Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-17-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Imo, in the first or second century BC the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, in a volume that became known as the LXX.

This act made these writings available to a wide audience throughout the Roman Empire.

The source document for the opinion that the LXX was translated in the epoch BCE is derived from the Letter of Aristeas, although it is possible that this letter is a much later forgery which, oddly enough, first appears (in part only) in the writings of Jospehus at the end of the 1st century CE.

J-D · 02-21-2010, 04:42 PM

On my reckoning, I count four answers offered on this thread so far to the original question 'How did Christianity begin?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Jesus was a real live itinerant preacher with a group of enthusiastic follows. He came to a nasty but not atypical end in Roman controlled Palestine and then someone. perhaps Saul of Tarsus, hallucinated his continued life after the grave. From there the story grew, was embellished and spread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +or-1

Constantine and the Council of Nicea invented it to consolidate the Roman Empire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Paul was a missionary. His intent and purpose was to persuade the Gentiles that his Hebrew god was the only god of importance to be worshiped. But Paul had to conceive of a plan that would not affect the Jewish belief in observance of law and covenant of circumcision. So what Paul did was to inform the Gentiles that none of Jewish tradition applied to them while it remained applicable to the Jews. This much is truth as Gentiles were never given any laws of Moses at Sinai or brought under the covenant of circumcision by force. Gentiles were totally free of Jewish tradition[religion] and Paul wanted them to remain so. But why? Because Paul did not want Gentiles to think they had property rights in receiving inheritance rights of land with the Jews. Paul's gospel then set about telling of a spiritual inheritance and a god-man who died to set men free. Although he didn't declare that "freedom" meant freedom from Judaism and the curse of the law in it's death cult. Paul didn't want the Gentiles to be totally free and encouraged the Gentiles as if it were their responsibility to take care of the Jews at Jerusalem, because he said the Gentiles having received the spiritual things should be thankful in giving material things to honor the first chosen - the Jews. Paul was effectively building a fence, a protective barrier around the Jews at Jerusalem. While the Jews held to a doctrine of hate, Paul taught the Gentiles his gospel of love thy neighbor - the Jew. A strategical strategy of difficulty and time consuming effort. The Christians were to expect persecutions, tribulations and death but were to remain strong in knowing that they were now included as a branch on the tree of life - Israel and could even claim the Hebrew god as their own through the go-man Jesus.

Paul stayed in the city of Antioch for a whole year preaching his gospel to Gentiles of no law no circumcision. There in Antioch, the Gentiles of Paul's gospel were first established as Christians in name. Other disciples who were at the beginning of preaching to the Gentiles decided to split-off from Paul's gospel to go their own way in their own gospels. These who were also Christ followers and who left Paul to teach another gospel[their own version], Paul said he cursed, anathemed.

So with this we see that there were many Christs and many Lords of Christianity. Today we see the same in the many Christs and Lords in the many denominations of Christianity. And all are still separate from Judaism and inheritance rights of land in Israel.

Christian inheritance was a spiritual theme, an imagined place. Forgiveness of bad behavior was a simple matter of asking and receiving. The Gentiles were excited about this new god-man who remained Jewish, and began devoting themselves to a forced love for the Jews. For their spiritual inheritance depended on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Paul basically invented the ideas in visions brought on possibly by seizures, drugs, or intense meditation, and tied them into the Jewish scriptures.

Personally I think four's not a bad tally although there's nothing wrong in aiming for more.

ApostateAbe · 02-21-2010, 05:11 PM

My model is not so different from Juststeve. Jesus was a travelling Jewish orator who led a cult and privately taught the members that the world order would very soon come to a calamitous end. His oration were religious doctrines that people wanted to believe--encouragement of the poor and a relaxation of religious law. Myths were spread that he was a miracle-worker, which he encouraged. He made too much noise in Jerusalem, he was turned in by Judas, and he was crucified by the Roman procurator. The follower Peter was Jesus' successor, he took advantage of the myth that Jesus resurrected, and the cult spread. Paul became a rival, and he opened up membership in the cult to non-Jews, who much more eagerly believed it. The Christian canon and its sources were written in Greek, and the cult became a religion.

J-D · 02-21-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Furthermore the available evidence suggests strongly

The available evidence suggests strongly that you are a poor judge of what evidence suggests.

mountainman · 02-21-2010, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by +or-1

Constantine and the Council of Nicea invented it to consolidate the Roman Empire. Before that you had various competing cults which may or may not have referred to themselves as "christian" but were certainly not anything resembling a viable religion. The whole crucifixion/resurrection thing is based on a passion play by a Roman playwright, Seneca. That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Furthermore the available evidence suggests strongly that Arius of Alexandria, the central anti-Christian voice against Constantine and his new and strange Christian state, utterly satirized the whole crucifixion/resurrection passion thing. This is the satire of Arius, according to the orthodox and utterly shocked Athanasius ....

‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.

The available evidence suggests strongly that you are a poor judge of what evidence suggests.

The evidence in this instance is the literature of Athanasius - [Athanasius' Four Discourses ... Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius]. This same Athanasius in the same text clearly and effectively tells us that Arius was a satirist since three times Athanasius compares the writing of Arius to that of Sotades - a famous Greek political satirist.

(i) But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understanding. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Manichus; and for Moses and the other saints they have made the discovery of one Sotades.

(ii) Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but Sotades for his rival.

(iii) And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language, but is on all sides recognized as godless Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures [Ibid]

Arius of Alexandria is painted by Athanasius as an anti-Christian satirist.

Another extract from Eusebius on Arius confirms this

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

This evidence suggests the Greeks were getting stuck into Constantine’s New Testament Canon and Constantine’s Jesus by popular ridicule via satire. It suggests that Constantine (and thus Eusebius) thought this was a most shameful thing to do. As a result Greek entertainment of this kind and the Greek texts associated with the performances were strictly forbidden.

aa5874 · 02-22-2010, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

.... At first it wasn’t necessarily a religion – but over time it obviously snowballed into one.

When I read the Synoptics I get the impression that the Jesus story was not to start a new religion but were written as a warning that the world was coming to an end and that Jesus the Saviour was coming back to start some new kingdom of heaven and to judge the world.

The Synoptics is just about "repent for the kingdom of heaven is a hand"

Mt 3:1-2 -

Quote:

In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mt 4:17 -

Quote:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:14-15

Quote:

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The Synoptics combined would mention the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of god about 79 times in contrast to all the Pauline letters to the Churches only a meager 11 times.

The authors of the Synoptics are very interested in spreading the news about the kingdom of heaven, it would appear that it is a most urgent message and simple. REPENT the kigdom of heaven is at hand.

But, the Pauline writers are not so concerned about the coming of the kingdom of heaven, they hardly ever mention it.

Now, if the world was coming to an end within the generation of Jesus, then there was really no need to start any churches with bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

Jesus told the Sanhedrin that they will see him coming in the clouds. In the Synoptics, Jesus will be coming back to earth pretty soon.

So, all that is needed is for people to just tell others repent and believed Jesus is the Christ for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

That is all. Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

No need for any Pauline complicated doctrine when the world will be done very soon.

But, Jesus never came back. There was no kingdon of heaven at hand, and the author of John abandoned the "repent for the kingdom of heaven at hand" refrain. The author of John only mentioned the kingdom of heaven 2 times.

The author of John will produce a new version of Jesus and his FATHER. For the first time, the God of the Jews becomes a loving God.
John 3.16

Quote:

For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him will be saved.

So, initially, it would appear the coming of the kingdom of heaven was the most significant message, and that later after those who repented did not see Jesus return, then the story changed and that is when the Gospel changed to salvation first through crucifixion and then through the resurrection.

The Synoptic Jesus was totally unaware of "salvation" through the crucifixion and resurrection. He only told his disciples he would be killed and raised on the third day.

The author of John almost entirely removed all the passages of the immediate coming of the kingdom of heaven as found in the Synoptics. When Jesus was before the Sanhedrin, the author of John is careful not to write any thing Jesus coming on the clouds. And John's Jesus is careful not to tell the disciples and multitude that he will be back in this generation.

John's Jesus is not in a hurry to come back to earth unlike the Synoptic Jesus. And there is another Jesus who is not in a hurry to come back to earth, it is the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus does not make the mistake and say that he will be coming on the clouds and people in his generation will see him when he returned.

The Gospel according to John and the Pauline writings are all after the Synoptics, these writers already were aware of the "failed prophecy" in the Synoptics and made sure that their Jesus did NOT say he was coming back in this generation.

So, the Jesus story appears to have been written initially to warn of an impending apocalypse following the Fall of the Temple, when the apocalypse did not materialise, the Jesus story was changed as can be clearly seen in gJohn and the Pauline writings where the immediate apocalypse theme "in this generation" was completely abandoned.

Dogfish · 02-22-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

For what it worth, Christian-ity is the end of religion and should never be a religion. The -ity designates a condition of being and not a religion.

Christianty as a religion is for a bunch of wannebe's who really do not know where they are going except that they have to die before good times begin.

Ever heard anyone say 'duh?'

Yes, but usually the sound I hear after reading your posts is "HUH?", and it's coming from my mouth.

J-D · 02-23-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The available evidence suggests strongly that you are a poor judge of what evidence suggests.

The evidence in this instance is the literature of Athanasius

Given the evident gross hostility of Athanasius to Arius and Arianism, he is not a reliable source of objective factual information about the character, beliefs, or intentions of Arius.

mountainman · 02-24-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The evidence in this instance is the literature of Athanasius

Given the evident gross hostility of Athanasius to Arius and Arianism, he is not a reliable source of objective factual information about the character, beliefs, or intentions of Arius.

Given that literature of Athanasius is considered by many to be a reliable source of objective factual information about the process by which the New Testament Canon underwent its process of closure - the evidence cited by a hostile witness is still evidence.

Athanasius is shocked and horrified by the writings of Arius. He cant find the words to express how utterly embarrased he is by the writings of Arius. Three times Athanasius compares Arius to the Greek political satirist Sotades. Not once or twice, but thrice compared is Arius to a known popular satirist.

You may have missed the second indepent textual reference I supplied above given by Eusebius himself. Eusebius states:

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

It would appear reasonable to suspect that the Alexandrian Greeks were taking the Mickey out of Jesus, in the same fashion as did Monty Python, the British comedian Billy Connolly (in the 20th/21st centuries), and the Roman Emperor Julian (in the 4th century).

Political satire against Constantine's Jesus. If a raging warlord stormed into your suburbs and demanded conversion to a new and strange religion at the point of his sword, would you not expect some resistance from the locals? At the time in question, when Christianity was first imposed by Constantine in the East, the locals were the academic Alexandrian greeks c.324 CE. They appear to have gathered themselves around the resistance offered in the person (and/or the literature and/or BOOKS) of Arius of Alexandria.

This resistance was of course utterly suppressed by Constantine. The Christian Ecclesiatical "Historians and Heresiologists" followed the Boss' Damnatio Memoriae of the memory and BOOKS of that "PORPHYRIAN" Arius. It was all over red rover for the Greek civilisation.

Doug Shaver · 02-25-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

literature of Athanasius is considered by many to be a reliable source of objective factual information

That is a fact. It is also a fact that literature of the canonical New Testament is considered by many to be a reliable source of objective factual information.

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

02-21-2010, 05:11 PM	#43
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	My model is not so different from Juststeve. Jesus was a travelling Jewish orator who led a cult and privately taught the members that the world order would very soon come to a calamitous end. His oration were religious doctrines that people wanted to believe--encouragement of the poor and a relaxation of religious law. Myths were spread that he was a miracle-worker, which he encouraged. He made too much noise in Jerusalem, he was turned in by Judas, and he was crucified by the Roman procurator. The follower Peter was Jesus' successor, he took advantage of the myth that Jesus resurrected, and the cult spread. Paul became a rival, and he opened up membership in the cult to non-Jews, who much more eagerly believed it. The Christian canon and its sources were written in Greek, and the cult became a religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.