Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 06-30-2013, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

It is? If Christianity was a Jewish religion, as you confidently assert over and over, then one would expect to actually find a few Jewish people involved in its post-70 hierarchy, one would think ... especially since (as you claim) it's rise was a Jewish reaction to the fall of the Temple.

Where are the Jewish Bishops in Christianity? Where did they go?

According to Eusebius in the Church History there was a long list of ethnically Jewish leaders of the church at Jerusalem up to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. After the revolt Jews were excluded from Jerusalem and the church at Jerusalem became Gentile.

Eusebius' sources here are obscure but the account seems plausible.

Andrew Criddle

(See Eusebius Church History book 4 chapter 5)

Ok, so we have:

1. The bar kochba revolt in 135 CE
2. a century passes to 235 CE
3. ...another century passes to 335 CE
4. By this time Eusebius has written that the Jewish church at Jerusalem became Gentile. His claim is based on obscure sources.

It seems like we don't know if Eusebius had sources or if he made up a history that fit his purposes?

Is this plausible because it fits our assumptions which in turn is mostly based again on accounts by Eusebius?

What evidence is there of a Jerusalem church between 70 and 135?

In terms of the question of the Jewishness of the early Christians, I tend to like the analogy with the New Age movement's cooptation of Native American spiritualism. How many New Agers are actually Native?

Here's a reference to what I am speaking of (I don't endorse the views of this author, I am providing it as an example of what I am talking about. I googled it,by the way):

Native American Religions and the New Age Movement

outhouse · 06-30-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What evidence is there of a Jerusalem church between 70 and 135?

What evidence is there before 70?

Grog · 06-30-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What evidence is there of a Jerusalem church between 70 and 135?

What evidence is there before 70?

Galatians. I accept that it is disputed, but it has to be considered.

James The Least · 06-30-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

According to Eusebius in the Church History there was a long list of ethnically Jewish leaders of the church at Jerusalem up to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. After the revolt Jews were excluded from Jerusalem and the church at Jerusalem became Gentile.

Eusebius' sources here are obscure but the account seems plausible.

Andrew Criddle

(See Eusebius Church History book 4 chapter 5)

I specifically asked for post-70 Jewish Bishops. I am quite aware the "church tradition"/mythology posits that the pre-70 Bishops were supposedly the original followers of Jesus, and therefore were "Hebrews" (note: Eusebius, like other church fathers, makes a distinction between "Hebrews" and "Jews" -- according to them the early Christians were Hebrews, not Joudaoi).

According to Eusebius, there were fifteen "bishops of the circumcision" prior to the Jewish War. Fifteen! Assuming a date in the 30s for the first Bishop, James, that averages out to a new Bishop every two years or so for what was a lifetime appointment. Why such a high turnover? "Tradition says they were all short-lived."

In reality, this is all blatant post-70 mythology. There was no Jerusalem church before 70. There were no "bishops of the circumcision," before or after 70.

Here is Chapter 5 in its entirety:

Chapter 5. The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived.

2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.

5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed the tenth year of his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus, the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years.

Hi James

You do realise that Eusebius is listing here Jewish bishops till the war under Hadrian in the early 130's ?

Quote:

until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian

Eusebius is not talking here about the first Jewish war c 70 CE but the second war 60 years later.

Andrew Criddle

My mistake. I thought he was referring to the first Jewish War.

So 15 bishops divided by roughly 100 years = 6.66 years for each Bishop. That's better than 2 years each, but still reeks of legend and invention.

Robert Tulip · 06-30-2013, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

What is the best piece of evidence that the Nazarenes were "deliberately ethnically Jewish"?

A good discussion of the Nazarenes is by Rene Salm in his book The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene Salm

The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

My opinion about the implications for Christian origins is as follows.

The non-existence of Nazareth at the purported time of Christ means the phrase Jesus the Nazarene refers not to a town but to a religious identity of a group. The Gospel references to Nazareth are actually references to the old Jewish holy religious group the Nazirites, described in Numbers and Kings, and counting in their number Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist. This group was proscribed by Rome, and therefore the Gospel authors found it expedient to claim that references to the Nazarenes were geographical rather than ideological. This led to the creation of Nazareth as a type of Potemkin village.

The Nazirites were holy ones set apart for God within Jewish tradition. At http://www.mythicistpapers.com/category/nazarene/ Salm discusses how this secret mystery group has contacts with other secret mystery groups, ranging from Greece to India. The invention of Jesus Christ as the mythical hero of the Nazirite religion provides a plausible explanation of Christian origins. Salm discusses how the Nazirites were known as Watchers (Netser) - a term indicating the widespread association between a royal priesthood and the management of calendars through watching the heavens. This widespread theme from Babylon and Egypt of the cosmic role of religion provides a further major factor in the construction of the Christ myth.

Earlier in this thread I discussed this cosmic context. As it is a complex topic I will take my time to write a short paper on it for a new thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Another interesting resource is the book Nazarene Jewish Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Dr. Ray Pritz, which examines the oldest known sect of Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah, a group called the Nazarenes, who lived in Judea until the 4th century CE. This very Jewish sect of Jesus-believers persisted alongside both Gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism for over 300 years.

We discussed the Nazarenes in this thread or another recent thread. Were they ethnically Jewish? Possibly, but it's unclear from what the heresiologists wrote about them.

During my numerous conversations with Dr. Pritz, he made it clear that the Nazarenes were quite deliberately ethnically Jewish. I'd direct you to talk to him about it, but he's currently quite weak due to the brain cancer which is likely to take his life.

What is the best piece of evidence that the Nazarenes were "deliberately ethnically Jewish"?

Davka · 06-30-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Christianity isn't a Jewish religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Only someone who was not intimately familiar with both Judaism and Christianity would make such an absurd statement.

Christianity is a rejection of Judaism and was developed by manipulation of Hebrew Scripture. In Christianity Jesus Christ ABOLISHED Judaism. The Law was a Curse.

Utter and complete rubbish. you are presenting one side of the coin and pretending that it is the entire coin.

Quote:

Are you familiar with the Pauline Corpus?

Indeed I am. Far more so than you, apparently. Let's look at the other side of the coin, shall we?

heads
1. Romans 10:4 KJV For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

tails
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. Romans 2:12, 13 (NASB)

heads
2. Romans 3:20 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

tails
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Romans 3:31 (NASB)

heads
3. Galatians 2:16 KJV Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

tails
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24 (NASB)

heads
4. Galatians 3:13 KJV Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written , Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree..

tails
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! Galatians 3:21a (NASB)

. . . and so on and so forth. The Pauline Corpus is full of quotes which elevate the Law and Judaism:

Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. 2 Corintians 22 (NASB)

Your absurd attempt to present the faith/works argument in the NT as a single-sided coin which demeans Jewishness is not only transparent, it is dishonest. Shame on you.

Toto · 06-30-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

... The Gospel references to Nazareth are actually references to the old Jewish holy religious group the Nazirites, described in Numbers and Kings, and counting in their number Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist. This group was proscribed by Rome, and therefore the Gospel authors found it expedient to claim that references to the Nazarenes were geographical rather than ideological. ...

When was this?

aa5874 · 06-30-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What evidence is there of a Jerusalem church between 70 and 135?

What evidence is there before 70?

Galatians. I accept that it is disputed, but it has to be considered.

1. The time of composition of Galatians is without corroboration in the Canon.

2. The author of Galatians did not even state anywhere that Galatians was composed before c 70 CE

3.The author of Acts did NOT mention any letters of Paul to any Church up to c 59-62 CE.

4. Up to the 2nd century Apologetic writers showed no awareness of Galatians.

5. The first writer to mention the Epistle to Galatians by name also claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius or about c 49-50 CE which makes the Pauline Corpus highly questionable.

6. No part of the Pauline Corpus has been recovered and dated before c 70 CE.

J-D · 06-30-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I didn't use the term first. I understand the term quite well. I was quoting J-D. But that's a red herring. Move on to some substance, please.

J-D appealed to ignorance, I am responding to that. The idea is that Christianity may have evolved out of ideas that were current in the culture of the time, mostly out of the hellenism and judaism. J-D could not imagine a religion emerging from ideas "in the air." J-D's appeal is the logical fallacy of the appeal to ignorance. At the same time, I can contradict that:

--Three Teaching
--New Age Spirituality

In addition, J-D seems to believe that all religions can be attributed to a founder, but there are religions that we don't even know where they came from. The Romulus cult? What one person founded that? Who founded the Plumed Serpent religion in pre-columbian america? Who founded the Isis cult? Who founded Judaism? Couldn't Judaism itself have emerged as an evolution of Egyptian, Canaanite, and Babylonian religions? Emerging, as it were, from ideas "in the air."

I can't think of a reason for p, therefore not p. That's a fallacy.

Really? That whole post and all you can do is come up with a red herring around the phrase "in the air?"

I only used the expression in response to somebody else using it.

What I did post is not the view you have attributed to me, but this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

When I try to think of well-documented examples of the beginnings of religions, the common features I see are an individual preaching a religious message and other people accepting it. I don't know of any well-documented example of a religion starting without those ingredients.

Obviously by itself that's not an adequate explanation of the origin of any religion, but it suggests the structure an explanation could have: who was the founding preacher? what was the original message preached? what was that message produced from? what were the founder's motives? what were the characteristics of the first group of people to accept the founder's original message? why did they accept it?

If those questions were answered for Christianity, I think that would count as an explanation of what started Christianity, which I think is a separate question from the subsequent history of Christianity.

'Why did Christianity acquire so many adherents?' may be a more important or more interesting question than 'How did Christianity start?', but 'How did Christianity start?' is the question this thread began with.

If you can refer me to a well-documented example of a religion that started without the ingredients I mentioned--an individual preaching a religious message, and others accepting it--please do.

I already did. Who was the individual who preached the religious message that became Judaism? Who was the individual who originally preached the message that became what we call kabbalah? Who was the individual who first taught the Three Teachings?

Example 1: Taosim

Interestingly, Laozi is the traditionally considered the founder of Taoist thought, but his actual existence is disputed:

Laozi is traditionally regarded as the founder of Taoism and is closely associated in this context with "original", or "primordial", Taoism.[17] Whether he actually existed is commonly disputed...(wikipedia)

In the mid-twentieth century a consensus had emerged among scholars that the historicity of Laozi was doubtful or unprovable and that the Tao Te Ching was "a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands.

From wikipedia:

Taoism evolved in response to changing times, with its doctrine and associated practices being revised and refined.

My point is that it is not so extreme to consider the contingency that the evolution of Christianity followed a similar path. In fact, the hypothesis is pretty much identical:

Christianity evolved in response to changing times, with its doctrine and associated practices being revised and refined.

The evolution of Christianity would be much like the evoluton of Taosim, with philosophies and ideas accreting to the character "Jesus Christ," a name like Laozi that is heavy with associated meaning. It emerged in a time of change and turbulence as hellenism collided with judaism, with Christianity being a amalgam, a synthesis, of ideas. Different groups adopted the emerging philosophy in different ways so we see a great diversity of Christian thought (which is not what we find when a cult is founded by a charismatic founder: see Scientology, LDS, for examples).

My point is that your focus on an individual founder is entirely too limiting to the debate.

By the way, my position has always been that the so-called "Mythicist" hypothesis ought to be taken seriously. I often argue in favor of it because I see it so misunderstood and misrepresented. I was very disappointed in Ehrman's book because he clearly did not take the hypothesis seriously. I would like to see more scholarly work that is not framed by the assumption that Christianity was founded by a single founder (Jesus Christ). I think doing so, would open up a lot of fruitful avenues in researching the Origins of Christianity. The focus is too narrow, is my point.

My feeling is that we would benefit from accepting these premises:

Jesus Christ is traditionally regarded as the founder of Christianity and is closely associated in this context with "original", or "primordial", Christianity.[17] Whether he actually existed is commonly disputed...(wikipedia)

In the mid-21st century a consensus had emerged among scholars that the historicity of Jesus Christ was doubtful or unproveable and that the teachings of Jesus were "a compilation of Christian sayings by many hands.

Example 2: Judaism

Let's take a look at the origins of another religion: Judaism. Again, no single individual can be attributed with the founding of Judaism. There isn't a person who preached a message and gained followers and thus started a religion to be identified. Traditionally held founders such as Abraham and Moses are mostly considered to have not existed, and certainly their actual existence is greatly in doubt.

from wikipedia;

The ancient roots of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age polytheistic Ancient Semitic religions, specifically Canaanite religion, a syncretization with elements of Babylonian religion and of the worship of Yahweh reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible.

The central founding myth of the Israelite nation is the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the guidance of Moses, followed by the conquest of the Promised Land (Canaan). There is little or no archaeological or historical evidence to support these accounts, and although they may in part originate as early as the 10th century BCE, they reached something like their present form only in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, when they were edited to comply with the theology of Second Temple Judaism.

The central event to the founding of the nation of Israel is a myth. The supposed founders are likewise mythical.

Example 3: Kabbalah

The traditional founder of Kabbalah is Adam. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Religious schools of thought founded by non-historical people?

from wikipedia:

Contemporary scholarship suggests that various schools of Jewish esotericism arose at different periods of Jewish history, each reflecting not only prior forms of mysticism, but also the intellectual and cultural milieu of that historical period. Answers to questions of transmission, lineage, influence, and innovation vary greatly and cannot be easily summarised.

Where is the individual in this story who "preached a message?"

I am not saying that it is never the case that an individual preaching a message founds a religion. There are many examples of that as well: Scientology, possibly Islam (though I am doubtful about that), LDS. One thing that is common to these, at least the confirmed ones, is that there is an initial controlled message. Religions that evolve see diversity in thought and practice, and less control over message. Christianity follows the path of an evolved religion much more than a founded one (it seems to me).

I didn't ask you for an example of a religion that did not originate in the way that it is traditionally supposed to have originated. I didn't ask you for an example of how a religion did not originate. I asked you for an example of how a religion did originate without the ingredients I mentioned earlier, that is, an individual preaching a religious message and other people accepting it. When you offer me examples of how Taoism (if that counts as a religion, which some would dispute) did not originate, or of how Judaism did not originate, or of how kabbalah (if that counts as a religion, which I for one would dispute) did not originate, you're not offering an answer to my question.

If I had asserted that every religion originated in the way I described, it would be relevant to point to an absence of evidence, in the case of a particular religion, that it originated that way. But I did not make that assertion. I asserted that every documented case follows that pattern, and you have not yet shown a documented case of a religion originating in some other way.

J-D · 06-30-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Grog, what do you mean "we know from Paul's own writings, etc." Since when do we know who wrote the epistles attributed to someone named Paul? And where is there evidence that the epistles were written when the Church states they were (i.e. in the first century or even 2nd century)? Where is the evidence that they were written by someone named Paul, and where is there evidence that there was "Christianity" before this alleged Paul's letters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What evidence do you have that there was a person named "Paul"??
This is all sheer speculation since you must be uncritically accepting the Church's official doctrines about the emergence of Christianity.

I know there is a person named 'Paul'. I've met him. His name's on his office door.

Obviously I don't claim that he wrote the epistles under discussion. Nobody makes such a claim, as far as I know. But what is in dispute here is not whether there was ever a person named 'Paul'. We all know that there are and have been many persons named Paul, just as there are and have been many persons named Jesus. Clarity is important.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.