Yuri Kuchinsky

Oh, great... So now I'm expected to provide proofs that the sun rises in the east.

Just because he's a propagandist, it doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie... How about you find me any 'real historians' who think that the martyrs were irrelevant to the growth of Christianity?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
It's more economical to postulate that there was some relationship there between their founders.

But I was led to believe recently that Wells isn't even a mythicist... (Not any longer?)

Well, so then please provide a coherent and believable scenario how the relationship between Jesus and John could have been invented at some later point by Jesus believers. So that all Jesus believers came to believe this.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

LOL!

I remember looking into this matter a while back, and I came to the conclusion that the Mandeans most likely _did_ derive from the original JB cult, just like they say.

But of course this cannot be proven 100%. Some uncertainty does remain in this area.

In general, modern NT scholarship seems to be rather unfriendly to any and all ideas relating to Jewish-Christianity, or anything similar...

Yuri.

rlogan

You seem to have missed the major irony here, Gak. There isn't anyone alive who is a "direct" follower of Jesus. So how this is some kind of de-credentialing of the Mandeans escapse me, especially since JBapt has a stronger case for histporicity in my view.

There's only so much I can do in making the point though.


My panties are in a big bunch now. Owie.



Gosh, why are you asking from a lunatic like me?

I think it pretty obvious that Baptism predates Christianity and JBapt. The "origins" of their beliefs are in the ancient past. They have some goofy Astrological beliefs that may have arisen from ancient Babylonia.

Since the primary feature of their cult is ritual baptism, it is only natural they would hail JBapt as an icon. Those who pose Gnostic origins have some big hurdles to jump. Asceticism, for one thing.

What modern Mandeans believe needs to be separated from the discussion pertaining to this thread.

There are followers of JBapt that the Gospels and Acts feel are important to incorporate. Co-opt, I should say - as per Amaleq13's post that led to my response.

So as far as Christian origins are concerned, as Yuri has asked of us, it is clear to me that the phonies making up the gospels tried to "credential" Jesus and Co-opt a pre-existing group with JBapt.

rlogan

Am I being paddled and sent to my corner with an implied appeal to authority?

Or are you doing a kindly "FYI" citation for my Christmas book list?


In the meantime if there is something specific in here that pertains to Yuri's challenge on the origins of Christianity and specifically Amaleq13's offering of the JBapt Co-option, I'm all ears.

And, Andrew, for the record I do find what you do here as very useful and informative.

Amaleq13

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." -- Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament?, p.4

Marxist

I believe he was convinced in this regard by Burton Mack, and the scholars that go along with the Galilean/Jerusalem traditions idea (Doherty included), which I see as a mistake based on Q, which does not exist. To Wells, the Jesus of the Galilean tradition may have been a real person, but not the Jerusalem tradition. In any case, I don’t see how that is relevant.

I think I already have, for the most part. The relationship would basically be a literary creation of Mark, and it was believed by all Christians to the extent that they believed in the Gospels.

badger3k

Since nobody else posted this, and it's your first, welcome aboard!

If we go by Yuri's "illogical logic", I'd have to say that their heretical beliefs were true, otherwise they would not have died for their beliefs. After all these posts, I still can't comprehend the dissonance needed to not understand a simple point that has been made time and again:

People will sacrifice themselves for things they believe in. That does not mean their beliefs are true, real, factual, make sense rationally, or anything else.

As has been pointed out before, the fact that there are people in the Middle East who are willing to kill themselves for their beliefs, especially those that we do not agree with or understand, does not mean that those beliefs are based on an objective reality. The "virgin" idea of islam we usually hear about - it may be "real" to them but it is not real to us. It's all subjective, and the key is the strength of the belief, not whatever caused the belief.

And to add more pennies to the till, we can't argue for historical records of martyrs for either HJ or MJ if we don't have accurate records. If the existence of the martyrs is in doubt, then neither side can use that as evidence for anything. How hard is that to grasp?

And for humor, I think one of the martyrs was named Joshua. A short guy, kinda balding, you'd know him if you saw him.... :Cheeky:

John A. Broussard

My favorite early christian martyrs were the circumcelliones. They got the name from marching around the walls looking for people to kill them. If you weren't willing to do so, then they'd kill you.

This was, as you can imagine, a short-lived offshoot of early christianity.

badger3k

Not as short as the ones who, if you wouldn't kill them, killed themselves. They didn't get past their first meeting.
:rolling:

edit - that is obviously a joke, even if yours is historical. Odd bunch, those guys.