Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-16-2010, 11:07 AM

Hi Peter,

This is a very good question. Where are the temples/churches, statues and shrines to Jesus before the Fourth century? Even in the literature of the Church fathers, one searches in vain for such descriptions. For example, in Justin Martyr, we just have him saying, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." He never describes that place or who built it, so we have to assume it is someone's house.

Houses were small in those days, so it is hard to accept that more than 50 or 100 people could have belonged to a single house church. Since a slave or poor person could not host a house church, we have to assume that the growth of the Church in any one area was dependent on finding wealthy men or women who had large houses and would allow them to be used as churches for Sunday services.

The advantage of the House Church for the wealthy Christian Patron would be obvious. You would have an enormous source of information on your neighbors and fellow citizens. The converted Christian slaves could be used as spys and conduits to allow you to gather intelligence and influence your neighbors' decisions. For the wealthy Christian, it was like having your own private C.I.A. to secretly control your town or city. For the non-Christian with Christian slaves or poor relatives, it meant having an enemy living in the middle of your very home.

If actual architectural structures had been built, the wealthy Christian matrons and patrons would lost this advantage. The slaves and poor Christians would not feel an obligation to the house masters, but only to the priest who operated the church building. This, of course, happened in the Fourth Century.

So, we may propose that the Christians did not build Churches till the Fourth Century because the Wealthy Christians who ran the House Churches found it to their economic and social advantage to maintain those secretive House Churches. From around the year 150 when Christianity separated from Judaism to around circa 300 when it became a major political force, it used the house-church structure to create a web-like network of devout and devoted believers throughout the Roman empire that undermined the Roman empire, spread misinformation and panic and cause its eventual collapse.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thanks for that Theoi reference to Hercules - such a wealth of evidence!
There are so many archaeological attestations to Greek gods!
Here are a stack to Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus.
Thousands of well-meaning inscriptions and references.
But where are the same corroborations for our man JC?
This is what I cant seem to understand - Why do we have a "Great Archaeological Silence"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plato

Plato, Republic 599c (trans. Shorey) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :

"To have restored to health as Asklepios did,
or what disciples of the medical art he left after him
as Asklepios did his descendants."

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Littlejohn,

Here are ancient sources for about 100 temples and shrines to Hercules, another man believed in ancient times to be a son of God, throughout the ancient world, We may consider that each of these cites represents a different cult.

We may accept this as evidence for the existence of Hercules, or we may accept this as evidence that people of that era were unable to tell the difference between historical personages and heroic savior God characters in fictional stories.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874 · 07-16-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

This is a very good question. Where are the temples/churches, statues and shrines to Jesus before the Fourth century? Even in the literature of the Church fathers, one searches in vain for such descriptions. For example, in Justin Martyr, we just have him saying, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." He never describes that place or who built it, so we have to assume it is someone's house....

But, I do not think Justin Martyr means that every single person in the country ALL go to the very same church in the country and that every single person in the city ALL go to the very same church in the city.

Logistically, having ALL the Jesus believers in the city of Rome meet in a single house in one location in the city of Rome does not seem logical.

Justin Martyr most likely means that people were meeting in houses all over the country and the cities where there were Jesus believers.

Now, from "Against Celsus" there are interesting passages. It will be noticed that Jesus believers were operating IN SECRET associations.

"Against Celsus" 1.1

Quote:

The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws."....

So, up to the time of Celsus, c 160-180, Jesus believers were in "SECRET ASSOCIATIONS" contrary to the Law and around 250 CE, around 100 years later the situation is still the same.

"Origen" did NOT claim that Jesus believers were operating in the PUBLIC ASSOCIATIONS around 100 years after the "True Discourse" by Celsus.

This is the response in "Against Celsus".

"Against Celsus" 1.1

Quote:

.....Since, then, he babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy, and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness, enter into associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself......

And again Origen continues "Against Celsus" 1.1

Quote:

....... It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth.

For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic.....

Nothing seemed to have changed since the time of Justin Martyr and Celsus, according to "Origen" Jesus believers formed SECRET ASSOCIATIONS in opposition to EXISTING LAWS that they may persuade some to REVOLT from the Laws of the Devil, from the Laws of a despotic government.

Origen has inadvertently shown that Jesus believers were not really well established up to the middle of the 3rd century and that the places where Jesus believers worshiped was UNKNOWN and HIDDEN to the PUBLIC.

"Origen" did NOT identify a SINGLE PUBLIC CHURCH structure for Jesus believers in "Against Celsus" up to the middle of the 3rd century.

DCHindley · 07-18-2010, 09:07 AM

I think it may have come from a discussion of Rupert Furneaux's book called The Other Side Of The Story (like the one here). The referenced discussion takes it further, linking Simon Peter to Simon bar Gioras the leader of the Sicarii. Another source (didn't preserve link, sorry) was that Simon Peter was the son of Judas the Zealot (maybe equated with the Sicarii terrorists), thus Simon (son of) Judas the Sicarii man.

BTW, I am not necessarily endorsing this view, although I lend credence to the idea that Judas Iscariot (Judas of Catiotes, a small town south of Jerusalem) is a way of diverting attention from a connection to the Sicarii terrorist group. This is very tentative, as the Sicarii did not appear in Josephus' accounts until decades later than Jesus' time, but the authors of the gospels may have heard the term.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I'll appreciate your source!
.

I prepared a response to your observation. But it is came rather long and now I have to translate it. You must have some 'patience before you can read it. But I think the wait will be well compensated...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

aa5874 · 07-18-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think it may have come from a discussion of Rupert Furneaux's book called The Other Side Of The Story (like the one here). The referenced discussion takes it further, linking Simon Peter to Simon bar Gioras the leader of the Sicarii. Another source (didn't preserve link, sorry) was that Simon Peter was the son of Judas the Zealot (maybe equated with the Sicarii terrorists), thus Simon (son of) Judas the Sicarii man.

BTW, I am not necessarily endorsing this view, although I lend credence to the idea that Judas Iscariot (Judas of Catiotes, a small town south of Jerusalem) is a way of diverting attention from a connection to the Sicarii terrorist group. This is very tentative, as the Sicarii did not appear in Josephus' accounts until decades later than Jesus' time, but the authors of the gospels may have heard the term.

But, by the time of gJohn the betrayal story was found to be flawed or irrelevant and the author of gJohn did not even bother to make Judas betray Jesus.

In the gospel of John that author decided to make Jesus basically openly surrender to his captors and it was Jesus who first identified himself and did so twice.

John 18.4-8

Quote:

4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he.

And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way...

Jesus KNEW all things. The Judas character served no real purpose in gJohn. Judas was most likely a fiction character.

darstec · 07-18-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

This is a very good question. Where are the temples/churches, statues and shrines to Jesus before the Fourth century? Even in the literature of the Church fathers, one searches in vain for such descriptions. For example, in Justin Martyr, we just have him saying, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." He never describes that place or who built it, so we have to assume it is someone's house.

Houses were small in those days, so it is hard to accept that more than 50 or 100 people could have belonged to a single house church. Since a slave or poor person could not host a house church, we have to assume that the growth of the Church in any one area was dependent on finding wealthy men or women who had large houses and would allow them to be used as churches for Sunday services.

The advantage of the House Church for the wealthy Christian Patron would be obvious. You would have an enormous source of information on your neighbors and fellow citizens. The converted Christian slaves could be used as spys and conduits to allow you to gather intelligence and influence your neighbors' decisions. For the wealthy Christian, it was like having your own private C.I.A. to secretly control your town or city. For the non-Christian with Christian slaves or poor relatives, it meant having an enemy living in the middle of your very home.

If actual architectural structures had been built, the wealthy Christian matrons and patrons would lost this advantage. The slaves and poor Christians would not feel an obligation to the house masters, but only to the priest who operated the church building. This, of course, happened in the Fourth Century.

So, we may propose that the Christians did not build Churches till the Fourth Century because the Wealthy Christians who ran the House Churches found it to their economic and social advantage to maintain those secretive House Churches. From around the year 150 when Christianity separated from Judaism to around circa 300 when it became a major political force, it used the house-church structure to create a web-like network of devout and devoted believers throughout the Roman empire that undermined the Roman empire, spread misinformation and panic and cause its eventual collapse.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thanks for that Theoi reference to Hercules - such a wealth of evidence!
There are so many archaeological attestations to Greek gods!
Here are a stack to Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus.
Thousands of well-meaning inscriptions and references.
But where are the same corroborations for our man JC?
This is what I cant seem to understand - Why do we have a "Great Archaeological Silence"?

Interesting. I don't remember coming across that insight before. It never even occurred to me.

Thanks.

mountainman · 07-18-2010, 05:07 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Let's assume for the moment there was a secret Christian society that operated in "house-churches" (unrelated to the Mithraic Mysteries and its possible associations with the army), that met routinely to be read the enlighted passages of the new testament canonical books and the LXX. If they were uneducated they would have been read to. The reader would be have to be preserving and reading from codices or scrolls, the originals of which we might expect to find in archaeological remains.

To the uneducated, the coded abbreviated name of Jesus which appeared in these written writings being read out to them may have been one of the great mysteries of the world. Why do we not see these special symbols in the archaelogy? They are codes - symbols - and if we are to assume this scenario of the early christian secret society, then these codes were extremely powerful. Only "A Duly Qualified Reader" would know what they meant, and their meaning would have inspired the entiure cult, surely. So why dont we see an explosion of these special unique nomina sacra codes in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd centuries? For example, why do we not see in the archaeoloogy the coded form of "JesuS" (ie: "JS") appearing by itself earlier? If people believed in their gods and worshipped them throught their lives, why would they not commemorate the name or the symbol of their god in their day-to-day living and at their funeral?

Thanks for the possible scenario.
I dig african art and the djembe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

This is a very good question. Where are the temples/churches, statues and shrines to Jesus before the Fourth century? Even in the literature of the Church fathers, one searches in vain for such descriptions. For example, in Justin Martyr, we just have him saying, "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." He never describes that place or who built it, so we have to assume it is someone's house.

Houses were small in those days, so it is hard to accept that more than 50 or 100 people could have belonged to a single house church. Since a slave or poor person could not host a house church, we have to assume that the growth of the Church in any one area was dependent on finding wealthy men or women who had large houses and would allow them to be used as churches for Sunday services.

The advantage of the House Church for the wealthy Christian Patron would be obvious. You would have an enormous source of information on your neighbors and fellow citizens. The converted Christian slaves could be used as spys and conduits to allow you to gather intelligence and influence your neighbors' decisions. For the wealthy Christian, it was like having your own private C.I.A. to secretly control your town or city. For the non-Christian with Christian slaves or poor relatives, it meant having an enemy living in the middle of your very home.

If actual architectural structures had been built, the wealthy Christian matrons and patrons would lost this advantage. The slaves and poor Christians would not feel an obligation to the house masters, but only to the priest who operated the church building. This, of course, happened in the Fourth Century.

So, we may propose that the Christians did not build Churches till the Fourth Century because the Wealthy Christians who ran the House Churches found it to their economic and social advantage to maintain those secretive House Churches. From around the year 150 when Christianity separated from Judaism to around circa 300 when it became a major political force, it used the house-church structure to create a web-like network of devout and devoted believers throughout the Roman empire that undermined the Roman empire, spread misinformation and panic and cause its eventual collapse.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thanks for that Theoi reference to Hercules - such a wealth of evidence!
There are so many archaeological attestations to Greek gods!
Here are a stack to Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus.
Thousands of well-meaning inscriptions and references.
But where are the same corroborations for our man JC?
This is what I cant seem to understand - Why do we have a "Great Archaeological Silence"?

spamandham · 07-18-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

How does 'multiple attestation' work?

Is the suicide of Judas 'multiply attested' ie contains enough contradictions between the two accounts that they become independent accounts, thus guaranteeing the historicity of the claim that Judas committed suicide?

Here's how it works. The more times an obviously mythical character or event is attested, the more children will believe it's true. "You know Dasher and Dancer, and Prancer, and Vixen, ..."

show_no_mercy · 07-19-2010, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think it may have come from a discussion of Rupert Furneaux's book called The Other Side Of The Story (like the one here). The referenced discussion takes it further, linking Simon Peter to Simon bar Gioras the leader of the Sicarii. Another source (didn't preserve link, sorry) was that Simon Peter was the son of Judas the Zealot (maybe equated with the Sicarii terrorists), thus Simon (son of) Judas the Sicarii man.

BTW, I am not necessarily endorsing this view, although I lend credence to the idea that Judas Iscariot (Judas of Catiotes, a small town south of Jerusalem) is a way of diverting attention from a connection to the Sicarii terrorist group. This is very tentative, as the Sicarii did not appear in Josephus' accounts until decades later than Jesus' time, but the authors of the gospels may have heard the term.

DCH

There's a Simon the Zealot in the gospels (sometimes translated as Simon the Canaanite) who is oddly a contemporary to the other Simon the Zealot - the son of Judas the Zealot.

Craigart14 · 07-19-2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

More likely scripture

I bought my RSV at a second hand bookshop for $1.
It has the convenience of having footnotes.
Some are about manuscript variations but most show how particular verses/pericopes from the NT are 'related' in some way to the Hebrew Bible.
Some are direct quotes, correctly or incorrectly recorded, nearly all [all?] from the LXX which is passing strange, and many noting close parallels in wording or sense to material from the Hebrew Bible.
Lots of them.
Lots and lots.
Several per page, for the gospels dozens for each of the 4.
And, as a well known TV commercial here says, "that's not all'.
Dig a little, pay attention to parallels cited by various authors and it is plain that the reason why there are not hundreds [?] of allusions to the H. Bible noted for each of the gospels and the others is simply lack of space on the page.

Clearly the major source for the NT is the Hebrew Bible.

I don't find it strange that so many quotes come from the LXX. The NT was mostly written by Greek speakers in Greek. They would have turned to the Septuagint for material.

There is a pretty recent book (can't remember the title or author at the moment) that shows a lot of parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the Odyssey, which also would have been familiar to NT writers.

Craig

Toto · 07-19-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigart14

...
There is a pretty recent book (can't remember the title or author at the moment) that shows a lot of parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the Odyssey, which also would have been familiar to NT writers.

Craig

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Dennis R. MacDonald

old review from Richard Carrier here

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.