Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 10-21-2011, 04:01 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The solution is quite simple. The origins of Christianity were retrojected into a past safely shrouded by the utter destruction of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war. One could not visit the holy sites of the events of the Passion. One could not question the alleged community that witnessed of the founding events of the Christian faith. These places were all destroyed, the people dispersed, dead. Like Star Wars, these were events that happened long ago and far away; we have only the evangelists words that these things happened at all.

Yup. I agree.
This huge gap in time between Jesus and the Gospels is a key point.

The gospels only appear around early-mid 2nd century - around the Bar Kochbar revolt.

That's a century and two wars with the Romans - Jerusalem had been reduced to knee-high rubble, the Temple was destroyed, Judea was erased from the map, many Jews had been killed, the rest dispersed.

The HJers like to claim that people would have complained that Jesus was not historical, because THEY had been there, and knew better.

But in reality - by the time the Gospels became widely known, (mid 2nd century or so,) there was no-one left from a century earlier to complain.

K.

Iskander · 10-21-2011, 04:41 PM

There are no gaps in the history of Christianity. The canon was only an administrative development.

This was the situation in 140 AD

HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF
THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN
_TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION_
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOL. II.
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1901
CONTENTS

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19613/pg19613.txt

Quote:

We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising).

The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.[24] It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 150.

In the solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord's Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,[25] fixed formulæ were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus.[26]

We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;[27]

The Christians had formulated by 140 AD a fixed creed .

aa5874 · 10-21-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...The Christians had formulated by 140 AD a fixed creed .

I hope you understand the difference between an "expert" opnion and ACTUAL written EVIDENCE from antiquity.

There were Christian writers of the 2nd century and even the 3rd who did NOT write of any "fixed creed" among Christians.

Origen IDENTIFIED the problem on NON-orthodoxy even in the 3rd century.

This is Origen in the 3rd century.

Preface to De Principiis"

Quote:

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points....

Up to the middle 3rd century there was confusion about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit among Christians.

Iskander · 10-21-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...The Christians had formulated by 140 AD a fixed creed .

I hope you understand the difference between an "expert" opnion and ACTUAL written EVIDENCE from antiquity.

There were Christian writers of the 2nd century and even the 3rd who did NOT write of any "fixed creed" among Christians.

Origen IDENTIFIED the problem on NON-orthodoxy even in the 3rd century.

This is Origen in the 3rd century.

Preface to De Principiis"

Quote:

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points....

Up to the middle 3rd century there was confusion about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit among Christians.

Yes, you are right, there were dissenters then and also later, Martin Luther is the one of them
The problem facing Christianity—from Harnack

Quote:

This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion.

With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. It was admitted on all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities.

As you can see the existence of a fixed creed in the mind of a group did not exclude the existence of dissenters.

A fixed creed does not mean that it was complete. You are again right to point out the later innovations of Nicaea and even much, much later the new papal dogmas.

aa5874 · 10-21-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

...But in reality - by the time the Gospels became widely known, (mid 2nd century or so,) there was no-one left from a century earlier to complain.
K.

It is really irrelevant when the Gospels were written if Jesus did actually EXIST and that Paul did ACTUALLY preach ALL over the Roman Empire in Major Cities, even in ROME, that Jesus Christ, the Lord FROM Heaven, and God's Own Son was crucified, DIED for the Sins of Mankind and was RESURRECTED on the THIRD day and that he PERSECUTED the Faith.

There were ZERO COMPLAINTS about Jesus Christ at all in the 1st century when COMPLAINTS would be EXPECTED.

The very FIRST COMPLAINTS are in the 2nd century.

We EXPECT COMPLAINTS of Jesus when FIRST introduced to any community.

There were NEVER any COMPLAINTS from Jews in the entire 1st century.

The FIRST COMPLAIN was by CELSUS in "True Discourse" near the last quarter of the 2nd century.

When did people FIRST COMPLAIN about Mormonism? One hundred years later?

When did people FIRST COMPLAIN about David Koresh? One hundred years later?

When did people FIRST COMPLAIN about Jim Jones? One hundred years later?

Celsus COMPLAINED about Jesus near the time that the Jesus stories were FIRST introduce.

There was NO Jesus stories in the JEWISH COMMUNITY in the 1st century or else they would have COMPLAINED or perhaps STONE the authors of the story.

aa5874 · 10-21-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...As you can see the existence of a fixed creed in the mind of a group did not exclude the existence of dissenters.

A fixed creed does not mean that it was complete. You are again right to point out the later innovations of Nicaea and even much, much later the new papal dogmas.

A FIXED creed NEEDS a CENTRAL POWERFUL GROUP with CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) AUTHORITY and there was NO such until the 4th century under Constantine

All claims of orthodoxy in the Christian community BEFORE the 4th century are historically Bogus.

The very Christian writers claimed there were NUMEROUS people who called themselves Christians who did NOT even Believe the Jesus story in the 2nd century.

There is NO credible record of orthodoxy throughout all the Roman Empire at all BEFORE the 4th century.

Iskander · 10-22-2011, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...As you can see the existence of a fixed creed in the mind of a group did not exclude the existence of dissenters.

A fixed creed does not mean that it was complete. You are again right to point out the later innovations of Nicaea and even much, much later the new papal dogmas.

A FIXED creed NEEDS a CENTRAL POWERFUL GROUP with CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) AUTHORITY and there was NO such until the 4th century under Constantine

All claims of orthodoxy in the Christian community BEFORE the 4th century are historically Bogus.

The very Christian writers claimed there were NUMEROUS people who called themselves Christians who did NOT even Believe the Jesus story in the 2nd century.

There is NO credible record of orthodoxy throughout all the Roman Empire at all BEFORE the 4th century.

Yes, you are once more right to point out that there was not a dominant Christian faction capable of imposing their interpretation on others; this unfortunate ability to silence others came to some group later and it is this authority what we call orthodoxy. Orthodoxy began with the selection of Christian writings for the canon and the increasing power of the bishop of Rome.
The Church was forced to compile authorized canon.

From Harnack.

Quote:

The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition from the very first.

But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.[91] Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church.

Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic

Not long after the completion of the canon the church became the central authority and the only Christianity in official existence and was imposed on others by the use of hideous force .

Doug Shaver · 10-22-2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

..... I see no reason to assume the gospel authors believed they were telling true stories about a historically real person.

There is no reason to assume anything.

But there are more reasons to think that these writers believed in an actual Jesus than that they didn't.

So historicists keep telling me. Every reason they offer, though, presupposes Jesus' historicity and thus begs the question of the gospel authors' intentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

For starters, it seems very uncommon, if not unique, to write about a recent figure in that way (ie. with the writer not believing in his existence)

If you mean an actual recent figure, I am not aware of anybody claiming that such a thing happened.

Surely you are not suggesting that it is unusual for a work of fiction to tell a story about someone who lived recently relative to the author's own lifetime?

archibald · 10-22-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

So historicists keep telling me. Every reason they offer, though, presupposes Jesus' historicity and thus begs the question of the gospel authors' intentions.

The FRDB Jesus mythicist's club canard strikes again.

icardfacepalm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If you mean an actual recent figure, I am not aware of anybody claiming that such a thing happened.

Surely you are not suggesting that it is unusual for a work of fiction to tell a story about someone who lived recently relative to the author's own lifetime?

I can't even make sense of that bit. I can only imagine that you either didn't understand the question, or, like several others here, it is hard for you to admit when something is unusual for lack of good analogy.

Never mind. The sheer dogmatic thinking in this little outpost of conspiracy theorising and mythicist fundyism is quite mind-boggling. What it is doing on a rational skepticism platform is beyond me.

The recent series of responses from gurugeorge to JD are just plain bizarre, for so many reasons, not least the former's previous citation of Buddha as being a better example of likely historicity because of the detail recorded by a supposed disciple. Objectivity is clearly on permanent holiday for some people.

gurugeorge · 10-22-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I don't see how you can change that sentence above to have any other meaning than the one I'm giving it. You may have been thinking something else, and you may have misrepresented what you were thinking, but what you wrote has the meaning it has, and it's a blatant example of taking for granted what has yet to to be demonstrated.

If all you meant was "some statements in the gospels may or may not be historically true", why didn't you just say it? It's a fairly bland proposition, but at least it doesn't commit the fallacy of petitio principii.

George, this whole time you've been reading something which wasn't there, and you're not listening to the other party when they're telling you that. There never was such a fallacy, except in your perceptions, because you appear to have this ingrained notion that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming something, which of course it doesn't.

I think you're reading something which isn't there

I've never at any time said that considering a possible HJ necessarily implies assuming an HJ. I myself sometimes consider a possible HJ, and still seriously listen to HJ arguments, all without any assumption that he existed.

"My perceptions"? I can only go on the words my eyes perceive. If JD meant simply a bland tautological truism ("some statements in the gospels, including statements with the name "Jesus" in them, may or may not be historically true") then he should have stated that bland tautological truism, instead of the question-begging substantive statement he made ("some statements in the gospels about Jesus may or may not be historically true"). Don't tell me you can't tell the difference.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.