Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-23-2010, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I do not accept this. All these assertions were published by Constantine and require corroboration by the archaeologists. So far, we have nothing at all substantial before the 4th century other than our reliance in the truth of Eusebius.

I'm aware of that evidence is light. But are you sure this is our one single reference. I recall it being mentioned in more places than this.

The earlier references like Tacitus, Pliny,etc are all very late and very suspect. Josephus and Senneca and the Agbar letters are certain forgeries. And Eusebius is heavily implicated in these, and the entire production of the package of literary works which were to wrap the "New and Strange Testament literature". It boils down to whether one trusts Eusebius - the first "Historian of the Church" - or not. I dont.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Well I have personally examined the evidence. After doing so meticulously my opinion is that Christianity was first implemented as a top-down imperial cult at Nicaea, with a little bit of help from the army.

I have never heard or read about this before. Do you have any credible references or just your word?

You had better check the MODERATOR's Declaration on the discussion of these claims. I am quite willing to argue the case, but others here prefer discussing other theories and conjectures. Like the HJ. These get a free run. The HJ (Historical Jesus) is above board. The FJ (Fictional Jesus) is in the basement. My notes are here.

DrZoidberg · 08-23-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

You had better check the MODERATOR's Declaration on the discussion of these claims. I am quite willing to argue the case, but others here prefer discussing other theories and conjectures. Like the HJ. These get a free run. The HJ (Historical Jesus) is above board. The FJ (Fictional Jesus) is in the basement.

Aha... I see. I'd say those threads cover this subject pretty extensively. So I doubt I have much to add. I can see how this decree is a good idea. A subject can be beaten to death.

As to the fictional/historical Jesus issue. I think you're exaggerating. My impression of this place is that anything that isn't preposterous is always above board. As far as I can tell consensus among Jesus researchers is that it is a little bit of both? Jesus can have existed even if everything in the Bible about his life is a fantasy. But more importantly there's no surviving evidence. Everything we have on Jesus has to be inferred from far removed sources. All we can really say with any certainty is that people who are certain about the life of Jesus are morons/deluded.

bacht · 08-23-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I am pulling this from another thread. As there is little direct theology in the New Testament, what are tne intellectual roots that led to modern protestant Christianity?

...

Christianity today has its roots in Catholic theology. There is little if any connection to what the original Jewish heretics, not Christians, were about.

You can start with the fall of the Byzantine empire to the Turks in 1453. The printing press arrived the year after. Columbus proved the existence of a New World in the 1492. By the time of Luther there was plenty of interest in reforming the Roman Catholic church.

Literacy and the rise of northern European states were probably the main impetus to the Protestant Reformation.

It's not clear exactly what Jewish heretics believed at the turn of our era. Some gnostics seemed to be rejecting the strict monotheism of Ezra.

Toto · 08-23-2010, 07:46 AM

Most of the sources for Jesus and Christianity are suspect, but not all. The references in Pliny (which mention Christians but not Jesus) are not considered as suspect as Tacitus. There is a parody of Christianity in the Roman satirist Lucian, from the second century. There is a Christian house church preserved at Dura Europa that everyone except mountainman dates to the mid third century.

Most historical Jesus researchers think that there was a historical core to the founder of Christianity. A small minority are willing to consider the possibility that this core was invented after 70 CE, along with a fictionalized story dated to the first century.

Everyone believes that Constantine had a major hand in shaping Christianity. But the idea that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth in the 4th century is mountainman's own unique obsession.

steve_bnk · 08-23-2010, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

...Christianity today has its roots in Catholic theology. There is little if any connection to what the original Jewish heretics, not Christians, were about.
.

In reality there was NO real connection between the "original Jewish heretics" and the catholic-christianity. The so-called 'jewish-christians', presented as 'jewish heretics' by the forger fathers who founded the 'catholic-christianity', in reality never had anything to do with catholic-christianity cult, having been the worship of the jewish-christians absolutely philo-judaic, since his 'message' was directed to solely the jews of the time (especially those of the rebel movement, namely the zealots messianists) and NOT to the gentiles, as was for catholic-christianity.

Even the notorious 'Jerusalem Church', led by James the Just, brother of Jesus 'second to the flesh' (see Eusebius), had nothing to do with catholic-christianity, nor with the jewish-christianity, since it was a genuinely gnostic sect, formed by the survivors of the John the Baptist's sect, of which James became the 'spiritual heir' and head of the new sect (that of the 'ebionites'), built on the ruins of the sect of the 'nasurei' led by the Baptist.

The Ebionites, as is known, were fiercely opposed by the orthodox catholics, and this is a clear evidence that the attempt of the forger fathers to assimilate the 'church of Jerusalem' (ie the one of the ebionites) at the catholic-christianity, other was not that a simple and hallucinating historical mystification, intended to deceive the faithful catholic-christians of the time about the actual roles played by James the Just (or 'the minor'), Simon Peter (also completely alien to the catholic-christian world) and by other alleged disciples of Jesus (actually disciples of John the Baptist: at least most of them)

Greetings

Littlejohn
.

That's the point. what is teken without question the Christian bible and its interpretations today has its roots more in Catholic politics than anything else.

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

08-23-2010, 07:46 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Most of the sources for Jesus and Christianity are suspect, but not all. The references in Pliny (which mention Christians but not Jesus) are not considered as suspect as Tacitus. There is a parody of Christianity in the Roman satirist Lucian, from the second century. There is a Christian house church preserved at Dura Europa that everyone except mountainman dates to the mid third century. Most historical Jesus researchers think that there was a historical core to the founder of Christianity. A small minority are willing to consider the possibility that this core was invented after 70 CE, along with a fictionalized story dated to the first century. Everyone believes that Constantine had a major hand in shaping Christianity. But the idea that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth in the 4th century is mountainman's own unique obsession.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.