Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-31-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

I can think of no better evidence for the existence of a cult leader (and the cult) than by the fact that the writings about him are all hostile.

If there were a single, authentic, contemporary writing about Jesus by his enmies that would go far toward proving that a Jesus actually existed.

How could that have happened when Christians of the Jesus cult publicly declared Jesus was born after his mother was pregnant by a Ghost??

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius all claimed or implied Jesus was born of a Ghost or acted like one.

The Jesus stories are 2nd century Myth Fables that were completely plausible and believed in antiquity.

The Jews, Romans and Greeks did consider that the Holy Ghost was an actual figure of history and did actually impregnate Mary in the very same way they accepted Marcion's Phantom, Adam and Eve and Romulus and Remus.

mountainman · 01-01-2013, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Outhouse, it is simply a question of evidence. If you want to take on faith the uncorroborated claims of the winners who established the system, or the monks in monasteries who were the exclusive repositories of all sorts of manuscripts, that's your prerogative.
The conventional wisdom does that and so can you.
Alternatively there is a critical examination of the context and content of the writings of apologists, which is in ahort supply.
For all the ink spilled on this or that epistle, and interpolations etc., virtually nothing similar is done in challenging the conventional wisdom about a Justin, Irenaeus or a Eusebius in terms of context and content.

When much of this written, there was no system.

So the winners asserted.

Quote:

They were not the winners yet.

So the winners asserted.

mountainman · 01-01-2013, 04:12 AM

A post Constantinian Marcionite inscription to "Chrestos"

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.R.S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten

(London and Benares, 1900; 3rd Edition 1931), pp.241- 249

The Marcionites have also given us the most ancient dated Christian inscription. It was discovered over the doorway of a house in a Syrian village, and formerly marked the site of a Marcionite meeting-house or church, which curiously enough was called a synagogue. The date is October 1, A.D. 318 and the most remarkable point about it is that the church was dedicated to "The Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Good - "Chrestos", not Christos.

Duvduv · 01-01-2013, 06:17 AM

Where are the indications the synagogue had anything to do with "Marcionites"?! Especially if the word was interchangeable with ekkesia and used by other groups including Samaritans? And if there is only the mention from "Irenaeus"? One reference and one archaeological finding cannot be the basis for establishing an entire reality. There are disputes about many sites anyway.

And if the word synagogue is used with Marcionites exclusively in Irenaeus, then it could also be assumed as a term to cast aspersions on heretics and Jews as being equivalent to each other. And why wouldn't the sources, starting with Justin, roundly condemn a false Isu Chrestos that is unknown?

The evidence may be politically correct but it's rather flimsy.
Isu Chrestos on a structure could easily be a dialectical pronunciation of Yesoos Christos, not unlike the name Yeshu or Yeshua, having nothing to do with the term for "good" in Greek itself.
In French today it's pronounced "Jezukri".

Duvduv · 01-01-2013, 11:49 AM

Here is a link from Mountainman's website discussing the various uses of the term ISU and CHRESTOS.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...20christos.htm

If the Erythrean Sybil has any significance long before Christianity and adopted by the Empire, then it could be merely a coincidence that the name IESOUS resembles the Hebrew name Yeshu/Yeshua, and at first had no relationship to anything to do with a Joshua/Yeshu/Yehoshua.

On the OTHER HAND, since the source is from a loyal orthodox spokesman, Augustine, the City of God, let's then just take this source with a huge grain of salt:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....XVIII.23.html
Considering how significant such a thing would have even been for the Church, it is one of those cases where one would wonder why it is given such minimal importance (merely "quite manifest"??!):
" This sibyl of Erythræ certainly wrote some things concerning Christ which are quite manifest, and we first read them in the Latin tongue......"

mountainman · 01-01-2013, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the Erythrean Sybil has any significance long before Christianity and adopted by the Empire, then it could be merely a coincidence that the name IESOUS resembles the Hebrew name Yeshu/Yeshua, and at first had no relationship to anything to do with a Joshua/Yeshu/Yehoshua.

On the OTHER HAND, since the source is from a loyal orthodox spokesman, Augustine, the City of God, let's then just take this source with a huge grain of salt:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....XVIII.23.html
Considering how significant such a thing would have even been for the Church, it is one of those cases where one would wonder why it is given such minimal importance (merely "quite manifest"??!):
" This sibyl of Erythræ certainly wrote some things concerning Christ which are quite manifest, and we first read them in the Latin tongue......"

Augustine's original source appears to have been the oration of Constantine at the pre-Nicaean council of Antioch. See Robin Lane Fox ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOX

Constantine refers to an ancient Sibyl, a priestess from Erythrae
who had served Apollo at the 'serpents Tripod' at Delphi.
Constantine then quotes (in the Greek) thirty-four hexameters,
from the inspired truth of the Sibyl.
Most notably, the acrostic formed by the first Greek letter
of each line spelt "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross."

But Constantine was alive to the arguments of skeptics ...

"They suspect that "someone of our religion,
not without the gifts of the prophetic muse,
had inserted false lines and forged the Sibyl's moral tone.
These skeptics were already known to Origen ... (Constantine continues)

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy",
and the "age" of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

His proof of this comparison was unexpected: Cicero (106-43 BCE)
Cicero chanced upon this poem and translated it to Latin.
The Sibyl, Constantine said, had prophecised christ
in an acrostic, known to Cicero.

Robin Lane Fox comments ... "the proof was a fraud twice over."

According to Fox Constantine's "proof was a fraud twice over."

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

01-01-2013, 06:17 AM	#24
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Where are the indications the synagogue had anything to do with "Marcionites"?! Especially if the word was interchangeable with ekkesia and used by other groups including Samaritans? And if there is only the mention from "Irenaeus"? One reference and one archaeological finding cannot be the basis for establishing an entire reality. There are disputes about many sites anyway. And if the word synagogue is used with Marcionites exclusively in Irenaeus, then it could also be assumed as a term to cast aspersions on heretics and Jews as being equivalent to each other. And why wouldn't the sources, starting with Justin, roundly condemn a false Isu Chrestos that is unknown? The evidence may be politically correct but it's rather flimsy. Isu Chrestos on a structure could easily be a dialectical pronunciation of Yesoos Christos, not unlike the name Yeshu or Yeshua, having nothing to do with the term for "good" in Greek itself. In French today it's pronounced "Jezukri".

01-01-2013, 11:49 AM	#25
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Here is a link from Mountainman's website discussing the various uses of the term ISU and CHRESTOS. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...20christos.htm If the Erythrean Sybil has any significance long before Christianity and adopted by the Empire, then it could be merely a coincidence that the name IESOUS resembles the Hebrew name Yeshu/Yeshua, and at first had no relationship to anything to do with a Joshua/Yeshu/Yehoshua. On the OTHER HAND, since the source is from a loyal orthodox spokesman, Augustine, the City of God, let's then just take this source with a huge grain of salt: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....XVIII.23.html Considering how significant such a thing would have even been for the Church, it is one of those cases where one would wonder why it is given such minimal importance (merely "quite manifest"??!): " This sibyl of Erythræ certainly wrote some things concerning Christ which are quite manifest, and we first read them in the Latin tongue......"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.