Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rycharde_Manne · 01-02-2008, 09:46 AM

It is in the time of Pope Leo I (mid 5thC) that we can find the start of what we now recognize as Roman Catholicism. To quote from memory, Leo stated that Rome was the centre of the world and that this was to be a new empire, an empire of the spirit and not the sword. Perhaps we should have called it Imperial Roman Catholicism. The Roman aristocracy at the time seemed still split between christians and pagans, but they could smell a return to the good old days and gave their backing to this expansionist policy through funding but also by placing their sons in positions of power within the church. This policy of papal supremacy did not go down well with bishoprics that in some cases were older than that of Rome.

Regarding refutations about Jesus, one body of work has not been quoted. These are the exchanges between the early church fathers and their opponents, the Greek philosophers. The two sides really disliked each other, however, a strange kind of one-upmanship was also taking place in that the two sides were making more and more divine claims for their champions. It is during this period that Pythagoras is transformed from philosopher-sage to divine being. It is therefore not surprising if many of the stories about Jesus, and Pythagoras, are retellings not only of Jewish but of Greco-Roman myths. As an example, look at the history and influence of Theology of Arithmetic by Iamblichus and also his Life of Pythagoras.

rych

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-02-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

I'm not so sure about that. These people are Christians who are critically evaluating the available evidence, and so far they've found nothing. They're far from a fringe movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Are you quite sure that even the Jesus Seminar -- an anti-Christian project in conception and execution, as we all know -- were denying the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? They are fringe to NT scholarship, not least because some of the participants were not scholars; but certainly less fringe than the 'no-Jesus' people.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The JS assumes the existence of HJ but concludes there is very little that can be known for sure about him.

They are also neither fringe nor anti-Christian. They're really quite mainstream.

Minimalist · 01-02-2008, 09:53 AM

Why assume anything about the Romans when it seems pretty clear that the Xtian Book Burning Club made a conscious effort to eradicate any derogatory positions about their supposed godman? These quotes from Celsus, carefully preserved by the Christian writer Origen, show exactly the kind of historical challenge that you claim did not exist.

Quote:

"The men who fabricated this geneaology [of Jesus] were insistent on on the point that Jesus was descended from the first man and from the king of the Jews [David]. The poor carpenter's wife seems not to have known she had such a distinguished bunch of ancestors." (64).

"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth." (57).

"After all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind- and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers." (59).

Solitary Man · 01-02-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are you quite sure that even the Jesus Seminar -- an anti-Christian project in conception and execution, as we all know -- were denying the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? They are fringe to NT scholarship, not least because some of the participants were not scholars; but certainly less fringe than the 'no-Jesus' people.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The JS assumes the existence of HJ but concludes there is very little that can be known for sure about him.

They are also neither fringe nor anti-Christian. They're really quite mainstream.

I think Roger may have mixed the Jesus Seminar with the Jesus Project, the description of which fits it better. But Dr.Zoidberg still is wrong.

Toto · 01-02-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

[...
Sorry about that. I was being sloppy. According to Karen Armstrong Sophia of Alexandria penned the Christian doctrine ca 50 bc. I don't know of anybody who's questioned that. Jesus supposedly repeated his words. But probably not the exact same formulations. I just don't know. There's sources quoted in "The history of God (or via: amazon.co.uk)". It's not like it's a secret or anything.

Just because the Jesus Seminar have found a person who has said something doesn't mean it's the same person. They are very careful about making any definite statements. I've got a very open mind about this. My own faith doesn't really hinge on the level of reality of Jesus and I doubt any religious people really do. Who cares if Jesus is a symbol or a real person. The message is the same.

Welcome to the fray, Dr. Zoidberg. I have searched The History of God on Amazon and I don't find a reference to any Sophia of Alexandria. The closest reference says (copied from here):

Quote:

In the later Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia is "an aspect of the unknowable God" that has been adapted to human understanding. Armstrong: "She is God-as-he-has-revealed-himself-to-man, the human perception of God, mysteriously distinct from the full reality of God, which would always elude our understanding." (68)

Philo and Christians who followed him turned Sophia into a male figure.

It is interesting the way these ideas mutate when then enter popular culture.

zonmoy · 01-02-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that would have worked. The central factual claims behind Mormonism have been shown to be false, but Mormonism is thriving. New religions are not based on rational evaluation of the evidence, but on some other need that is fulfilled.

Whether it would have worked or not is a different question. Here the question is why didn't they try it?

I think they did try it when they crucified Jesus of Nazareth (not to be confused with the post-resurrection Christ). I'm guessing that the movement was so small that they thought that killing the leader would end the whole thing — and indeed all the disciples abandoned the movement (denied Jesus/fled the city). By the time the authorities realized that the movement had not died off — it originally was not distinguishable from Judaism — it was too late to try anything other than persecution.

assuming they didnt try it. do you really think that the christians would have kept anything around that showed evidence that their belief system was false. or at minimum they would have distorted the evidence so that it would be easily debunked.

Toto · 01-02-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zonmoy

...
assuming they didnt try it. do you really think that the christians would have kept anything around that showed evidence that their belief system was false. or at minimum they would have distorted the evidence so that it would be easily debunked.

This is an interesting question. There were clearly some things Christians tried to suppress, but we know a lot about their enemies because they spent time refuting them, although we still can't be sure that we have a good summary of the opposition.

But the opposition to Christianity was based on philosophical objections, not naturalistic in any case.

DrZoidberg · 01-02-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Sorry about that. I was being sloppy. According to Karen Armstrong Sophia of Alexandria penned the Christian doctrine ca 50 bc.

Could you tell me exactly where Armstrong says what you attribute to her?

I got the spelling wrong. Sorry again. It's "Philo of Alexandria" It's in chapter 2 - One god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

His? Sophia is a woman's name.

he he. Maybe he's the worlds first tranny? You're probably right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Just because the Jesus Seminar have found a person who has said something doesn't mean it's the same person. They are very careful about making any definite statements. I've got a very open mind about this. My own faith doesn't really hinge on the level of reality of Jesus and I doubt any religious people really do. Who cares if Jesus is a symbol or a real person. The message is the same.

This is not an answer to the question I raised -- which was whether or not you had actually read the "final reports" of the JS or any of the discussion of the Gospel material that forms the basis of the conclusions reached in these works that appeared in the JS journal Forum.

So I'll ask it again in the hope that you won't again avoid answering it as you did above:
Have you or have you not read the "final reports" of the JS -- i.e., The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus and The Acts of Jesus : The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus or any of the discussion of the Gospel material that forms the basis of the conclusions reached in these works that appeared in the JS journal Forum?

Sorry. It wasn't my attempt to dodge it. No, I heard an interview with some body on it on "Point of Enquiry". I posted the wiki link with the faith that the guy in the interview wasn't lying.

This is just me from memory. He said that what they did was to start with the assumption that Jesus doesn't exist and then work from there. The object wasn't to disprove Jesuses existence but rather that if they found evidence then it would have value. If they would attack it from the other direction which is what most Christian scholars have done so far then all their gathered evidence would be very hard to use. But that said, it's pretty clear that the members of the Jesus seminar are all devout Christians and very much want god to be real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And while I'm asking questions let me ask one about another claim of yours, namely, "The Jesus character is a typical example of a Pharisee at that time."

Would you do me the kindness of letting me know the nature and extent of your grounding in both the primary source material stemming from the Pharisees, as well as the scholarly discussions about them, that allows you not only to present yourself, as you do, as an authority on 1st century Pharisaic practice and belief, but to make -- and to expect us to take as true -- the global and apodictic claim that you do about what typified a first century Pharisee? Why should we take your claim seriously?

Jeffrey

It's in the same chapter as Philo of Alexandria. Before him Jews were Polytheistic. They became monotheistic at the same time as Christianity was formulated. Modern Judaism, (which all Jews today believe in) is about as old as Christianity.

The Pharisees was one of the sects pushing for monotheism. They were pretty old and obscure and didn't get into any position of power until the fall of Masada in 70 AD when the reformed Judaism into monotheism. Anyway, Jesus's message was very similar to them, as Armstrong points out.

The crux of it is that we don't really have very dependable sources. Since so many people wanted Jesus to be real at the time of compiling the various Christian Bibles it's very easy to see how the truth got bent, so I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination that some of the details in the Bible aren't 100%

Amaleq13 · 01-02-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well, I'm still trying to figure out why a non-Jewish people would have adopted a Jewish god and a messiah that excluded them.

What do you know about the "God fearers"? These were gentiles who, apparently, liked the moral structure and attending synagogue but weren't willing to become complete converts (eg circumcision). These folk were the perfect audience for Paul's gospel and the core of his membership if not the entirety.

IOW, what you describe is not a "problem" specific to Christianity. These folks existed prior to that set of beliefs.

White Crow · 01-02-2008, 11:05 AM

My observation is that xanity wasn't that important as a religion until Constantine. He is the one who routed out all opposing views and did it with great efficiency. It is little known that one of the first things he did was tear down the Asclepius temples. It is also little known that the "model" they used for the Jesus myth was heavily drawn on Asclepius as well. Asclepius was the only Greek god taken on by the Romans and he was often referred to as The Rock - and remember Peter said he would build the church with Jesus as the rock! Plus, the whole raising the dead and healing the blind man stories came out of the Ascelpius stories. They changed their mind about making Jesus a healing god who could raise the dead so that is why the examples stopped and were not extrapolated into bigger stories. They would have had "output failure" - so better to move the rewards off into the afterlife where nothing could be proven or dis proven.
xanity is more a modern phenomenon now - heavily marketed to the masses who, although they can read and could think and challenge some of the crap, don't. We have traditional thinkers who are immitating their ancestors out of some distorted perspective that loyality (or as Pogo would have said - we all say so, so it must be so!) to an idea will make it true. It is rather sadly pathetic that in the 21st century with media, mass communication and more education, we still have people who perpetuate childish stories. I find it even more pathetic that they take comfort in doing so! Time for mankind to grow up.

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

01-02-2008, 09:46 AM	#41
Rycharde_Manne Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: UK and Thailand Posts: 10	It is in the time of Pope Leo I (mid 5thC) that we can find the start of what we now recognize as Roman Catholicism. To quote from memory, Leo stated that Rome was the centre of the world and that this was to be a new empire, an empire of the spirit and not the sword. Perhaps we should have called it Imperial Roman Catholicism. The Roman aristocracy at the time seemed still split between christians and pagans, but they could smell a return to the good old days and gave their backing to this expansionist policy through funding but also by placing their sons in positions of power within the church. This policy of papal supremacy did not go down well with bishoprics that in some cases were older than that of Rome. Regarding refutations about Jesus, one body of work has not been quoted. These are the exchanges between the early church fathers and their opponents, the Greek philosophers. The two sides really disliked each other, however, a strange kind of one-upmanship was also taking place in that the two sides were making more and more divine claims for their champions. It is during this period that Pythagoras is transformed from philosopher-sage to divine being. It is therefore not surprising if many of the stories about Jesus, and Pythagoras, are retellings not only of Jewish but of Greco-Roman myths. As an example, look at the history and influence of Theology of Arithmetic by Iamblichus and also his Life of Pythagoras. rych

01-02-2008, 11:05 AM	#50
White Crow New Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Southwestern edge of Virginia, USA Posts: 1	My observation is that xanity wasn't that important as a religion until Constantine. He is the one who routed out all opposing views and did it with great efficiency. It is little known that one of the first things he did was tear down the Asclepius temples. It is also little known that the "model" they used for the Jesus myth was heavily drawn on Asclepius as well. Asclepius was the only Greek god taken on by the Romans and he was often referred to as The Rock - and remember Peter said he would build the church with Jesus as the rock! Plus, the whole raising the dead and healing the blind man stories came out of the Ascelpius stories. They changed their mind about making Jesus a healing god who could raise the dead so that is why the examples stopped and were not extrapolated into bigger stories. They would have had "output failure" - so better to move the rewards off into the afterlife where nothing could be proven or dis proven. xanity is more a modern phenomenon now - heavily marketed to the masses who, although they can read and could think and challenge some of the crap, don't. We have traditional thinkers who are immitating their ancestors out of some distorted perspective that loyality (or as Pogo would have said - we all say so, so it must be so!) to an idea will make it true. It is rather sadly pathetic that in the 21st century with media, mass communication and more education, we still have people who perpetuate childish stories. I find it even more pathetic that they take comfort in doing so! Time for mankind to grow up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.