Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gentleexit · 02-26-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

... Best argument against Roman origin is the substance of early Christian texts. Jews writing for Jews. No one else.

Probably the same reason that some Christians, today, might have read the Koran or the Veddas, or Hustler, I suppose...
Which early Christian text would you like to assume is a Jew writing for Jews?

A lot more Christians have read Hustler than the Veddas. Which text is Jew for Jew? Which text isn't Jew for Jew! The gospels are pieced together from the Septuagint - genealogies, fulfillments, echos. Only a Jewish reader would be impressed by this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

What reason? Do they know something we don't?

Yes, they are able to recognize the NT as Jewish literature, something Gentiles have been remarkably incapable of doing.

Too true. The NT is clearly Jewish in a broad sense ala Philo is Jewish (though much more sophisticated) or the gnostics are Jewish. Christian as other than Jewish is a late late thing. We're all too colored by the gloss of "mission to the gentiles", "mission to the Jews", never the twain.

No Robots · 02-26-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Christian as other than Jewish is a late late thing.

What do you mean here? It seems to me that Gentile appropriation begins quite early, and was certainly complete by the time of Augustine, who coined the phrase, "bury the synagogue with honour."

gentleexit · 02-26-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Christian as other than Jewish is a late late thing.

What do you mean here? It seems to me that Gentile appropriation begins quite early, and was certainly complete by the time of Augustine, who coined the phrase, "bury the synagogue with honour."

A clearcut, non-Jewish Christianity post dates state-adoption. Jewish sects mixed up to that point. And there continued to be Christian "Judaizers" after this point (look at the arguments over fourteeners or why was Chrysostom late in the fourth century concerned with his "flock" attending "Jewish" events?).

And then there's the word "Jew". Do we just mean what it ended up meaning - the Septuagint rejectors, the Rabbis? Or do we include "the temple men" who "killed Jesus" who died out with the temple? Do we mean the broad "nation of Israel" that would include philosophizers like Philo? The word was narrowing as Christianity rose so that by the time of Augustine, it no longer applied to Christians. When it still had breath, it included them.

No Robots · 02-26-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

A clearcut, non-Jewish Christianity post dates state-adoption. Jewish sects mixed up to that point. And there continued to be Christian "Judaizers" after this point (look at the arguments over fourteeners or why was Chrysostom late in the fourth century concerned with his "flock" attending "Jewish" events?).

I agree. That Chrysostom business is mighty embarrassing for an orthodoxy that wants to claim an early and complete separation of Christianity from Judaism.

Quote:

And then there's the word "Jew". Do we just mean what it ended up meaning - the Septuagint rejectors, the Rabbis? Or do we include "the temple men" who "killed Jesus" who died out with the temple? Do we mean the broad "nation of Israel" that would include philosophizers like Philo?

All of the above, no?

Quote:

The word was narrowing as Christianity rose so that by the time of Augustine, it no longer applied to Christians. When it still had breath, it included them.

Righteous!:clapping:

rlogan · 02-26-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why would Josephus write anything about any christ group, when the entire Greek speaking Jewish world, including himself, was within that group?

Wow, what tortured logic packed into a rhetorical question.

Why would Josephus write about a sect of the Jews? Because he has a fucking chapter on sects of the Jews.

You seem to be arguing that all of Judaism is a Christ cult.

Quote:

There would have been nothing notable or exceptional to write about.

Oh, You mean like the exceptional things Pliny was writing about.

Quote:

Just his fellow Jews wrangling over when The Promised One would come, with some claiming that he had already came, and was this one, that one, or another.
Nothing special to report there, just his fellow Jews arguing and acting like Jews as a group always do.

Pony up the evidence here instead of speculating. You assert you have all this textual evidence. So lets see it. And show us what eveidence you have regarding Jews arguing about this on the one hand, but those who are Christ Cult adherents not really being a separate sect.

Quote:

I do not believe that Pliny was refering to the "christ" of Judaisim, or even to a cult that was in any way connected with Judiasim.
Or that these people were even singing hymns to the "Christ" of the Jewish religion, but something else entirely

Right. Because Christianity is not Jewish. Just what you would expect.

Quote:

The word "christos" and the the idea of the Jews having a expectation of a Christos that would some day deliver them had been around for hundreds of years, and the Jews had been talking about it for centuries everywhere they went.

Really? Funny how I see you saying it but without evidence.

Pony up. This is a pretty drastic statement. It is not supported by "I can find the word a couple of times" or whatever.

Back it up. I am open to the idea, but not without evidence

Quote:

Pliny was a very educated man and would have been well acquainted with the word christos, but he did not write christos -"christ", he wrote "Chrestus" acknowledging it was connected to an obscure gentile religious cult.

"Chrestus" in the Greek has the meaning of "good", whereas "christos" means "anointed", and Pliny would certainly have known the difference.

We all get fed a line, when Christian Apologists get away so easily with putting a word in Pliny's writing, that Pliny DID NOT write.

I believe that the "Chrest-ians" Pliny was dealing with were members of the pagan Gentile "Good Shepherd" cults, of which much of its teachings and its "mysteries" ("washed in the blood" , "This is my body...this is my blood") were absorbed by the latter church and integrated into the Gospels and church traditions and practices.

Answered already but a point worth discussing.
Because you seem to be saying that

1) a branch of Christianity came from the mystery religion side of things

2) It is the first evidence we have of an actual religion based on it as opposed to "I can find the word existed before..."

So the only argument you really have is that Judaism is Christianity. The Jews themselves were and are to stupid to see they're Christians, but since we found the word in their vocabulary, (like we find Jesus in the vocabulary of Muslims) they're Jews.

Which makes Muslims Jews too. By the same reasoning. Muslims are Christians since Jesus is in their lexicon, and since Christians are Jews that makes Muslims Jews too.

No Robots · 02-26-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I don't believe that it was a common mistake, the mistake reflects the evidence of the contemporary existence of -something else-, a heathen and wholly gentile Chrestani "Good Shepherd" cult, which originally had nothing to do with Jewish messianism.

And yet earlier you said that Christianity as we know originated with Jewish renegades.:huh:

No Robots · 02-26-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Which makes Muslims Jews too. By the same reasoning. Muslims are Christians since Jesus is in their lexicon, and since Christians are Jews that makes Muslims Jews too.

Yep. Really, the only non-Jews left are the mythicists. And they only exist as a negative, defined solely by what they reject.

Sheshbazzar · 02-26-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I don't believe that it was a common mistake, the mistake reflects the evidence of the contemporary existence of -something else-, a heathen and wholly gentile Chrestani "Good Shepherd" cult, which originally had nothing to do with Jewish messianism.

And yet earlier you said that Christianity as we know originated with Jewish renegades.:huh:

I live in Kentucky, on the South bank of The Red River Valley, there are about 90,000 miles of rivers in Kentucky, more than any other State in the U.S. other than Alaska.
A river is fed by its tributaries. Take a bucket down to your nearest river and fill it full, now take that bucket and separate out the waters according to the tributary branches they came from.
Same thing with Christianity after the 2nd century, The "waters" have flowed together from all the branching tributaries making one great and thundering river. (Rev. 17:1, 17:15, 19:6, Psalm 144:7, Isa 17:12-13)
By the debris and the pollution that is carried along we can determine the sources.

No Robots · 02-26-2009, 02:52 PM

There is one mighty river here: Christ himself, the Jew. He has swallowed everything else up: Greece, Rome, Germania.

Sheshbazzar · 02-26-2009, 07:52 PM

And the "body of Christ" is......that one mighty river made up of many waters.
"and the waters are.... peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15)

Familiar with the context of these words?
They are not for you, they are against you.

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

02-26-2009, 02:52 PM	#129
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	There is one mighty river here: Christ himself, the Jew. He has swallowed everything else up: Greece, Rome, Germania.

02-26-2009, 07:52 PM	#130
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And the "body of Christ" is......that one mighty river made up of many waters. "and the waters are.... peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15) Familiar with the context of these words? They are not for you, they are against you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.