Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-28-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I mean by 'Christianity' is what the word means in general discourse and in standard works of reference, both online and offline.

What ambiguity!!! What rhetoric!!!

But, that is exactly the response I expect.

You appear not to know what YOUR "Christianity" really means.

It's not 'my' Christianity. I don't own it. I am not a Christian and never have been.

If you don't know what the word 'Christianity' means, I think there are better ways for you to find out than asking me. But if you don't want to know what the word means, that would explain why you're not answering my original question.

J-D · 06-28-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.................................................. .................................................. ....................
.................................................. ........................................

The question I asked was about the origin of Christianity...

Is this answering your question?

Do you think it is? I don't see how. It seems to me to be talking about things that happened after Christianity originated, not about how it began.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Early Christianity arrived with very distinctive roots. Grafted onto the Old Testament, it was not easily smothered, not even by the established ground cover of the pagan towns.

The Christian groups retained and passed on ideals which have continued to recur in their history, giving it familiar patterns.These roots did not die away, although proofs of "pagan continuity" have been sought in the developing types of Christian worship.

The cult of saints and worship at the graves of the dead have been seen as a pagan legacy, as have the Christian shrines of healing and smaller details of Christian practice, dancing, feasting... Emphasis on these "pagan survivals" has opened long perspectives.

In the West, it has led to the study of popular religion and medieval folklore as if they were living alternatives to Christian culture. In the East, it has encouraged the myth that Hellenism endured from pagan antiquity to Byzantium and far beyond, to become the national heritage of modern Greeks.

However, almost all of this continuity is spurious. Many of its details were set in Christian contexts which changed their meaning entirely. Other details merely belonged in contexts which nobody wished to make Christian. They were part of a "neutral technology of life" and it would be as unreal to expect them to change "as to expect modern man to Christianize the design of an automobile or to produce a Marxist wrist-watch

Pagans and Christians: In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robin Lane Fox (Paperback - 6 July 2006)—page22
ISBN-13: 978-0141022956

J-D · 06-28-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Perhaps you're beginning to understand why most of us, most of the time, simply ignore aa5874? It's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense with him.
.

I think it's fundamentally wrong to ignore aa5874 and even mountainman, which supports more or less the same things as the first.

I'm not ignoring them. There's only one poster on this thread that I make a practice of never responding to (on the grounds that all that person's posts seem to me to be complete gibberish), and it's neither aa5874 nor mountainman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

They have certainly of the potential that may be useful for everyone, if properly 'framed'. I think it's much more productive to try to convince them with evidence,

My purpose in this thread is not to convince anybody of anything. I just wanted to collect information about other people's views, which I've mostly succeeded in doing. If you want to convince people of something, that's your business, but that's not the point of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

gradually always less refutable, given the rational framework in which they are placed, rather than ignore them ...

But there is one essential thing that absolutely they should take note: ie that 'negationist' thesis (negation of the historicity of Jesus) in spite of what they may think, now plays strongly in favor of the forger clergy, especially after in Italy Luigi Cascioli (*) has lost its legal battle, giving to the clergy a huge advantage!

It may seem paradoxical, but today to the catholic clergy come back a lot more useful that in Internet (forums, blogs, etc.) you talking about Jesus as a myth, rather than as a historical Jesus, also !!...

This is a precise 'strategic' calculation. Indeed, the Catholic clergy knows very well that the theory of no-historical Jesus, dated and so anachronistic, will always be confined to a small 'niche' of thought, absolutely snubbed (because highly unlikely) by the vast majority of professional scholars and exegetes, while, on the contrary, at the catholic clergy gives very very nuisance the investigative's activities of those who believe to the historical Jesus, and so go to dig in the Vatican's 'kitchen garden', seeking buried 'skeletons'!... Be remembered that this 'nuisance' experienced by the clergy, the undersigned has experienced its impact on the own 'skin'!...

Greetings
_______________________________

Note:

(*) - became famous in many parts of the world, for having brought a lawsuit to the Catholic Church, on the charges of exploitation of popular credulity (a crime whereby in Italy you may end up in jail!), since he claimed that Jesus was not a real historical charatcter, but fictional, invented to give a face to the personage (certainly historical) called John of Gamala.

Littlejohn

.

Iskander · 06-28-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Is this answering your question?

Do you think it is? I don't see how. It seems to me to be talking about things that happened after Christianity originated, not about how it began.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Pagans and Christians: In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robin Lane Fox (Paperback - 6 July 2006)—page22
ISBN-13: 978-0141022956

Then, your question must forever remain a deep mystery, forever unanswered
Still, perhaps you already know the answer and, perhaps, you are only waiting for someone to ask you to reveal it.

Please, please would you most kindly undo this Gordian knot?

aa5874 · 06-28-2010, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Perhaps you're beginning to understand why most of us, most of the time, simply ignore aa5874? It's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense with him.
.

I think it's fundamentally wrong to ignore aa5874 and even mountainman, which supports more or less the same things as the first.

My position about the start of the Jesus story or belief in Jesus called Christ is fundamentally different to moutainman.

My position is that the Jesus story or belief in Jesus called Christ started after the writings of Josephus and before the writings of Justin Martyr. And that the Pauline writings are all after the writings of Justin Martyr.

My position on "Christians" or people called Christians, (NOT related to belief in Jesus ) is that there were people called "Christians" ( NOT related to belief in Jesus) before the Fall of the Temple as found in the writings of Tacitus and Justin Martyr.

On a discussion board I DO NOT IGNORE ANYONE.

People who claim to have me on "ignore" are reading my posts constantly.

For example, It would appear that ApostateAbe reads my posts regularly and after having read them he quite amusingly posts a message that he has me on "ignore'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleJohn

....They have certainly of the potential that may be useful for everyone, if properly 'framed'. I think it's much more productive to try to convince them with evidence, gradually always less refutable, given the rational framework in which they are placed, rather than ignore them ...

Some are terrified by my potential.

J-D · 06-28-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you think it is? I don't see how. It seems to me to be talking about things that happened after Christianity originated, not about how it began.

Then, your question must forever remain a deep mystery, forever unanswered

Well, the majority view among poll respondents so far is that there isn't enough information to answer it. I knew that some people think that, which is why I included it as an option in the poll. You didn't choose that answer, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Still, perhaps you already know the answer and, perhaps, you are only waiting for someone to ask you to reveal it.

Please, please would you most kindly undo this Gordian knot?

I started this thread to find out what other people think. I don't want to turn the thread into arguments for and against my position.

J-D · 06-28-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

I think it's fundamentally wrong to ignore aa5874 and even mountainman, which supports more or less the same things as the first.

My position about the start of the Jesus story or belief in Jesus called Christ is fundamentally different to moutainman.

My position is that the Jesus story or belief in Jesus called Christ started after the writings of Josephus and before the writings of Justin Martyr. And that the Pauline writings are all after the writings of Justin Martyr.

My position on "Christians" or people called Christians, (NOT related to belief in Jesus ) is that there were people called "Christians" ( NOT related to belief in Jesus) before the Fall of the Temple as found in the writings of Tacitus and Justin Martyr.

On a discussion board I DO NOT IGNORE ANYONE.

People who claim to have me on "ignore" are reading my posts constantly.

For example, It would appear that ApostateAbe reads my posts regularly and after having read them he quite amusingly posts a message that he has me on "ignore'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleJohn

....They have certainly of the potential that may be useful for everyone, if properly 'framed'. I think it's much more productive to try to convince them with evidence, gradually always less refutable, given the rational framework in which they are placed, rather than ignore them ...

Some are terrified by my potential.

I don't know of anybody being terrified by your potential, but in any case the fact that people are terrified of something is not enough to demonstrate that it exists.

Chili · 06-28-2010, 08:56 PM

Christianity, or that which today is called Christanity always was and actually was called whitchcraft then already: "Oh you foolish Galatians, 'who has bewitched you." (3:1 and 10); and it would not surprise me a bit if they already then thought 'storks to bring babies.' Galilee was a busy place at that time and that is exactly where hell is at, but nevertheless is where the lamb is nursed by those same wolves and that warranted the NT to be written, by a mythmaker of course, who wrote the four Gosples to show the intricate details that justifies both a comedy and tragedy after the crisis moment that we call "born again" today . . . from which it follows that "you must be born again" and so now you also know what motivates them to spread the gospel . . . while in Catholic John 20:21 it is required to show the wounds when preaching the Gospel: 'As' (in the same likeness) the Father send me, so I send you." Big difference folks between getting zapped at an Evangelistic rally to be set on fire and actually bearing the stigmata.

.

DrZoidberg · 06-29-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You're wrong. The poll has exactly the right degree of simplicity for the topic I was interested in.

It is true that it is too simple to deal with the other issues that you raise in your post, but since I wasn't trying to deal with those issues your objection is irrelevant to this thread. I wasn't asking 'what made Christianity so authoritarian?' or 'what made Christianity so hung up on correct beliefs?' or 'why is there a single dominant and unifying Bible?' or 'how did Christianity get traction?' and although you can ask those questions if you want to I don't see anything wrong with my choosing to set them aside for the purposes of this thread.

But all of that is a part of what Christianity is today. I think you're making the mistake of equating everything that has ever had the name "Christianity".

Here's my theory on how Christianity began. Due to technological developments the old social structures weren't as good at serving the needs of the people. So they needed changing. This is the pattern for every new social reform. There's always the maturation of some sort of technology at its core.

This is when Christianity entered the scene. Society was ready for something new breaking with the old, telling the people what they already were thinking. First just as a rumour of someone who did something. Just talk. It was Chinese whispers, we then saw a whole slew of various variants of Christianity, all calling themselves Christian, all equally plausible as being the source. All very different.

Trying to create some authority the Christian Bibles started appearing. But equally confusing and varied. The various sects adapted "the Bible" to their interpretation. We know this is true based on available evidence from the written sources. We also have evidence that Christianity didn't start out as being apocalyptical, but was a later (but still pre-Bible) Christianity. Making apocalyptical Christianity parallel with non-apocalyptical Christianity. Hence the confusion in the modern Bible. Apocalyptical Christianity and post-apocalyptical Christianity are different kinds of Christianity. They're like Judaism and Christianity. If you focus on the name alone you miss the evolution.

Once the various movements started swelling in numbers politics came onto the scene and changed Christianity fundamentally into something it had never been before. Keeping some of the old myths as varnish. Rejecting those that didn't fit. So you get a new type of Christianity, that is a fusion of paganism, existing Roman political structures and Christian myths. It began again.

Hey presto a Christianity that had started many times to fill different roles, all calling themselves "Christian" all existing on an evolving continuum that stretches back to the dawn of time.

Or maybe you're asking, when did people start using the term "Christianity"? But that has precious little to do with much except politics. Not particularly interesting IMHO.

mountainman · 06-29-2010, 01:29 AM

The question of the historicity of the "Christian persecutions" is not such a cut and dried issue that some people like to make it out to be. It is part of the "tradition" and its source is Eusebius. That should make people pause.

Each of the so-called persecutions of christians under certain Roman emperors has been re-examined by many people and not all of them accept this stuff as history. Start with Nero and work back. The Neronian persecution is dealt with in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus - by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay, maybe you should talk the wiki people, they have a lengthy article about Decius and Diocletian. The Manicheans are mentioned as one target among others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

He was persecuting the disciples and followers of a relatively little known Religious sect called the Manicheans, following the crucifixion of their leader, Mani, in the late 3rd century in the Persian capital city. Diocletian's Manichaean persecutions were concentrated in the eastern empire. Mani and followers of Mani (the Manichaeans) flourished under Shapur c.340 to 370 CE in the Sassanid Persian empire. Coins minted by Shapur's brother Peroz show Buddha on the reverse side. The Manichaeans appear quite Buddhist-Like and in fact had monasteries in the Roman empire, even in Rome c.312 CE. There is no evidence to suggest that the Diocletian persecution had anything to do with Christians, except the attestations of Eusebius, who should be regarded as the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity. The Christians persecuted the Manichaeans throughout the 4th and 5th centuries and all other non christian religious groups in the empire. Manichaean literature (ie: the books of Mani, and the stories of his crucifixion and the crucifixion and persecution of his followers) were burnt in front of the sturdy doors of basilicas by the Christian Bishops.

View Poll Results: How did Christianity begin?
With people listening to the teachings of Jesus, derived from his interpretation of Jewish tradition	9	18.37%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul, derived from his visions produced by meditation techniques, neurological abnormality, drug use, or some combination	7	14.29%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul deliberately fabricated to attract a following	3	6.12%
With the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated	4	8.16%
We do not have enough information to draw a conclusion	26	53.06%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

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

06-28-2010, 08:56 PM	#108
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Christianity, or that which today is called Christanity always was and actually was called whitchcraft then already: "Oh you foolish Galatians, 'who has bewitched you." (3:1 and 10); and it would not surprise me a bit if they already then thought 'storks to bring babies.' Galilee was a busy place at that time and that is exactly where hell is at, but nevertheless is where the lamb is nursed by those same wolves and that warranted the NT to be written, by a mythmaker of course, who wrote the four Gosples to show the intricate details that justifies both a comedy and tragedy after the crisis moment that we call "born again" today . . . from which it follows that "you must be born again" and so now you also know what motivates them to spread the gospel . . . while in Catholic John 20:21 it is required to show the wounds when preaching the Gospel: 'As' (in the same likeness) the Father send me, so I send you." Big difference folks between getting zapped at an Evangelistic rally to be set on fire and actually bearing the stigmata. .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.