don't know a thing about Eusebius, but in following the dates, it seems obvious that you are the one conflating them.
Slater is clear in the post that you selected that he is talking about an origin in the 100's for the NT. The same as you.
No, I'm not actually. You see bishop Eusebius was a long time friend of Constantine, since his boyhood days at the court of the Emperor Diocletian.
He was given the job, (and a large staff), after the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of correcting church history so that it would align with the version of Christianity that was newly approved by the State.
The Roman Catholic Church readily admits that he is the one who doctored Flavius Josephus. And we know that he had his hands on the writings of the early church fathers. We also know that it remained common practice for the Catholic church to correct history for several hundred years. Not until the 20th Century did they attempt to undo some of these "corrections."
My apologies to Darwin and Slater. Seems I need to read more careful and get more educated.
quote:
Since some ,like Garrette, are at least for the sake of argument willing to concede that the NT was in existence by AD 100 I will move on in my attempt to provide a rational explanation of why you should accept,(at least the historical)existence of Jesus.
Great. This is what I'm waiting for. Careful, though, about attributing too much significance to my statements regarding specific chronologies. I cannot in even the most remote sense be called an expert on this topic, at least in relation to those posting here (and some who have posted in other threads). I am merely more widely read and well-versed on this topic than the average Christian.
So I'm not "admitting" the 100's timeframe for the NT. I'm just saying it's been my understanding that that is the earliest it could have been written. But I am also saying that proof of a circa 100 authorship for the NT does not add credibility to the historical truth of Jesus. The texts themselves are questionable.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2001 : 11:26:13 [Permalink]
|
ljbrs there is a decided ring of authenticity in everything you write. (If not, you have fooled me.)
What I have been trying to do in my research is separate what "everyone knows is true" from what we can actually prove is true.
This thing about the early church fathers, this was research that I did in the early 90's with the help of my dear friend Father Ronald Cox. This was before the internet had reached me and Ron was kind enough to let me have access (through him) to Vatican research facilities. When you ask the question, "when did the early church fathers live," you get the same answers that D'Alogos and his on line encyclopedia give-dates that range around the middle of the second century. It is only if you ask the question, "what is the earliest recorded document that mentions Irenæus (or Justin Martyr or who have you) that you get bells and whistles going off. Everyone that I asked for came back between 327 and 363 CE (the same period that the earliest existing copies of the NT come from). That's two hundred years too late. Not only does documentation from their time not exist, but also they aren't mentioned at all for two intervening centuries. That's like finding that no information on George Washington dates before 1976. It was obvious that something was very wrong.
Needless to say Ron and those at the Vatican Librarian who supplied this information DO NOT reach the same conclusions that I do. They see the church as a separate entity that is a guardian of the truth and therefore would never lie.
My view is of the church as an arm of the Imperial Roman Government. Behavior consistent with this would not preclude any immoral action.
Ron feels that since they bring the good news of Christ Jesus they must therefore be exemplary.
I feel that since they are trying to make you buy the cock & bull story that the great spiral galaxy of the Milky Way was created by a magic Jew-- they are capable of anything.
More disturbing dates are found when you look for the earliest version of the "Martyr tales." These should date from the time of Nero. But rather you find that they all come from after the fall of the Roman Empire. From a time when the only part of the Roman Government left is the Roman Catholic Church. The Church survived in a world of "Christianized barbarians" who for the most part hated Imperial Rome. The stories all deal with how wonderful and kind Christians are and how mean and brutal and Pagan the Romans were. Seems to be a form of Dark Ages version of "spin doctoring" for the new regimes.
darwin alogos: First,I would like to thank Doc Slater for admitting I wasn't hallucinating about "The Great Eusebius Cover Up". ..However, there's one more point about Slater's "Eub's Conspiracy" that I need to clairify:
I should think that you would be defending Bishop Eusebius and not mocking his name.
I still don't know where he's getting all this "inside" info,
See above and Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The information is only "inside" to those who do not posses public library cards.
however,he is defintely wrong about… we have absolutely nothing that dates before Eusebius.
If you've got anything the Vatican would love to see it. They would make you a rich man.
… they give us on the 'Gnostics' . Until the texts' discovery, knowledge of Christian gnosticism was confined to reports and quotations of their orthodox opponents, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian.The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2000, Columbia University Press
What's important is the fact that before the 1949 discovery
Actually 1949 was when the Germans sent them to the Coptic museum in Cairo, they were found during the Second World War.
Irenaeus was criticised as "Inventing the whole thing up"(hmmm sounds familar). However,once Scholars translated the documents they found that
Irenaeus was very accurate Scholar.
Huh?!
What's that got to do with dating anything before 325 CE? Everything in the Hamadi jar and everything we have "from Irenæus" post dates the Council at Nicæa. There's no reason that they shouldn't match.
We know that Coptic Gnosticism was one of the forms of Christianity that was being offered to the Emperor Constantine at Nicæa. There was also Docetism and several other types.
Let's not forget the Phibionites in Syria, who had Christian Love Feasts along the lines of a bawdier Rites of Dionysus (Remember him? He's the god who turned water into wine, walked on water, calmed the storm and forced evil spirits into a herd of pigs) Epiphanius became a saint because after being a Phibionite for a number of years and screwing his brains out, he had an "epiphany" and turned his church brothers and sisters in to be executed.
Gimme that old time religion.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2001 : 10:36:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since some ,like Garrette, are at least for the sake of argument willing to concede that the NT was in existence by AD 100 I will move on in my attempt to provide a rational explanation of why you should accept,(at least the historical)existence of Jesus.
D'Alogos?
Helloooooo!? We're waiting.
Has anybody here been keeping count? I think that in the last year the number of people who were about to prove once and for all that there was a historic Jesus and suddenly disappeared is now up to 4.
Tiptup (#3) was holding off to work on the farm stand--I hope the lad has his wool socks on, it must be getting chilly there in the snow.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
AARD
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2001 : 15:43:07 [Permalink]
|
DA's assertions that no scholar disputes the historic Jesus is simply false, a pretty simple search will disprove this claim rather easily. No christian scholar disputes the HJ, but their views of Jesus, from the German scholarship of the 1800's through the Jesus "Smear" (christian scholars all, by the way) of the late 1900's show an evolution of the HJ picture. From what I have read, that picture has become so fuzzy, I can't find any single person behind the story anymore. Here is just a few of the recent adherrents to the numerous different Jesus' available (all scholars by the way!). http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
Like Slater, I went looking for all that evidence to support the Jesus story, and found: The bible says Jesus was a historic person, therefore Jesus is a historic person, Jesus said the bible is true, therefore the bible is an accurate of account of the historic Jesus. Would this be the infinite loop?
Here are just a few that do not use the above reasoning, there are many, many more.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ Very brief introduction to the "borrowing" debate.
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm Great site, short and long versions, and the Yahoo discussion group is excellent (very good scholarship from a historic perspective). No fundies participate because they cant argue a point without calling upon their own personal interpretation of biblical inerrency.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html Good reference site.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ Great resource site, all the documents and their perported date ranges.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm Overview essay.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2001 : 15:59:13 [Permalink]
|
Has anyone watched any of the many documentaries on Jesus and the church recently? I find it interesting that they all have presented various theories about the stories in the Bible and Jesus yet not one mentioned Mithra or that there are some that doubt Jesus existed. So while I was happy to see that there is some degree of debate available on television it peeved me that they would only take it so far.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
