Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-29-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Now, to the OP poll about Origins of Christianity.
The first three options are meaningless.
With people listening to the teachings of XXXX where XXXX is either paul or pseudo paul or jesus

The origin of christianity cannot begin with people listening for the simple reason that the manuscripts themselves are specially designed to be read by important greek speaking christians because of the abbreviated codes representing important names. The origins of christianity are not related to the questions about the people who listened to the teachings of XXXX but rather are related to the questions about who authored the books of the new testament which were then purportedly read out to the massively non literate church congregations by a "Reader".

Surely we need an option about the people who authored the books which the readers read aloud to the people. The only option in this poll which addresses the manuscript tradition is thus 4. And you can bet your bottom denarius that Constantine knew how to publish codices which could be read out in the christian basilicas by tax exempt readers.

It appears not to have occurred to you that it is possible for people to say things and for other people to listen to them even though those things hav not been written down. That is the possibility which underlies the first three options in the poll. When they refer to the possibility of people listening to things Jesus or Paul may have said, they mean just that, and not necessarily people listening to things read to them out of a book by Jesus or Paul. These options may be incorrect, or there may not be enough information to tell whether they are correct (which is what the majority of people who have voted in the poll think), but they are not meaningless.

They are meaningless in the sense that when most people are discussing and arguing the toss of the coin in regard to Christian origins the manuscripts and texts of the new testament represent the primary source evidence to be explicated --- and specifically who authored the gospels and paul and pseudo paul and where and when and for what purpose. The answering of these questions represents the core of "Christian origins".

These three options that "people listened to an oral tradition" and that an oral tradition is the origin of Christianity is utterly unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense. The evidence are the manuscripts of the NT itself. This is the evidence in our possession which is the cornerstone of any hypothetical or optionally considered theory of any Christian origin. We may infer that there was an epoch of the oral tradition, but this is an inference. For example, were the books of Harry Potter perpetuated via an oral tradition prior to the publication of said books? The answer is no. We have no reason to dismiss this example as being other than instructive.

Therefore firstly any optional hypothetical suggestion towards the explication of the origins of christianity cannot be considered useful unless it is falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Secondly, unless it addresses the evidence on the table -- the manuscripts of the NT canon, and the manuscripts of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" --- Christian origins and the origins of these two sets of (diametrically opposed) literature [as established with the manuscript tradition, archaeology and C14 etc], cannot be separated --- or Popper will be displeased.

On the desk of Sherlock Holmes is the evidence itself ---- we are dealing with utterly anonymous published manuscripts from an unknown century in antiquity. We have a lower bound of the first century if we hypothesise Apostolic authorship and an upper bound of the 4th century because of the manuscript tradition itself --- especially the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus. One cannot separate the manuscript evidence of Christian origins from the question - it is integral to more than Popper.

J-D · 06-29-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I can give you illustrative examples if you don't share aa5874's peculiar prejudice against them.....

It is NOT true at all that I have some "peculiar prejudice" against "Christians". You promote propaganda.

You are blatantly mis-representing my position. I DETEST your persistence.

My position has nothing whatsoever to do with prejudice at all only with the evidence from sources of antiquity.

My view, based on the evidence from antiquity, is that there were people called Christians (not related to belief in Jesus) before the Fall of the Temple.

See Justin Martyr's "First Apology" XXVI and Tacitus' "Annals" 15.44.

My position is SOLIDLY supported by sources of antiquity.

I didn't say that you have a peculiar prejudice against Christians. I said that you had a peculiar prejudice against illustrative examples. You are misrepresenting my position.

I have no view about your position on the origin of Christianity because I don't know what your position on the origin of Christianity is.

J-D · 06-29-2010, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It appears not to have occurred to you that it is possible for people to say things and for other people to listen to them even though those things hav not been written down. That is the possibility which underlies the first three options in the poll. When they refer to the possibility of people listening to things Jesus or Paul may have said, they mean just that, and not necessarily people listening to things read to them out of a book by Jesus or Paul. These options may be incorrect, or there may not be enough information to tell whether they are correct (which is what the majority of people who have voted in the poll think), but they are not meaningless.

They are meaningless in the sense that when most people are discussing and arguing the toss of the coin in regard to Christian origins the manuscripts and texts of the new testament represent the primary source evidence to be explicated --- and specifically who authored the gospels and paul and pseudo paul and where and when and for what purpose. The answering of these questions represents the core of "Christian origins".

I don't know that that is what most people think, but if that's what most people think they're wrong, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

These three options that "people listened to an oral tradition" and that an oral tradition is the origin of Christianity is utterly unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense.

I don't care, and see no reason why I should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The evidence are the manuscripts of the NT itself. This is the evidence in our possession which is the cornerstone of any hypothetical or optionally considered theory of any Christian origin. We may infer that there was an epoch of the oral tradition, but this is an inference. For example, were the books of Harry Potter perpetuated via an oral tradition prior to the publication of said books? The answer is no.

How do you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We have no reason to dismiss this example as being other than instructive.

Why, what does it instruct us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Therefore firstly any optional hypothetical suggestion towards the explication of the origins of christianity cannot be considered useful unless it is falsifiable in the Popperian sense.

I see no reason to accept that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Secondly, unless it addresses the evidence on the table -- the manuscripts of the NT canon, and the manuscripts of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" --- Christian origins and the origins of these two sets of (diametrically opposed) literature [as established with the manuscript tradition, archaeology and C14 etc], cannot be separated --- or Popper will be displeased.

No he won't, he's dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

On the desk of Sherlock Holmes is the evidence itself ---- we are dealing with utterly anonymous published manuscripts from an unknown century in antiquity. We have a lower bound of the first century if we hypothesise Apostolic authorship and an upper bound of the 4th century because of the manuscript tradition itself --- especially the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus. One cannot separate the manuscript evidence of Christian origins from the question - it is integral to more than Popper.

Who said I was trying to? Anybody who wants to use that evidence to answer the question should feel free to.

DrZoidberg · 06-30-2010, 12:18 AM

J-D I suggest you read up on pre-Pharisaic Judaism. It's a mistake to see Judaism as one fixed thing that Christianity grew from. The modern Torah and the Modern New Testament both killed the old (extremely authoritarian) Judaism. For example, in old Judaism the only place God could hear prayers was at the Temple Mount. The idea of God back then was more like Superman, rather than being omnipresent and all powerful.

I'll refrain from saying exactly which technological advances were the most critical. I forget the details.

Chili · 06-30-2010, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Surely we need an option about the people who authored the books which the readers read aloud to the people. The only option in this poll which addresses the manuscript tradition is thus 4. And you can bet your bottom denarius that Constantine knew how to publish codices which could be read out in the christian basilicas by tax exempt readers.

But why do you call them Christian bisilicas if Christians were scatterbrains from day one forever at odds with each other, still confusing Jesus with Christ today as if they are one and the same while it was, and still is said that Christ was born but they called him Jesus. Now the real questions not who was born but who was 'him' and that is what Constantine rectified with a religion called Catholic instead of Christian.

. . . and of course it is fabricated because Catholics are cold or hot but definitely not lukewarm.

J-D · 06-30-2010, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

J-D I suggest you read up on pre-Pharisaic Judaism. It's a mistake to see Judaism as one fixed thing that Christianity grew from. The modern Torah and the Modern New Testament both killed the old (extremely authoritarian) Judaism. For example, in old Judaism the only place God could hear prayers was at the Temple Mount. The idea of God back then was more like Superman, rather than being omnipresent and all powerful.

This has no relevance to anything I've said, as I haven't said anything about Judaism, and you haven't shown that it has any relevance to the origins of Christianity, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

I'll refrain from saying exactly which technological advances were the most critical. I forget the details.

In other words, in the strictly literal sense, you don't know what you're talking about.

aa5874 · 06-30-2010, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT true at all that I have some "peculiar prejudice" against "Christians". You promote propaganda.

You are blatantly mis-representing my position. I DETEST your persistence.

My position has nothing whatsoever to do with prejudice at all only with the evidence from sources of antiquity.

My view, based on the evidence from antiquity, is that there were people called Christians (not related to belief in Jesus) before the Fall of the Temple.

See Justin Martyr's "First Apology" XXVI and Tacitus' "Annals" 15.44.

My position is SOLIDLY supported by sources of antiquity.

I didn't say that you have a peculiar prejudice against Christians. I said that you had a peculiar prejudice against illustrative examples. You are misrepresenting my position.

I have no view about your position on the origin of Christianity because I don't know what your position on the origin of Christianity is.

Well, that is also not true. You are just making stuff up. What illustrative examples have you presented to which I have shown prejudice?

You appear to have no idea what "Christianity" means yet you are asking people about the origins of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I mean by 'Christianity' is what the word means in general discourse and in standard works of reference, both online and offline....

What does "Christianity" mean to YOU in general discourse?

What does "Christianity" mean to YOU in standard works of reference?

What does "Christianity" mean to YOU online?

What does "Christianity" mean to YOU offline?

Please cut the BS and state PRECISELY what YOU mean by "Christianity".

mountainman · 06-30-2010, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

They are meaningless in the sense that when most people are discussing and arguing the toss of the coin in regard to Christian origins the manuscripts and texts of the new testament represent the primary source evidence to be explicated --- and specifically who authored the gospels and paul and pseudo paul and where and when and for what purpose. The answering of these questions represents the core of "Christian origins".

I don't know that that is what most people think, but if that's what most people think they're wrong, that's all.

They are wrong because you say so?
Hello?
What should people, ummmm, think?

Doug Shaver · 06-30-2010, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you accept any citation in this work by Snyder as "evidence"?

I have never heard of the book. I have no idea what it purports to present evidence of.

But, reacting just to the title . . . There either is, or is not, archeological evidence of "church life" -- whatever that's supposed to mean -- before Constantine. If there is, then it's reasonable to infer that there were churches before Constantine. If there is not, then the question becomes whether there is a good absence-of-evidence argument to be made for the nonexistence of pre-Constantine churches. I'd be very surprised if there is.

Chili · 06-30-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know that that is what most people think, but if that's what most people think they're wrong, that's all.

They are wrong because you say so?
Hello?
What should people, ummmm, think?

My definition of what it means to be a Christian is based on Jn.6:66 and that should exclude all Catholics. The Baptist seem to have a definition that confirms this and so do many others protestant religions wherein you must be born again and accept Jesus Christ (they say then) as you personal savior etc. They will continue and adjudge Catholics to be excluded from this and as I understand it that is the defining line of what it means to be a [so called] Christian . . . and so also what it means to be a Catholic.

Catholicism, on the other hand, has reserved for its own the transubstantiation of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (instead of the symbolic consubstantiation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ), and that will always be what separates Catholics from self proclaimed Christians.

All the shouting on this mystery over the past 2000 years is nothing new but is precisely the reason why the NT was written that elucidates the actual transformation of the mind that makes one worthy to be called a Christian and so have the mind of Christ.

. . . since there was good cause for Jesus to 'come the first time' because the 'Herod slaughter' was 'popular sport' in those days (commonly expressed as a messianic movement or Gaileean busy-ness), those 'in the know' decided to write the NT and in time saw fit to end the Herod slaughter of the newborn child. To wit: Christ is the manifestation of God with us ("my Lord and My God" and is never coming back!) . . . and it may just be the case that we should give Constantine credit for this.

Edit to add: If any so called Christian here is waiting for JC to come back the second time is he perhaps worshiping the anti-christ?

So then let me add that the mind of Christ is the Universal mind of God (called Brahman elsewhere for example), which so makes Catholicism 'big' enough to take all minor mythologies under its wings and actually be the 'mountian' from where it speaks [ex-cathedra], carefully trying not to ruffle too many feathers that would be to the chagrin of others while still endearing to many.

View Poll Results: How did Christianity begin?
With people listening to the teachings of Jesus, derived from his interpretation of Jewish tradition	9	18.37%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul, derived from his visions produced by meditation techniques, neurological abnormality, drug use, or some combination	7	14.29%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul deliberately fabricated to attract a following	3	6.12%
With the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated	4	8.16%
We do not have enough information to draw a conclusion	26	53.06%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2010, 12:18 AM	#124
DrZoidberg Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 5,746	J-D I suggest you read up on pre-Pharisaic Judaism. It's a mistake to see Judaism as one fixed thing that Christianity grew from. The modern Torah and the Modern New Testament both killed the old (extremely authoritarian) Judaism. For example, in old Judaism the only place God could hear prayers was at the Temple Mount. The idea of God back then was more like Superman, rather than being omnipresent and all powerful. I'll refrain from saying exactly which technological advances were the most critical. I forget the details.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.