Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 10-31-2012, 08:21 AM

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines. It is purely anti-Jewish Priest. It is not anti-nominalist, as it sometimes calls for stricter enforcement of individual laws and sometimes calls for more lax interpretation of individual laws.
What counts is not the law, but the interpretation of the Jewish Priests.
However they interpret the law, the Christians oppose it.

We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy.

It is interesting that the interpolation in Josephus discussing John the Baptist denies that he did a spiritual baptism for forgiveness of sins. We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water. It was a standard cleaning ritual, just as the Jews did for their pots and pans. One should assume that Priests routinely went to bathing areas to bless the bathers cleaning themselves. It was also probably part of a ritual that non-Jews went through to become Jews. The baptism of John would have been this type of baptism. It was done for health and initiation purposes.

Someone performing this ritual who was not a priest would have been committing a sin in the eyes of the Jewish Priests. Only trained and certified people would be allowed to perform it. By saying that the ritual itself removed all sins, the early Christians were basically saying that the priests did not count. It was the ritual and only the ritual that mattered. We can see this as not a positive doctrine, but simply a rhetorical response to the idea that non-priests (the early Christians) started blessing swimmers and initiating non-Jews into Judaism on their own without priestly authority.

Because Christian begins without any positive doctrines, it must invent a founder who himself is just anti-priest. Believing in the anti-priest and that the Jews/Romans killed the anti-priest becomes the founding doctrine of the new religion. What members should believe about this founder is endlessly debated by the gospel writers.

We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement. Only incidentally and much later, after their defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars did the movement evolve unique religious doctrines as a kind of ideosyncratic synthesis of the religious views of its members.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce · 10-31-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines.

So kindness, honesty, patience, peacefulness, generosity, loyalty and willingness to forgive are not positive.

Not even after Sandy.

outhouse · 10-31-2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy.

I already do look at it that way.

its spelled out clear as day.

a heavily zealot influenced movement, gained attraction to a few because the original jesus movement was getting people not to pray or worship in synagogues but alone or at home.

Avery normal hard working oppressed jew was sick of the roman infection in the governement that used roman muscle to exploit them.

Quote:

We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water

NO

that was only a minority of jews involved in a obscure sect.

Most already had ritual dippings in mikvas.

Quote:

We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement

Yes and no

they were still following judaism, just staying away from the roman infection. This is all connected to zealots

jdboy · 10-31-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines. It is purely anti-Jewish Priest. It is not anti-nominalist, as it sometimes calls for stricter enforcement of individual laws and sometimes calls for more lax interpretation of individual laws.
What counts is not the law, but the interpretation of the Jewish Priests.
However they interpret the law, the Christians oppose it.

We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy.

It is interesting that the interpolation in Josephus discussing John the Baptist denies that he did a spiritual baptism for forgiveness of sins. We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water. It was a standard cleaning ritual, just as the Jews did for their pots and pans. One should assume that Priests routinely went to bathing areas to bless the bathers cleaning themselves. It was also probably part of a ritual that non-Jews went through to become Jews. The baptism of John would have been this type of baptism. It was done for health and initiation purposes.

Someone performing this ritual who was not a priest would have been committing a sin in the eyes of the Jewish Priests. Only trained and certified people would be allowed to perform it. By saying that the ritual itself removed all sins, the early Christians were basically saying that the priests did not count. It was the ritual and only the ritual that mattered. We can see this as not a positive doctrine, but simply a rhetorical response to the idea that non-priests (the early Christians) started blessing swimmers and initiating non-Jews into Judaism on their own without priestly authority.

Because Christian begins without any positive doctrines, it must invent a founder who himself is just anti-priest. Believing in the anti-priest and that the Jews/Romans killed the anti-priest becomes the founding doctrine of the new religion. What members should believe about this founder is endlessly debated by the gospel writers.

We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement. Only incidentally and much later, after their defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars did the movement evolve unique religious doctrines as a kind of ideosyncratic synthesis of the religious views of its members.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Do we have any quotes from a member of this fourth philosophy?

It seems to me an invention of Josephus and Rome, a label to put on the Jews that were rebelling against Rome.

I think the terms "zealot" and "christian" were representing the same group of people. They were zealous for the law of Moses.
Jesus of Nazareth, another Roman creation is anti zealot anti christ.

outhouse · 10-31-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines. It is purely anti-Jewish Priest. It is not anti-nominalist, as it sometimes calls for stricter enforcement of individual laws and sometimes calls for more lax interpretation of individual laws.
What counts is not the law, but the interpretation of the Jewish Priests.
However they interpret the law, the Christians oppose it.

We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy.

It is interesting that the interpolation in Josephus discussing John the Baptist denies that he did a spiritual baptism for forgiveness of sins. We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water. It was a standard cleaning ritual, just as the Jews did for their pots and pans. One should assume that Priests routinely went to bathing areas to bless the bathers cleaning themselves. It was also probably part of a ritual that non-Jews went through to become Jews. The baptism of John would have been this type of baptism. It was done for health and initiation purposes.

Someone performing this ritual who was not a priest would have been committing a sin in the eyes of the Jewish Priests. Only trained and certified people would be allowed to perform it. By saying that the ritual itself removed all sins, the early Christians were basically saying that the priests did not count. It was the ritual and only the ritual that mattered. We can see this as not a positive doctrine, but simply a rhetorical response to the idea that non-priests (the early Christians) started blessing swimmers and initiating non-Jews into Judaism on their own without priestly authority.

Because Christian begins without any positive doctrines, it must invent a founder who himself is just anti-priest. Believing in the anti-priest and that the Jews/Romans killed the anti-priest becomes the founding doctrine of the new religion. What members should believe about this founder is endlessly debated by the gospel writers.

We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement. Only incidentally and much later, after their defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars did the movement evolve unique religious doctrines as a kind of ideosyncratic synthesis of the religious views of its members.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Do we have any quotes from a member of this fourth philosophy?

It seems to me an invention of Josephus and Rome, a label to put on the Jews that were rebelling against Rome.

I think the terms "zealot" and "christian" were representing the same group of people. They were zealous for the law of Moses.
Jesus of Nazareth, another Roman creation is anti zealot anti christ.

zealous and zealot are two different terms, all thouigh what your stating has been tried to be applied to paul

its factual there were 4 main groups of judaism first century, plus subsects

Saducees
Pharisees
Essenes
Zealots

Iskander · 10-31-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines. It is purely anti-Jewish Priest. It is not anti-nominalist, as it sometimes calls for stricter enforcement of individual laws and sometimes calls for more lax interpretation of individual laws.
What counts is not the law, but the interpretation of the Jewish Priests.
However they interpret the law, the Christians oppose it.

We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy.

It is interesting that the interpolation in Josephus discussing John the Baptist denies that he did a spiritual baptism for forgiveness of sins. We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water. It was a standard cleaning ritual, just as the Jews did for their pots and pans. One should assume that Priests routinely went to bathing areas to bless the bathers cleaning themselves. It was also probably part of a ritual that non-Jews went through to become Jews. The baptism of John would have been this type of baptism. It was done for health and initiation purposes.

Someone performing this ritual who was not a priest would have been committing a sin in the eyes of the Jewish Priests. Only trained and certified people would be allowed to perform it. By saying that the ritual itself removed all sins, the early Christians were basically saying that the priests did not count. It was the ritual and only the ritual that mattered. We can see this as not a positive doctrine, but simply a rhetorical response to the idea that non-priests (the early Christians) started blessing swimmers and initiating non-Jews into Judaism on their own without priestly authority.

Because Christian begins without any positive doctrines, it must invent a founder who himself is just anti-priest. Believing in the anti-priest and that the Jews/Romans killed the anti-priest becomes the founding doctrine of the new religion. What members should believe about this founder is endlessly debated by the gospel writers.

We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement. Only incidentally and much later, after their defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars did the movement evolve unique religious doctrines as a kind of ideosyncratic synthesis of the religious views of its members.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The Christian church replaced the Judaic religious bodies and became hostile to their ritual practices.But who was the man Jesus?

There are two basic approaches to your question.

One approach, is the educated well-articulated negation of the existence of Jesus as presented by the horse shit and logical fallacy experts or ‘show me the birth certificate’ as used by professors.

Another approach allows considering what kind of man Jesus might have been as perceived trough the fog made by the smoke makers.

Which of those two would you like to be considered?

PhilosopherJay · 10-31-2012, 11:14 AM

Hi sotto voce,

Telling people to have all the virtues of Augustus Caesar or Marcus Aurelius is just making political hay. It is not teaching people how to deal with the real problems of their time.

Where are the serious debates over real theological and political issues?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines.

So kindness, honesty, patience, peacefulness, generosity, loyalty and willingness to forgive are not positive.

Not even after Sandy.

sotto voce · 10-31-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

Telling people to have all the virtues of Augustus Caesar or Marcus Aurelius is just making political hay.

Probably. But the reason that Christianity grew was that kindness, honesty, patience, peacefulness, generosity, loyalty and willingness to forgive were found to be of practical, everyday use for ordinary people. They are the reasons that people become Christians today. The cause of these useful characteristics was seen to be gratitude for atonement. This made priests redundant, but it was not an anti-sacerdotal position as such, similar to the anti-clericalism of Europe at the Enlightenment. Neither was it anti-Jew, because 'a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith' (Acts 6:7). Those priests realised that their role was temporary, a shadow of the reality. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph had all been justified without sacerdotalism, and sensible and honest Jews admitted as much. The patriarchs had never lived under law; and neither were the true sons of Abraham, who lived 'in Christ', to do so. Christianity was the consummation of the promise to those patriarchs; so your OP hardly contains the merest glimmer of truth.

Quote:

Where are the serious debates over real theological and political issues?

There are those who want to make the temporary priesthood of Moses into a substitute for Christianity, because it is less personally demanding; and also because a priesthood can be invented by the most evil people on earth— as indeed occurred. It's still around, of course, despite criminalities in every age since. Ironically, that sacerdotalist tendency seems to be a profound obsession of many Americans, whose heritage is of course largely one of escape from sacerdotalist regimes. They are not the sort of people who have either the taste or the competence for theological debate. So serious debates over real theological and political issues are hard to find; but not because Christianity is unwilling to debate.

Clivedurdle · 10-31-2012, 01:37 PM

But this was already by then a 400 year old plus argument. The Battle of Marathon was between a group whose philosophy was priesthood of all believers, with the direct relationship this causes to democratic ways, the other lot had a priest king and believed in the Most High and strongly supported tyrrany. A variation of this had developed in Jerusalem and also had civil wars and interminable theological arguments about these points, that have somehow survived to the present day!

Clivedurdle · 10-31-2012, 01:47 PM

It is amazing that xians are again claiming centuries old stuff!

Does no one know what the Greeks said centuries before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

Quote:

Platonism

Plato was one of the earliest, most influential philosophers — mostly for idealism - a belief in the existence of universals. In the Theory of Forms, universals do not physically exist, like objects, but as heavenly forms. In The Republic, the Socrates character's dialogue describes the Form of the Good.

In Platonism, the meaning of life is in attaining the highest form of knowledge, which is the Idea (Form) of the Good, from which all good and just things derive utility and value. Human beings are duty-bound to pursue the good.

[edit]Aristotelianism

Aristotle, an apprentice of Plato, was another early and influential philosopher, who argued that ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge (such as metaphysics and epistemology), but is general knowledge. Because it is not a theoretical discipline, a person had to study and practice in order to become "good"; thus if the person were to become virtuous, he could not simply study what virtue is, he had to be virtuous, via virtuous activities. To do this, Aristotle established what is virtuous:

Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action, is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavor [...]
Everything is done with a goal, and that goal is "good".
—Nicomachean Ethics 1.1

Yet, if action A is done towards achieving goal B, then goal B also would have a goal, goal C, and goal C also would have a goal, and so would continue this pattern, until something stopped its infinite regression. Aristotle's solution is the Highest Good, which is desirable for its own sake, it is its own goal. The Highest Good is not desirable for the sake of achieving some other good, and all other "goods" desirable for its sake. This involves achieving eudaemonia, usually translated as "happiness", "well-being", "flourishing", and "excellence".

What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness.
—Nicomachean Ethics 1.4

[edit]Cynicism

In the Hellenistic period, the Cynic philosophers said that the purpose of life is living a life of Virtue that agrees with Nature. Happiness depends upon being self-sufficient and master of one's mental attitude; suffering is consequence of false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a concomitant vicious character.

The Cynical life rejects conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, by being free of the possessions acquired in pursuing the conventional.[15][16] As reasoning creatures, people could achieve happiness via rigorous training, by living in a way natural to human beings. The world equally belongs to everyone, so suffering is caused by false judgments of what is valuable and what is worthless per the customs and conventions of society.

[edit]Cyrenaicism

Cyrenaicism, founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, was an early Socratic school that emphasized only one side of Socrates's teachings—that happiness is one of the ends of moral action and that pleasure is the supreme good; thus a hedonistic world view, wherein bodily gratification is more intense than mental pleasure. Cyrenaics prefer immediate gratification to the long-term
gain of delayed gratification; denial is unpleasant unhappiness.[17][18]

[edit]Epicureanism

To Epicurus, the greatest good is in seeking modest pleasures, to attain tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) via knowledge, friendship, and virtuous, temperate living; bodily pain (aponia) is absent through one's knowledge of the workings of the world and of the limits of one's desires.

Combined, freedom from pain and freedom from fear are happiness in its highest form. Epicurus' lauded enjoyment of simple pleasures is quasi-ascetic "abstention" from sex and the appetites:

"When we say ... that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do, by some, through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish, and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul."[19]

The Epicurean meaning of life rejects immortality and mysticism; there is a soul, but it is as mortal as the body. There is no afterlife, yet, one need not fear death, because "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."[20]

[edit]Stoicism

Stoicism teaches that living according to reason and virtue is to be in harmony with the universe's divine order, entailed by one's recognition of the universal logos (reason), an essential value of all people. The meaning of life is "freedom from suffering" through apatheia (Gr: απαθεια), that is, being objective and having "clear judgement", not indifference.

Stoicism's prime directives are virtue, reason, and natural law, abided to develop personal self-control and mental fortitude as means of overcoming destructive emotions. The Stoic does not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles, by developing clear judgement and inner calm through diligently practiced logic, reflection, and concentration.

The Stoic ethical foundation is that "good lies in the state of the soul", itself, exemplified in wisdom and self-control, thus improving one's spiritual well-being: "Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature."[20] The principle applies to one's personal relations thus: "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy".[20]

10-31-2012, 08:21 AM	#1
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Christianity Begins as Anti-Priest Movement Hi All, What is interesting about Christianity is that it begins with no positive doctrines. It is purely anti-Jewish Priest. It is not anti-nominalist, as it sometimes calls for stricter enforcement of individual laws and sometimes calls for more lax interpretation of individual laws. What counts is not the law, but the interpretation of the Jewish Priests. However they interpret the law, the Christians oppose it. We should look for the beginnings of Christianity in a revolutionary anti-priestly movement. That is exactly what we find in Josephus' Fourth Philosophy. It is interesting that the interpolation in Josephus discussing John the Baptist denies that he did a spiritual baptism for forgiveness of sins. We should assume that for Jews, baptism was a blessing before going under the water. It was a standard cleaning ritual, just as the Jews did for their pots and pans. One should assume that Priests routinely went to bathing areas to bless the bathers cleaning themselves. It was also probably part of a ritual that non-Jews went through to become Jews. The baptism of John would have been this type of baptism. It was done for health and initiation purposes. Someone performing this ritual who was not a priest would have been committing a sin in the eyes of the Jewish Priests. Only trained and certified people would be allowed to perform it. By saying that the ritual itself removed all sins, the early Christians were basically saying that the priests did not count. It was the ritual and only the ritual that mattered. We can see this as not a positive doctrine, but simply a rhetorical response to the idea that non-priests (the early Christians) started blessing swimmers and initiating non-Jews into Judaism on their own without priestly authority. Because Christian begins without any positive doctrines, it must invent a founder who himself is just anti-priest. Believing in the anti-priest and that the Jews/Romans killed the anti-priest becomes the founding doctrine of the new religion. What members should believe about this founder is endlessly debated by the gospel writers. We can say that the original Christians were not interested in questions of theology at all. They were purely an anti-Jewish priest political movement. Only incidentally and much later, after their defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars did the movement evolve unique religious doctrines as a kind of ideosyncratic synthesis of the religious views of its members. Warmly, Jay Raskin

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

10-31-2012, 01:37 PM	#9
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But this was already by then a 400 year old plus argument. The Battle of Marathon was between a group whose philosophy was priesthood of all believers, with the direct relationship this causes to democratic ways, the other lot had a priest king and believed in the Most High and strongly supported tyrrany. A variation of this had developed in Jerusalem and also had civil wars and interminable theological arguments about these points, that have somehow survived to the present day!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.