|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2001 : 19:18:08 [Permalink]
|
Very interesting, thank you! 
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
 |
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 07:34:50 [Permalink]
|
I asked my friend Jimmi on how good that site is. He's studied the NT to the point where he learns how to translate aincient greek. His comments:
This is a combination of accurate information and anti-theological axe grinding. Here's a highlight of things I think are not on target:
1) "The first Xians were [all] Gnostics." This is nonsense. I know of no reputable biblical scholar (including Michael Goulder who is an atheist) who would agree with this. There is ample evidence that a majority of Jesus' early followers were somewhat akin to later orthodox Xians. Sectarian differences did exist and communities were small, but the gnostic influence doesn't become significant until Marcion and Valentinus in the 2nd century. It is true that the Gnostics (specfically the Marcionites) had the first widely published and distributed gospel.
2)On the surface the discussion of the manuscript evidence is right, but it is misleading. First off it is based on the presumption that an absence of evidence is evidence of an absence which is a logical fallacy. We should not expect, given the media used and the methods of preservation available, a large number of physical manuscripts which are contemporaneous with the events they describe. This argument (that a lack of physical manuscripts indicates no original documents) is exactly like creationist arguments about the fossil record. Furthermore it is clearly biased to immediately dismiss all the attestation by the church fathers as well as other historians from anitquity. Most historians I know would say the famous mention of Jesus by Josephus is interpolated. It is not parsimonius, however, to say that the entire excerpt is a forgery. There are other attestations of both 1st century Xians and the gospels (including Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others) outside the Xian community. Were it not for the claims of fundamentalist Xians and the deep need some none Xians have to refute the myths nobody would give this a second thought.
3)Dating of the Corpus Pauline is not supported by the evidence. I am by no means a scholar of the Pauline letters, but I have read a number of good intro texts and participated on discussion boards with scholars who are. From my reading and discussions, of the 27 pauline letters in the NT canon, only 7 are widely regarded as pseudipigraphal, most notably the so-called "pastorals" (1&2Timothy & Titus). Some are still hotly disputed and the rest generally regarded as authentic.
4) This statement is just inane:
100-110
Ignatius wrote seven letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels, but mentioning some of the
Gospel events. This is the first clear expression of a belief in a historical Jesus c.
107 CE. He regards the OT as authority, but makes no reference to NT as scripture.
Of course he didn't. The NT as an anthology (or partial anthology) did not exist until the late 2nd, early third century and a formalized canon did not exist until after the conversion of Constantine in the early 4th century. Furthermore a form critical analysis of the synoptic gospels (GJn is an engima of sorts) indicates that they belonged to different somewhat isolated communities and were largely liturgical in nature. Only a few church leaders would have had copies and likely each community favored, and was perhaps only aware of, one of them. The church doesn't become concerned with NT texts until the 2nd century Gnostics start cranking out gospels left and right.
None of that proves anything regarding gospel dating and authorship nor their historical reliability. It is true that the attributions give to the gospels are late second century. It is furthermore extremely unlikely that those attributions are historically true (with the possible exception of GLk), but not because of the lateness of them. To understand why the attributions are likely not historical one needs to looks a text and narrative criticism of the texts themselves. In any case, so what? Pseudipigraphal documents abound in antiquity. If we look at the two-volume work of ALk (the author of Luke and Acts) we something that looks remarkably like an Hellenistic biography by either a significantly Hellenized and Greek educated Jew or a Gentile convert.
In the end this site appears to be yet another attack on the fundamentalist position regarding Xianity and the history of its texts. It is clearly biased, inaccurate on many points and misrepresents (intentionally or unintentionally) the concensus of scholars in the field. To put it bluntly its junk scholarship with an underlying atheological motive. If one really wants to understand the history of the gospels one should not rely on websites, but rather books and papers written by the actual scholars studying the field. I recommend Udo Schnelle, Dom Crossan, Burton Mack (though he's a little out there with his interpretation of the 'Q' hypothesis), Raymond Brown, Mark Goodacre and definately Elaine Pagels. Dr. Pagels' book on the gnostic/Xian mix in the first century is a classic text in the field. I also recommend the work of Michael Goulder who as far as I know is the only widely respected atheist in the field of biblical studies.
I started studying Xianity years ago when I was still a believer of sorts. I did so with an open heart and mind and I discovered essentially only two things I can be reasonably certain about Xianity.
1)Jesus existed, but he wasn't the son of god
2)Things didn't happen exactly the way they are portrayed in the Gospels, but they aren't a wholesale fabrication either.
Unfortunately there are extreme and biased positions on both sides. Neither of which holds up to the evidence and neither of which is worth much consideration
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 15:24:23 [Permalink]
|
1) "The first Xians were [all] Gnostics." This is nonsense. I know of no reputable biblical scholar (including Michael Goulder who is an atheist) who would agree with this. There is ample evidence that a majority of Jesus' early followers were somewhat akin to later orthodox Xians.
The thing is this site didn't say ALL of the Xians were Gnostic. It might just be my Irish ear, but I didn't think that All was implied.
Since Gnosticism predates Christianity and since we know that there were plenty of Christian Gnostics in 325CE (when the axe fell) to say that there were first Xians who were Gnostic would seem a logical assumption (if still an assumption).
The big problem with all the "evidence" that we have about the very early church is that we have an "information firewall" between us and them. This "firewall" is the "Orthodox Roman Catholic Church" from 325 CE until the complete collapse of the Roman Empire. During that time Christianity was a branch of the Imperial Roman government. Rome had no problem with rewriting history to suit their needs. The writings of Josephus, P. c. Tacitus and Pliny the younger have all been doctored. The "church" didn't even make a secret of what had been done.
If the entire first Xians were Gnostic or Orthodox we have no way of telling. The Orthodox (and only surviving) church says that they were, but the facts are anybody's guess.
Today the Gnostics are considered a perversion of Christianity. Even some non-theists go along with this view. The reality is that they were a completely viable belief system. There extraordinary claims were no more so than today's Xians. The only thing really wrong with the Gnostic version of Christianity is that it did not fit the political needs of the Emperor Constantine. Constantine, who never became a Xian himself, could have just as easily banned Orthodoxy if he felt like it.
2)On the surface the discussion of the manuscript evidence is right, but it is misleading. First off it is based on the presumption that an absence of evidence is evidence of an absence which is a logical fallacy. We should not expect, given the media used and the methods of preservation available, a large number of physical manuscripts which are contemporaneous with the events they describe.
One must not twist the absence of evidence into the presumption of missing evidence. In this case the absence of evidence is suspicious. The medium used (as was used on the Gnostic Nag-Hamadi texts found by the Germans in Upper Egypt in 1945) was papyrus with oak gall ink -- that holds up very well over time. Much better than the stuff that we use today.
This argument (that a lack of physical manuscripts indicates no original documents) is exactly like creationist arguments about the fossil record.
Creationists are not arguing that evolutionists have destroyed the fossils. They say that the fossils that are filling museum basements aren't there at all.
Even if you discount the possibility of tampering, the lack of evidence is just that, the lack of evidence. Without evidence no conclusion can be reached.
Furthermore it is clearly biased to immediately dismiss all the attestation by the church fathers as well as other historians from anitquity. Most historians I know would say the famous mention of Jesus by Josephus is interpolated. It is not parsimonius, however, to say that the entire excerpt is a forgery.
Even the Vatican admits (or so I am told by a friend who is a Jesuit priest) that the Jesus section of Josephus was a complete (and poorly done) fabrication by Bishop Eusebius.
There are other attestations of both 1st century Xians and the gospels (including Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others) outside the Xian community.
None of the copies of these claims date before the "firewall"
…… If one really wants to understand the history of the gospels one should not rely on websites, but rather books and papers written by the actual scholars studying the field.
Hear, hear. I have done web searches on similar topics and found that the authority quoted on the web was me. I may have a Ph.D. but in bible studies I am just a hobbyist.
I recommend Udo …..
You might want to give Randel Helms a read. He disagrees with your conclusions and builds a case that you may find interesting.
I started studying Xianity years ago when I was still a believer of sorts. I did so with an open heart and mind and I discovered essentially only two things I can be reasonably certain about Xianity.
1)Jesus existed, but he wasn't the son of god
2)Things didn't happen exactly the way they are portrayed in the Gospels, but they aren't a wholesale fabrication either.
1) Jesus existed? If he wasn't the son of god that isn't a very big point (who do you say I am?) but what do you base this opinion on? There are no records of him having done so.
2) No a wholesale fabrication?
Read what the great historian Gibbion said about that.
quote:
But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours.
Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe"
(Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 08/31/2001 15:26:44 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2001 : 22:01:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1) Jesus existed? ... There are no records of him having done so.
You claim to know that all of the various records which purport to speak of Jesus are in fact fabrications? Not even the radicals like G.A. Wells and his ilk have done this. Such great certitude in the face of so little evidence (and so little expert consensus) strikes me a credulity rather than skepticism. Where is the room for doubt here?
quote:
2) Not a wholesale fabrication?
Read what the great historian Gibbion said about that...{snip}
The claim that the gospels as a whole were not entirely fictional is quite different from the claim that they contain nothing in them which was entirely fictional. The cases cited in your quote refute only the latter claim.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/08/2001 22:18:40 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2001 : 23:25:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
1) Jesus existed? ... There are no records of him having done so.
You claim to know that all of the various records which purport to speak of Jesus are in fact fabrications? Not even the radicals like G.A. Wells and his ilk have done this. Such great certitude in the face of so little evidence (and so little expert consensus) strikes me a credulity rather than skepticism.
The doctored documents that I referred to spoke of Christians not Jesus.
There are no documents from Jesus' time that mention him.
But it's easy enough to snap me out of my credulity all you have to do is steer me in the direction of an uncontested piece of evidence.
You are the one who claims that there was an actual Rabbi that the stories were hung on. Most people accept that as being probable. But probable is the best you are going to do. Frankly the story in the gospels is so heavily based on the Zend Avesta and the Works of Dionysus that a flesh & blood Jesus is purely extraneous to it.
As for not even "radicals" claiming that all of the various records (by my count, I've spoken of 3) which purport to speak of Jesus (none of the 3 mentioned Jesus except in context of Christian beliefs) are in fact fabrications--who, other than Hank Hanagraaff, claims that they are authentic? Are you buying the paste and cut job in Flavius Josephus?
quote:
Such great certitude in the face of so little evidence (and so little expert consensus) strikes me a credulity rather than skepticism. Where is the room for doubt here?
As a Skeptic I must change my mind when presented with new facts.Not only is there "so little evidence" there is none at all.No evidence in support of an existential claim means I am not going to go along with it.
Big Foot, Jesus, Loch Ness Monster all have their "experts" who all dearly want them to exist. But before I sign on for any of them we have to get beyond peoples desires and onto some hard facts.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 06:19:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
1) Jesus existed? ... There are no records of him having done so.
You claim to know that all of the various records which purport to speak of Jesus are in fact fabrications? Not even the radicals like G.A. Wells and his ilk have done this. Such great certitude in the face of so little evidence (and so little expert consensus) strikes me a credulity rather than skepticism.
The doctored documents that I referred to spoke of Christians not Jesus.
There are no documents from Jesus' time that mention him.
There are documents probably dating from the 50s through the end of the century. Considering that he lived in an almost entirely oral (illitererate) culture and died in the 30s, how is this surprising?
quote:
But it's easy enough to snap me out of my credulity all you have to do is steer me in the direction of an uncontested piece of evidence.
Your standard for “contested” and “uncontested” seems entirely subjective.
quote:
You are the one who claims that there was an actual Rabbi that the stories were hung on. Most people accept that as being probable. But probable is the best you are going to do. Frankly the story in the gospels is so heavily based on the Zend Avesta and the Works of Dionysus that a flesh & blood Jesus is purely extraneous to it.
Degrees of probabitiy is all that anyone can do with any historical or evidential claim. Apodictic certainy does not exist outside of the field of pure deductive logic.
quote:
As for not even "radicals" claiming that all of the various records (by my count, I've spoken of 3) which purport to speak of Jesus (none of the 3 mentioned Jesus except in context of Christian beliefs) are in fact fabrications--who, other than Hank Hanagraaff, claims that they are authentic? Are you buying the paste and cut job in Flavius Josephus?
Most historians buy bits of the cut and paste job. I myself am skeptical but uncertain.
quote:
Such great certitude in the face of so little evidence (and so little expert consensus) strikes me a credulity rather than skepticism. Where is the room for doubt here?
quote:
As a Skeptic I must change my mind when presented with new facts.Not only is there "so little evidence" there is none at all. No evidence in support of |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 07:01:25 [Permalink]
|
I think that this discussion is going well without me. I will however, add my two cents.
quote:
2)On the surface the discussion of the manuscript evidence is right, but it is misleading. First off it is based on the presumption that an absence of evidence is evidence of an absence which is a logical fallacy. We should not expect, given the media used and the methods of preservation available, a large number of physical manuscripts which are contemporaneous with the events they describe.
One must not twist the absence of evidence into the presumption of missing evidence. In this case the absence of evidence is suspicious. The medium used (as was used on the Gnostic Nag-Hamadi texts found by the Germans in Upper Egypt in 1945) was papyrus with oak gall ink -- that holds up very well over time. Much better than the stuff that we use today.
The Dead Sea scrolls are similarly made and were written circa 1st century CE. Although most scholars date the Synoptic Gospels to late 1st century or early 2nd century, there is only evidence in the form and style of the compositions. One forgets that an arid climate can preserve much. Some very mundane and very old contracts etc. have been unearthed.
quote:
There are documents probably dating from the 50s through the end of the century. Considering that he lived in an almost entirely oral (illitererate) culture and died in the 30s, how is this surprising?
You are probably talking about the writings of Flavius Josephus. The references to Christians there are very suspect as to having been added later. As for the culture being illiterate, boy have you gotten that wrong. The ancient Jews were quite a literate culture (their religion required it). Some scholars suggest that Jesus, being a northerner, probably would have been fluent in Greek as well. I have heard some modern Jewish scholars describe the 'Jesus Movement" as a very Hellenized Judaism. There is no reason to believe that the majority of Jesus' contemporaries were illiterate.
I have some questions. What ever happened to the faith of believers? Why would believers need to prove to others (and thus to themselves) that Biblical events actually happened? Does it really matter?
Karen Armstrong has written a very good outline of the evolution of the beliefs of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity called 'A History of God'. After reading this book, one comes away with a sense of how changeable the ideas about God actually are. We are living in weird times where people have to cling to their outdated Biblical "evidence".
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 18:00:19 [Permalink]
|
There are no documents from Jesus' time that mention him
There are documents probably dating from the 50s through the end of the century.
Great, what are they?
20 to 70 years later are not from Jesus' time, any more than what I might write about James Thurber this afternoon would be from his period.
Considering that he lived in an almost entirely oral (illitererate{sp}) culture and died in the 30s, how is this surprising?
First, whether or not he lived at all is what this discussion is about. If you'll check out the first G.A. Wells article at infidels he goes to some lengths to connect a 100BCE (unnamed/mystical) figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls with JC (He also, in this piece, finds humor in 3 or 4 contemporary scholars-who all share the opinion that I express-for accusing him of not being skeptical enough. Something he had not been accused of before.)
As for the culture being illiterate -- are you talking about Gentiles or Jews? The Jews did not have a strong oral tradition in their religion. That was one of the main problems with it. It was completely written and therefore fixed in time, petrified as it were.
But it's easy enough to snap me out of my credulity all you have to do is steer me in the direction of an uncontested piece of evidence.
Your standard for "contested" and "uncontested" seems entirely subjective.
Really, my standards are "subjective?" First you tell me that NONE of the experts, even the radicals, agree with me (even though Wells smiles about them) which would imply that they are not contesting your evidence. Now you are not going to tell me about it because I don't have the proper attitude. Same thing happened to me once at a séance. Because I was a skeptic the spirits refused to show themselves.
… But probable is the best you are going to do. …
Degrees of probabitiy is all that anyone can do with any historical or evidential claim. Apodictic certainy does not exist outside of the field of pure deductive logic.
True. But in the real world it is these "degrees of probability" that count.
Someone like Julius Caesar leaves behind writings, artifacts (coins, inscriptions on buildings, etc) reports of contemporaries -- all manner of evidence. This raises his "degree of probability" of having existed to an extremely high level.
Jesus, on the other hand, even though he is supposed to have suspended the laws of nature, leaves nothing behind. Both the Jews and the Romans left records of several other Messiah wanna-bes from this exact time. But no Jesus. No one during his lifetime makes any record of him. This absence of evidence lowers his "degree of probability" a great deal. It does not make it an absolute zero, but it does lower it to a degree that is not worth considering.
From the evidence you can make the same case for an historical Jesus that you can for an historical Tarzan. The writers who claimed these heros existed never saw them and they both said things that were kind-a, sort-a, like someone in their alleged position in life might-a said.
Most historians buy bits of the cut and paste job (Josephus). I myself am skeptical but uncertain.
I wasn't aware of anyone (even the Vatican's historians) who took his mention of Christians as being anything other than one of Eusebius' forgeries. The fact that the early Christian writers quote heavily from Joe but none of them mentions the only part that pertains to Jesus is a dead give away.
You claim that we've no evidence whatsoever, but we have Q, Thomas, and the Markan parables, all of which seem like the sayings of an actual rabbi.
We don't actually have a copy of the Quelle. It is believed to have existed but is long since lost (I would check the waste paper baskets at Nicaea). It was never mentioned by any early Christian writer. So there is no way to tell when it dates from.
The only surviving copy of the Coptic Thomas dates from around 500CE but |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 18:54:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for the culture being illiterate, boy have you gotten that wrong. The ancient Jews were quite a literate culture (their religion required it). Some scholars suggest that Jesus, being a northerner, probably would have been fluent in Greek as well. I have heard some modern Jewish scholars describe the 'Jesus Movement" as a very Hellenized Judaism. There is no reason to believe that the majority of Jesus' contemporaries were illiterate.
Seems to me that scholars in the field put the literacy rate rather low.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/recovering.html
“In fact, because the literacy rate was so low, visual imagery was a much more effective means of popular communication.”
http://www.jesusarchive.com/Epistle/04-01/context_april01.html
quote:
Bill Warren had a very simple point to make in his paper, "Literacy and Social Strata in the Roman Empire: Identifications and Locations." The literacy rate for the Roman Empire as a whole may have been low, around five to 10 percent. But in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean where Christianity took root it was considerably higher, perhaps 15 to 25 percent.
http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/TC/vol02/Gamble1997rev.html
Review of Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995.
quote:
Gamble's evaluation concerning the place of early Christian writings within their larger Greco-Roman context as both informative and convincing, for the most part. His suggestion that a literacy rate of about ten percent was probably typical for Christian congregations in the first few centuries is believable despite an obvious
predilection for both Jewish and Christian texts among Christians, since most members of the congregation would have acquired their knowledge of these writings through public rather than individual reading.
John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus? (New York: Harper Collins, 1996),
quote:
What can scholars tell me about societies that, like the one in which Jesus lived, have elites and
peasants, colonial subjects and imperial rulers? To take an example: If I am tempted to picture
Jesus as a literate, middle class carpenter, cross cultural study reminds me that no middle class
existed in ancient societies and that the peasant class from which he came is largely illiterate. So I
am kept from imagining a Jesus who could not possibly have existed at his time and in his
situation.
Another relevant work is Tony M. Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989) He places literacy in the Roman world below ten percent. Which scholars put the literacy rate for Jewish peasants in the Roman Empire above 10-15%?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 18:55:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are probably talking about the writings of Flavius Josephus. The references to Christians there are very suspect as to having been added later.
I was talking about the Pauline epistles.
quote:
I have some questions. What ever happened to the faith of believers? Why would believers need to prove to others (and thus to themselves) that Biblical events actually happened? Does it really matter?
How is this relevant? I am not concerned with matters of faith, only questions of history.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2001 : 19:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
You claim that we've no evidence whatsoever, but we have Q, Thomas, and the Markan parables, all of which seem like the sayings of an actual rabbi.
We don't actually have a copy of the Quelle. It is believed to have existed but is long since lost (I would check the waste paper baskets at Nicaea). It was never mentioned by any early Christian writer. So there is no way to tell when it dates from.
We know at least that it is pre-Matthean and pre-Lukan, and enough so as to reach those two separate writers, most probably via oral tradition. There have been some scholarly attempts to date quelle, but it seems like guesswork to me.
quote:
The only surviving copy of the Coptic Thomas dates from around 500CE but the Greek text of which it was the translation belongs to the middle of the second century.
So we have an upper bound on the Thomas Gospel. But there are reasons to date it far earlier than this upper bound.
quote:
Mark is a little earlier, the beginning of the second century but it was touched and retouched until the fourth century. We have no more than a few pages that date before Nicaea.
Sounds like you've picked out the very latest scholarly dating of Mark. Might I ask why? I see no reason to conclude that Mark written more than a generation before or after 70 AD, and there is some reason to suppose it was written close to the destruction of the temple.
quote:
For the parables in Mark to have come from a Rabbi that Rabbi would have to have been Neo-Platonic.
How so? Can you please be more specific?
quote:
But what the hell, the same Rabbi is supposed to have been baptized (the rite of the god Ea) and held a Zoroastrian communion (loaves and fishes) and ignored the Midrash. He must have been one of those super cosmopolitan, worldly Essenes. Really into "diversity"--more like something one would expect from a fourth century Byzantine rather than a first century Rabbi.
Baptism was not uncommon in Jewish culture of first century Palestine. BTW, do you claim that John the Baptist was a fabrication as well?
As to loaves and fishes, there were the mainstay staples of Galilean life.
Where exactly does Jesus ignore the midrash? Of which particular midrashic writings do you speak? The stringent sabbath codes, perhaps?
I've yet to see any reason to reject the three sources above as geniune sayings. Thus far, you've called into question their dating, which we already knew was a matter of much debate, and pointed out similarities with other religions, which we already know are not uncommon from basic comparitive religion.
"Nihil |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 06:03:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
and pointed out similarities with other religions, which we already know are not uncommon from basic comparitive religion.
If Slater will forgive me for interjecting (and correcting me if I'm wrong!), he has stated a few times in earlier threads, that what he is pointing out aren't "similarities", they are pretty much exact matches to Mithraism. Even the pope's outfit seems to be Mithran in origin, not to mention the Lord's Prayer, the fish and bread miracle, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.
If I have followed it correctly, the argument is, Rome wanted a quick religion, so they cut-and-pasted Mithraism (the prominent religion of the Roman legions, right?) and came up with Christianity.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 06:57:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
and pointed out similarities with other religions, which we already know are not uncommon from basic comparitive religion.
If Slater will forgive me for interjecting (and correcting me if I'm wrong!), he has stated a few times in earlier threads, that what he is pointing out aren't "similarities", they are pretty much exact matches to Mithraism. Even the pope's outfit seems to be Mithran in origin, not to mention the Lord's Prayer, the fish and bread miracle, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.
Sounds fascinating. Please direct me to the original Mithran sources which parallel the latter three pericopes from the gospels (I'm unconcerned with Papal garments).
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 11:29:26 [Permalink]
|
Check this thread for some good info. First post on page 2, Slater gives some references.
Now I'll stop, since I feel uncomfortable, and don't want to be thought of as trying to speak for anybody (nor do I want to screw up and misquote or misconstrue anyone's ideas!)
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2001 : 12:40:29 [Permalink]
|
Pericopes!?
My goodness, had to go to the ole Unabridged for that one. I've noticed that peoples vocabularies generally match their occupations. The photo supplied on your bio page shows someone in costume. Are you in the theater?
Baptism was not uncommon in Jewish culture of first century Palestine. BTW, do you claim that John the Baptist was a fabrication as well?
I have already talked with several Rabbis on the subject of Jewish baptism as, in the past, Creationists have also made that claim. I am assured that Jews do not now, nor have they ever had such a rite.
This is not to say that this rite was not practiced in the area, only that it wasn't Jewish.
Joseph Campbell, Occidental Mythology:
quote:
And the rite of baptism that he (John) preached, whatever its meaning at the time may have been, was an ancient rite coming down from the old Sumerian temple city Eridu, of the water god Ea, "God of the House of Water symbol is the tenth sign of the zodiac, Capricorn (a composite beast with the foreparts of a goat and body of a fish), which is the sign into which the sun enters at the winter solstice for rebirth. In the Hellenistic period, Ea was called Oannes, which is in Greek Ioannes,Latin Johannes, Hebrew Yohanan,English John. Several scholars have suggested, therefore, that there was never either John or Jesus, but only a water-god and a sun-god….I shall leave it to the reader to imagine how (John) came both by the god's name and by his rite.
I am not claiming that there was no John the Baptist rather I am claiming that there were plenty of Baptists of the god John. None of them Jewish. Baptism by water and Baptism by blood (of a bull) were (are) two of the most important Mithric ceremonies.
The demi-god Mithra was born on December the twenty-fifth, the sign in the Persian zodiac of Ea. This sign is followed immediately by that of Aquarius. Aquarius is the one who baptizes in the name of Capricorn. (See: The Starlore Handbook: An Essential Guide to the Night Sky by Geoffrey Cornelius; Chronicle Books 1997
The Good Shepherd, as Mithra was known, was crucified, died, was resurrected and later rose bodily into heaven. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. That's why Mithrain priests were on the look out for him to come back. That is why the story of Jesus starts off with Magi (Mithrain priests) who have been watching the zodiacal sign of Capricorn. They are looking for the reborn Mithra.
Later in the story Jesus meets his cousin who is a Mithric priest of Ea and again is acknowledged as the returned Mithra.
Jesus Apostles (12, just like Mithra, one for each of the signs of the Persian zodiac) ask him to teach them how to pray to his Father (admittedly the Essenes did call themselves "the Sons of God." Mithra, however meant it literally {as did JC} His dad was Ahura Mazda) and he teaches them the "Our Father "which differs from the prayer that Mithra taught his Apostles by only two words.
As to loaves and fishes, there were the mainstay staples of Galilean life.
Yes, I like a nice tuna fish salad on rye myself. Too bad JC didn't make some lettuce and tomatoes. (And don't forget the Miracle  Whip)
But, the gathering of a large crowd on a mountain top. The preaching of the Blessed are this and that (the miserable, weak people that JC said were blessed bear little resemblance to the type of folk that a Mithrian priest says-at this point in the mass- are blessed. I would suspect that this obscene glorification of human suffering and weakness was added by the Imperial Roman government to bolster their position) and ending with a communion of loaves and fish ( |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
