Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-27-2010, 03:05 AM

In the spirit of scientific method discussed above, with regard to all the known and available evidence it appears to me that it is quite reasonable to arrive at a hypothetical conclusion the origins of Christianity being able to be explained solely with the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated.

The final option --- if it insists on being dogmatically assertive that we do not have enough information to draw even a hypothetical conclusion --- is too restrictive and dogmatic. Except for those to whom it appeals.

Therefore I have voted the origins of christianity can be best explained using the hypothesis of Bullneck's imperial level fabrication.

Iskander · 06-27-2010, 05:15 AM

Ancient history presents special problems for the professional historian because of the paucity of evidence and the need to extract knowledge from surviving texts which are copies written several generations later...

As mountainman said Professor Dale Martin is entitled to his one vote—#15 ff.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...lecture02.html

Professor Ehrman writes :
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pp 57-58

Quote:

ORAL TRADITIONS BEHIND
THE GOSPELS
For the moment, we will leave aside the question of who these authors were (see "Some Additional Reflections" at the end of the chapter), except to point out that all of the New Testament Gospels are anonymous: their authors did not sign their names.Our principal concern at present involves a different issue, namely, how and where these anonymous authors acquired their stories about Jesus.

That is to say, these writings ultimately were based on oral traditions, stories that had circulated among Christians from the time Jesus died to the moment the Gospel writers put pen to paper. How much of an interval, exactly, was this?

No one knows for certain when Jesus died, but scholars agree that it was sometime around 30 C.E.In addition, most historians think that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, sometime between the mid-60s to early 70s. Matthew and Luke were probably produced some ten or fifteen years later, perhaps around 80 or 85. John was written perhaps ten years after that, in 90 or 95. These are necessarily rough estimates, but almost all scholars agree within a few years.

And he also describes the spread of Christianity as the work of a small group and says:

Quote:

By the end of the first century, this tiny group of Jesus' disciples had so multiplied that there were believing communities in cities of Judea and Samaria and Galilee, probably in the region of East Jordan; in Syria, Cilicia, and Asia Minor, in Macedonia and Achaia (modern Greece); in Italy; and possibly in Spain. By this time Christian churches may have sprung up in the Southern Mediterranean, probably in Egypt and possibly in North Africa

Ehrman is entitled to his one vote.

Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians, says very much the same, but I am tired of writing. I will give a proper reference later if someone wants to look at it.

Professor Fox is an atheist (or so he keeps saying and writing) and I am also an atheist. (but not a historian)

aa5874 · 06-27-2010, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Which question?

'How did Christianity begin?', the question in the original poll. Are you having some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the question?I've already pointed out that I'm not asking about the origin of the word 'Christianity'. An answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Christianity"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of Christianity?' in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Normans"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the Normans?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "radar"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of radar?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "asteroids"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of asteroids?'...

You logic is COMPLETELY flawed. And you post does not at all make much sense. I did not make any mention of "radar", "Normans" or "asteroids".

You simply cannot apply your flawed logics to the origin of Christianity when there is EVIDENCE that the Jews BELIEVED in an expected CHRIST long BEFORE the Jesus story where a fiction character was called Christ and his followers were called Christians.

One must KNOW the origin of the word "Christian" and who used the word "Christian" in antiquity in order to make a determination of when the BELIEF called Christianity was developed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.'Christianity' does not mean 'belief in the expected Christ'.

What!!! Are you for real?

How come you don't know that Christianity is fundamentally based on BELIEF in the EXPECTED CHRIST?

Chili · 06-27-2010, 08:22 AM

The efficient cause of the word Christianity is in being a Christian and hence the -ity ending is added to it. The Efficient cause is when and where the Formal cause effectively changes the Material Cause into the Final cause which now is more than a simple belief in Christ but is where the very word believe is transformed into be-lief that so finds realization in faith. Iow, it is faith coming to rest in being . . . which should end faith or we have been given a scorpion instead of a fish.

J-D · 06-27-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

'How did Christianity begin?', the question in the original poll. Are you having some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the question?I've already pointed out that I'm not asking about the origin of the word 'Christianity'. An answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Christianity"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of Christianity?' in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Normans"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the Normans?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "radar"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of radar?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "asteroids"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of asteroids?'...

You logic is COMPLETELY flawed. And you post does not at all make much sense. I did not make any mention of "radar", "Normans" or "asteroids".

I didn't say that you did. Don't you understand what an analogy is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You simply cannot apply your flawed logics to the origin of Christianity when there is EVIDENCE that the Jews BELIEVED in an expected CHRIST long BEFORE the Jesus story where a fiction character was called Christ and his followers were called Christians.

I know they did. But believing in an expected Christ is not the same thing as being a Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

One must KNOW the origin of the word "Christian" and who used the word "Christian" in antiquity in order to make a determination of when the BELIEF called Christianity was developed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.'Christianity' does not mean 'belief in the expected Christ'.

What!!! Are you for real?

How come you don't know that Christianity is fundamentally based on BELIEF in the EXPECTED CHRIST?

Today a devout Orthodox Jew says his daily prayers. In his prayerbook he finds and recites the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish faith as formulated by the Rambam (Maimonides). The twelfth principle says 'I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.' He reads it and believes it.

Ask him whether he's a Christian. Ask anybody whether he's a Christian.

And please stop shouting at me.

aa5874 · 06-27-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You logic is COMPLETELY flawed. And you post does not at all make much sense. I did not make any mention of "radar", "Normans" or "asteroids".

I didn't say that you did. Don't you understand what an analogy is?

Your analogies are irrelevant to the question of the origin of Christianity.

The word "Christian" is derived from the word the Greek word "anointed with oil" not from "radar", "asteroids' or 'Normans'.

People who believed in the expected Christ, "the anointed one" were called Christians.

Jews were called "anointed" (Christ) in Hebrew Scripture, it can be deduced that Jews were first called Christians or Messianic before the Jesus believers who were later called Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I know they did. But believing in an expected Christ is not the same thing as being a Christian.

Do you not even read the Jesus story? People who believed Jesus was the EXPECTED Christ were called Christians. This is so basic.

People who believe they were anointed with the oil of God were also called Christians.

The word "Christ" MUST precede Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Today a devout Orthodox Jew says his daily prayers. In his prayerbook he finds and recites the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish faith as formulated by the Rambam (Maimonides). The twelfth principle says 'I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.' He reads it and believes it.

Ask him whether he's a Christian. Ask anybody whether he's a Christian.

Do you not understand that some religions may have some similarities to Christianity? Do you not understand that some Christian religions are based on a Messianic character and that they believe the EXPECTED Messiah prophesied in Hebrew Scripture have ALREADY come and is schedule to RETURN a SECOND TIME.

Some Christians STILL EXPECT Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

And please stop shouting at me.

You think I am shouting because I expose your bad analogies and awful logics but it is your own words that are shouting back at you. And they might just get louder.

Littlejohn · 06-27-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I've already pointed out that I'm not asking about the origin of the word 'Christianity'. An answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Christianity"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of Christianity?' in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "Normans"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the Normans?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "radar"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of radar?' and in just the same way that an answer to the question 'what is the origin of the word "asteroids"?' is not an answer to the question 'what is the origin of asteroids?'.
.

«.... I'm not asking about the origin of the word 'Christianity'..»

When I spoke of 'catholic-christianity', I did not mean to make distinction according to the modern meaning of various terms to indicate the various diversification from original Christianity ...

No scholar will NEVER understand the true origins of Christianity, if before you doesn't clarify what was actually the 'judeo-christianity', a cult that had NOTHING to do with catholic-christianity, because it was a cult closely 'filojudaic', as his 'message' of peace was only addressed to the world of Palestinian messianist rebellion: namely, the one of the 'zealots'! ..

The founders of the 'Catholic-Christianity' (which you prefer simply call 'Christianity', but committing a mistake in terms) they took as a model the 'Judeo-Christianity', in order to build their 'creatures' ... This was the fundamental origin of the Christianity.....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

J-D · 06-27-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I didn't say that you did. Don't you understand what an analogy is?

Your analogies are irrelevant to the question of the origin of Christianity.

The word "Christian" is derived from the word the Greek word "anointed with oil" not from "radar", "asteroids' or 'Normans'.

People who believed in the expected Christ, "the anointed one" were called Christians.

Jews were called "anointed" (Christ) in Hebrew Scripture, it can be deduced that Jews were first called Christians or Messianic before the Jesus believers who were later called Christians.

Do you not even read the Jesus story? People who believed Jesus was the EXPECTED Christ were called Christians. This is so basic.

People who believe they were anointed with the oil of God were also called Christians.

The word "Christ" MUST precede Christianity.

Do you not understand that some religions may have some similarities to Christianity? Do you not understand that some Christian religions are based on a Messianic character and that they believe the EXPECTED Messiah prophesied in Hebrew Scripture have ALREADY come and is schedule to RETURN a SECOND TIME.

Some Christians STILL EXPECT Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

And please stop shouting at me.

You think I am shouting because I expose your bad analogies and awful logics but it is your own words that are shouting back at you. And they might just get louder.

I think you are shouting because of the way you use capital letters. Please stop it.

There is a difference between the origin of a thing and the origin of a word which names that thing. The question I asked was about the origin of Christianity, not about the origin of the word 'Christianity'. You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.

J-D · 06-27-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The founders of the 'Catholic-Christianity' (which you prefer simply call 'Christianity',

I said nothing of the kind. You are misrepresenting me, probably because you misunderstand me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

but committing a mistake in terms) they took as a model the 'Judeo-Christianity', in order to build their 'creatures' ... This was the fundamental origin of the Christianity.....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

aa5874 · 06-27-2010, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....There is a difference between the origin of a thing and the origin of a word which names that thing. The question I asked was about the origin of Christianity, not about the origin of the word 'Christianity'. You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.

You MUST know that the origin and first usage of a word may have some relationship to anything which bears that name or derived from the word.

For example the use of word "computer" is directly related to the thing called "computer'. You wont find the word "computer' being used in the 1st century.

The "internet" is another example where the origin and first usage may give an idea of the time when the "internet" was developed.

You won't find the word "internet" in the 1st century.

Now, again, Hebrew Scripture is one source where "Christ" or "anointed" is used before the Jesus story. In the Jesus story a character is called Christ or "anointed" but long after other Jews were called Christ or "anointed".

In Tacitus' Annals 15.44 people were called Christians before the Jesus stories were written.

And it is known that Christianity is related to BELIEF in the EXPECTED CHRIST.

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

06-27-2010, 03:05 AM	#71
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	origins of christianity = bullneck fabricated his own cult and its church history In the spirit of scientific method discussed above, with regard to all the known and available evidence it appears to me that it is quite reasonable to arrive at a hypothetical conclusion the origins of Christianity being able to be explained solely with the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated. The final option --- if it insists on being dogmatically assertive that we do not have enough information to draw even a hypothetical conclusion --- is too restrictive and dogmatic. Except for those to whom it appeals. Therefore I have voted the origins of christianity can be best explained using the hypothesis of Bullneck's imperial level fabrication.

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

06-27-2010, 08:22 AM	#74
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	The efficient cause of the word Christianity is in being a Christian and hence the -ity ending is added to it. The Efficient cause is when and where the Formal cause effectively changes the Material Cause into the Final cause which now is more than a simple belief in Christ but is where the very word believe is transformed into be-lief that so finds realization in faith. Iow, it is faith coming to rest in being . . . which should end faith or we have been given a scorpion instead of a fish.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.