FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-22-2010, 07:01 PM   #31
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Hi Philosopher Jay,

When we look for Origen we find two Origens - one asserted by Eusebius to be a christian and one whom ancient historians view as the Platonist disciple of the founder of Neo-Platonism Ammonias Saccas. The situation is additionally compounded when we look for Ammonias Saccas, because again we find two separate Ammonias Saccas's. One is regarded by most ancient historians as the sack carrier on the grain wharves of Alexandria as the "Father of Neoplatonism" and the other is asserted by Eusebius to be a christian.

This compounds all objective suspicion that Eusebius has simply fabricated his history out of thin (imperially sponsored) air. How long are generations of analysts going to continue to follow the Wizzle Tracks around and around the Mulberry bush?


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
When we look at Origen's works, we should remember that Eusebius inherited them. he had control over them and so Origen cannot be looked upon as a source independent from Eusebius.
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-22-2010, 07:46 PM   #32
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Imagine me saying "George Washington was not the first president of the United States. Here is a list of presidents on Wikipedia." When you go there it says that George Washington was the first president of the United States.
Wasn't there a President under the Articles of Confederation?
The Articles created a Confederation, called the United States of America. The following is a list of those men who were ... President of Congress while the United States operated under the Articles:

•Samuel Huntington (Mar 2 1781 - Jul 6 1781)
•Thomas McKean (Jul 7 1781 - Nov 4 1781)
•John Hanson (Nov 5 1781 - Nov 3 1782)
•Elias Boudinot (Nov 4 1782 - Nov 2 1783)
•Thomas Mifflin (Nov 3 1783 - Nov 29 1784)
•Richard Henry Lee (Nov 30 1784 - Nov 22 1785)
•John Hancock (Nov 23 1785 - Jun 5 1786)
•Nathaniel Gorham (Jun 6 1786 - Feb 1 1787)
•Arthur St. Clair (Feb 2 1787 - Jan 21 1788)
•Cyrus Griffin (Jan 22 1788 - Apr 30 1789)
Note: Huntington was the President of the Continental Congress when it recognized the ratification of the Articles and converted to the Confederation Congress. Huntington resigned due to ill health, and McKean was selected to replace him. Hanson was the first person specifically elected to the position after ratification. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_arti.html
So, the first President of The United States of America was Samuel Huntington, while the first elected President was John Hanson. The terms of the discussion were not set narrowly enough. Your statement that the first President of the United States was not George Washington is incorrect when referring to the United States of America under the Constitution, but would be correct for the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation.

Amen.

DCH
Thanks for clearing that up. :-P It is interesting for me to know, though I was actually quoting the argument of Philosopher Jay.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-22-2010, 10:30 PM   #33
spamandham
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Not all speculations are equal. When Price speculates, it is often with absolutely no evidence at all, except maybe an analogy, such as when he claims, "...the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism..." to explain the seeming ambivelence of Mark about John baptizing Jesus. Practically no evidence, but he takes it seriously as an explanation,
There is no way to establish whether or not this likely, but it's certainly plausible, and not without evidence as you claim. ...because we see the same type of formula elsewhere.

What's the Eucharist all about? "Do this in memory of me". Obviously the explanation put into the mouth of Jesus makes absolutely no sense at all. "Spin around in circles 4 times and slap your ass in memory of me" makes as much sense. The author had no idea why they were doing this bread/wine ritual (or the real reason for it was embarrassing perhaps) and so he made up this silly "and that's why we celebrate the Eucharist" explanation.

If you reject Price's explanation as unlikely, you are then left without explanation as to the rite of Baptism - in the same boat as the gospel author. As a gospel author, how do you choose to explain this ritual?
spamandham is offline  
Old 03-22-2010, 10:50 PM   #34
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Not all speculations are equal. When Price speculates, it is often with absolutely no evidence at all, except maybe an analogy, such as when he claims, "...the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism..." to explain the seeming ambivelence of Mark about John baptizing Jesus. Practically no evidence, but he takes it seriously as an explanation,
There is no way to establish whether or not this likely, but it's certainly plausible, and not without evidence as you claim. ...because we see the same type of formula elsewhere.

What's the Eucharist all about? "Do this in memory of me". Obviously the explanation put into the mouth of Jesus makes absolutely no sense at all. "Spin around in circles 4 times and slap your ass in memory of me" makes as much sense. The author had no idea why they were doing this bread/wine ritual (or the real reason for it was embarrassing perhaps) and so he made up this silly "and that's why we celebrate the Eucharist" explanation.

If you reject Price's explanation as unlikely, you are then left without explanation as to the rite of Baptism - in the same boat as the gospel author. As a gospel author, how do you choose to explain this ritual?
My intuition is that the Eucharistic ritual and the Eucharistic monologue of Paul was a ritual based on Christian's commemorating the "Last Supper" (Passover) of Jesus. They put words in Jesus' mouth as they thought he may have spoke. Is there anything unlikely about that?

In Jewish society, morality was tied into concepts of "clean" (good) and "unclean" (evil), as seen in their scriptures. Baptism was a ritual very likely meant to symbolize the cleansing of a person from sin, as reflected in the description by Josephus. Is there anything unlikely about that?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 12:04 AM   #35
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Trying to make up plausible scenarios for the implausible characters is just a case of fututility.

Who would have thought that some-one could have started a religion by claiming he copied the words of a God on "Golden Plates".

It is virtually a useless exercise to try and just guess history when we have information that tend to show that the ritual of the Last Supper was probably from Mithraism.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology"66
Quote:
.....For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done.

For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

So even the ritual of the Eucharist predated Jesus and Paul.

Paul and Jesus are irrelevant with respect to the origin of the ritual of the Eucharist

It must be noted that Justin mentioned the rite of the Eucharist and never did associate Paul with the ritual.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:02 AM   #36
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Just to be clear, even though Price's conclusions are driven by activism at the expense of probability, his book gives plenty of useful information to an amateur audience. For example, on page 110, he makes a point about John the Baptist according to Jesus as quoted in Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28, which are sourced from the gospel of Q:
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
This may mean:
I tell you, among those born of women [and outside the kingdom of God] there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
ie Jesus and his true disciples are within the kingdom of God and hence greater (in some sense) than John.

Andrew Criddle
Jesus could have meant many things, and so you can take a dozen different sidesteps to dodge what otherwise seems to be the most likely explanation, the same as any other passage. If Jesus really meant, "among those born of women and outside the kingdom of God," then what is the evidence? Or, why is the qualification omitted in Q? Too wordy? Is my interpretation not sufficiently reinforced by the baptism account in Mark and the ideological spin of the same event in Matthew, Luke and John? Yesterday, I talked with a Christian friend of mine about this passage, and her tentative explanation was that Jesus was just being humble, as I predicted a sidestep might be. You can just as easily take that explanation, too.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:35 PM   #37
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

This may mean:
I tell you, among those born of women [and outside the kingdom of God] there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
ie Jesus and his true disciples are within the kingdom of God and hence greater (in some sense) than John.

Andrew Criddle
Jesus could have meant many things, and so you can take a dozen different sidesteps to dodge what otherwise seems to be the most likely explanation, the same as any other passage. If Jesus really meant, "among those born of women and outside the kingdom of God," then what is the evidence? Or, why is the qualification omitted in Q? Too wordy? Is my interpretation not sufficiently reinforced by the baptism account in Mark and the ideological spin of the same event in Matthew, Luke and John? Yesterday, I talked with a Christian friend of mine about this passage, and her tentative explanation was that Jesus was just being humble, as I predicted a sidestep might be. You can just as easily take that explanation, too.
How do you interpret
Quote:
yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John the Baptist]
?

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 04:45 PM   #38
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Jesus could have meant many things, and so you can take a dozen different sidesteps to dodge what otherwise seems to be the most likely explanation, the same as any other passage. If Jesus really meant, "among those born of women and outside the kingdom of God," then what is the evidence? Or, why is the qualification omitted in Q? Too wordy? Is my interpretation not sufficiently reinforced by the baptism account in Mark and the ideological spin of the same event in Matthew, Luke and John? Yesterday, I talked with a Christian friend of mine about this passage, and her tentative explanation was that Jesus was just being humble, as I predicted a sidestep might be. You can just as easily take that explanation, too.
How do you interpret
Quote:
yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John the Baptist]
?

Andrew Criddle
I figure that latter clause is why the quote was preserved. Jesus was trying to give hope and pride to people who are otherwise lowly and poor. It is a doctrine that Jesus repeats, in Mark 10:31, for example. The poor were apparently Jesus' primary target of recruitment.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 10:49 PM   #39
spamandham
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
My intuition is that the Eucharistic ritual and the Eucharistic monologue of Paul was a ritual based on Christian's commemorating the "Last Supper" (Passover) of Jesus.
You find this intuitive? Ancient Greek culture did abide a prisoner of his final meal much like modern western culture does. But beyond that, was there significance to a final meal in this culture?

Are the final meals of other hero figures of this time period enshrined? If not, then there needs to be another explanation of why this particular meal was enshrined, and that reason is obvious. It provides an explanation for the origin of the Eucharist that was otherwise unknown or embarrassing. Christians were not the only cult practicing sacred meals. Greek religion was practically a supper club. The new Christian cult wished to distinguish itself from this, and needed an explanation for their sacred meal.

Quote:
They put words in Jesus' mouth as they thought he may have spoke. Is there anything unlikely about that?
I'd say it's nearly certain they put the words in his mouth, but beyond that, I don't see anything plausible about your explanation.

Quote:
In Jewish society, morality was tied into concepts of "clean" (good) and "unclean" (evil), as seen in their scriptures. Baptism was a ritual very likely meant to symbolize the cleansing of a person from sin, as reflected in the description by Josephus. Is there anything unlikely about that?
The idea of cleansing from sin via ritual bathing is novel to Christianity (or possibly also similar other cults) and there's nothing implausible about that description. But the issue at point is whether or not John's baptism of Jesus is recorded to explain why Christians do it, or if it's really historical, or there for some other reason.

Price's explanation, that it's there to act as a pattern that explains *why* Christians do it (rather than simply what it is) is certainly plausible. Whether or not it's the simplest explanation is another matter. But it is plausible and follows from other evidence (the Eucharist example cited above).

Personally, I think the baptism of Jesus is just following the Jewish pattern of 'the second shall be first' repeated over and over and over in the OT. In this case, that pattern is employed to pay some respect to John's cult while still claiming authority for Jesus' cult - a conversion tool for followers of John.

"Hey you followers of John, you had the right idea and John *was* the guy you should be following, but even John recognized the authority of Jesus and officially passed the baton when he baptized him. Hell, baby John even kicked in the womb when he sensed womb-baby Jeuss! Step in line."
spamandham is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 11:13 PM   #40
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
My intuition is that the Eucharistic ritual and the Eucharistic monologue of Paul was a ritual based on Christian's commemorating the "Last Supper" (Passover) of Jesus.
You find this intuitive? Ancient Greek culture did abide a prisoner of his final meal much like modern western culture does. But beyond that, was there significance to a final meal in this culture?

Are the final meals of other hero figures of this time period enshrined? If not, then there needs to be another explanation of why this particular meal was enshrined, and that reason is obvious. It provides an explanation for the origin of the Eucharist that was otherwise unknown or embarrassing. Christians were not the only cult practicing sacred meals. Greek religion was practically a supper club. The new Christian cult wished to distinguish itself from this, and needed an explanation for their sacred meal.



I'd say it's nearly certain they put the words in his mouth, but beyond that, I don't see anything plausible about your explanation.

Quote:
In Jewish society, morality was tied into concepts of "clean" (good) and "unclean" (evil), as seen in their scriptures. Baptism was a ritual very likely meant to symbolize the cleansing of a person from sin, as reflected in the description by Josephus. Is there anything unlikely about that?
The idea of cleansing from sin via ritual bathing is novel to Christianity (or possibly also similar other cults) and there's nothing implausible about that description. But the issue at point is whether or not John's baptism of Jesus is recorded to explain why Christians do it, or if it's really historical, or there for some other reason.

Price's explanation, that it's there to act as a pattern that explains *why* Christians do it (rather than simply what it is) is certainly plausible. Whether or not it's the simplest explanation is another matter. But it is plausible and follows from other evidence (the Eucharist example cited above).

Personally, I think the baptism of Jesus is just following the Jewish pattern of 'the second shall be first' repeated over and over and over in the OT. In this case, that pattern is employed to pay some respect to John's cult while still claiming authority for Jesus' cult - a conversion tool for followers of John.

"Hey you followers of John, you had the right idea and John *was* the guy you should be following, but even John recognized the authority of Jesus and officially passed the baton when he baptized him. Hell, baby John even kicked in the womb when he sensed womb-baby Jeuss! Step in line."
You ask: "You find this intuitive? Ancient Greek culture did abide a prisoner of his final meal much like modern western culture does. But beyond that, was there significance to a final meal in this culture?"

I say: it is not at all implausible that Christians would find this "last supper" significant enough to make a ritual out of it, for two reasons.
  1. It was the Jewish Passover.
  2. Jesus was thought to be the son of God and the messiah, which means he knew the future. In fiction (and presumably in myth), someone who knows that he is just about to die always has something important to say to his people.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.