Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-08-2010, 02:03 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

You and Doug and I and possibly many others might not think these sorts of things - as described in the bible - really happened, however the analysis done by Robin Lane-Fox on the documentary evidence from the 4th century suggests that in his Oration at Antioch c.324 CE, Constantine asserted the following claim:

"A dove, said Constantine, had alighted on the virgin mary,
like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark.

"Pagans & Christians, At p.646/7

What should we as objective analysts think about this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

No, I do not think it probably happened, especially not as described in the gospels, I just think it is harder to explain than the other 9/10ths.

The heavens opening up and a dove flying into the body of a man and a voice from heaven saying, "This is my son..." is obviously fictional and didn't happen. On the other hand, a Roman military governor crucifying a Jewish rebel leader around 35 C.E. does not require any kind of leap into supernatural belief. As presented in the gospels, much of it is false, but determining if it is referring to any actual event (and which one), a series of events or no event at all is difficult.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Lemme see here. Nine tenths of it couldn't have happened, but the remaining one tenth is plausible and so it probably did happen?

I don't think so.

storytime · 03-08-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

On the contrary, the Passion narrative practically screams fiction. Here's a guy who walks into a city, manages to get himself arrested and put on trial, then crucified on the Feast of Passover so he can be seen as a symbolic sacrifice for his fellow man. What are the chances that any person could get all those events to align themselves so perfectly as to actually pull them off - heavyhanded symbolism and all? There are simply too many elements in the story over which he could not have the kind of control he would need to bring the desired result about. After all, it's not like he wandered into Jerusalem and simply lit himself on fire which any fool could do.

As I see it, this story has all the qualities of carefully crafted and contrived fiction and virtually none of historial reality.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

storytime · 03-08-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Roland,

I agree, fantastic odds at every turn -- that it should have happened on the day before Passover or Passover, that Pilate should be awake and ready to hold a trial when the High Council brings him in, that Pilate judges him in two hours without any clear charges. It all sounds fantastic and contrived.

Yet we still have to figure out a way to determine if there is anything underneath the fantastic and contrived details that the plot of the narrative could be referring to.

It is a bit like distinguishing between a tootsie roll, a lollipop and a tootsie pop. A tootsie roll is a fairly hard chocolate candy. the lollipop is flavored sucrose with corn syrup on a stick and the tootiepop has a tootsie roll center but a lollipop outside. We may consider the tootsie roll as all history and the lollipop as all fiction. The fantastic coincidences in the narative eliminate the idea that we are dealing with a tootsie roll (history). They tell us that on the outside the tale is a lollipop (fiction). The quesion is, is it a lollipop (fiction) all the way through, or is there a chocolate (history) center somewhere?

If there is a chocolate (historical center) center, what could it be?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

On the contrary, the Passion narrative practically screams fiction. Here's a guy who walks into a city, manages to get himself arrested and put on trial, then crucified on the Feast of Passover so he can be seen as a symbolic sacrifice for his fellow man. What are the chances that any person could get all those events to align themselves so perfectly as to actually pull them off - heavyhanded symbolism and all? There are simply too many elements in the story over which he could not have the kind of control he would need to bring the desired result about. After all, it's not like he wandered into Jerusalem and simply lit himself on fire which any fool could do.

As I see it, this story has all the qualities of carefully crafted and contrived fiction and virtually none of historial reality.

The chocolate center would be politics?

What could be gained from inventing such a story? Who exactly would benefit? The characters are on stage and we can pick them off one by one. Where do we start? I think Mountain man will agree with me that we should start with the bishops. I mean, they couldn't even agree amongst themselves as to the attributes they should give to their Christ figure. Arius wanted Jesus to be simply the son of God and not co-eternal with Him, while other bishops wanted a "god from god" type character who was co-eternal and equal. The latter seemed to have won out, especially with Constantine demanding a final conclusion to the matter. So off went the bishops to Nicea and finalized a solution to the Christ problem. He would be "god from god" and "light from light" and Easter day would be according to the Equinox or something.

The point is, these bishops didn't have a clue as to what they were to write as doctrine but they knew they could make it up as they went along. And Constantine wanted something to unite his empire and lessen the arguments of another god-man being created. And so Constantine thought, "just get it over with for Christ sake and bring me my dinner." So that's basically what they did.

Chili · 03-08-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

You and Doug and I and possibly many others might not think these sorts of things - as described in the bible - really happened, however the analysis done by Robin Lane-Fox on the documentary evidence from the 4th century suggests that in his Oration at Antioch c.324 CE, Constantine asserted the following claim:

"A dove, said Constantine, had alighted on the virgin mary,
like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark.

"Pagans & Christians, At p.646/7

What should we as objective analysts think about this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

No, I do not think it probably happened, especially not as described in the gospels, I just think it is harder to explain than the other 9/10ths.

The heavens opening up and a dove flying into the body of a man and a voice from heaven saying, "This is my son..." is obviously fictional and didn't happen. On the other hand, a Roman military governor crucifying a Jewish rebel leader around 35 C.E. does not require any kind of leap into supernatural belief. As presented in the gospels, much of it is false, but determining if it is referring to any actual event (and which one), a series of events or no event at all is difficult.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Different dove Pete, and a different occasion. The dove that flew from the Ark announces rebirth after the Advent of human life that ends the involutionary Yang period. In the NT the Flood was replaced with the Advent wreath wherein the White candle represents our very own Baptism candle as the promise of New Life ahead which is the glimmer of Hope here presented by the olive branch (was it?), ie. the good news was that the dove returned with a branch and not that it departed from the ark.

The dove here was Gabriel from God (as first cause = Annunciation) and he descend of the Dove was Michael who was send forth from Mary as the efficent cause (confirmation).

Then we must not forget that we are dealing with a comedy instead of a tragedy.

David Deas · 03-08-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Passion Narrative is the only real case for an historically derived Jesus.

Last I checked, Josephus was the only evidence for a historical Jesus.

Its not possible to pull history out of an ahistorical document through internal critique. That's a logical fallacy. No matter how fancy your internal critique is, external evidence is the only historical evidence there can be in this type of case.

mountainman · 03-08-2010, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

The chocolate center would be politics?

And, as usual, rotten to the core.

Quote:

What could be gained from inventing such a story?

Political power over all other competing religions in the Roman empire.
Confiscation of gold, silver, brass, treasures, art, statues, foundations, etc, etc from "Other Unauthorised Churches"

Quote:

Who exactly would benefit?

The Pontifex Maximus and his treasury.

Quote:

The characters are on stage and we can pick them off one by one. Where do we start? I think Mountain man will agree with me that we should start with the bishops. I mean, they couldn't even agree amongst themselves as to the attributes they should give to their Christ figure. Arius wanted Jesus to be simply the son of God and not co-eternal with Him, while other bishops wanted a "god from god" type character who was co-eternal and equal.

I think that in the final analysis the Nicaean decision was forced about whether the divinity of Jesus was to be formally considered either homoiousios or homoousios (ie: exactly the same, or just similar) with respect to the traditional concepts of divinity at that time and epoch.

homoiousios vs. homoousios

Definition:

The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean
"similar essence" and "same essence."

They were part of a controversy in Christianity
during the 4th century when people disagreed over
the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.

According to those who adopted homoiousios,
Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence."

According to those who argued for homoousios,
the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy,
Jesus and God had the exact same essence.

I think Arius was trying to ameliorate Constantine's claim that the divinity of Jesus was identically the same as the very long-standing and traditional Greek Platonic concept of divinity. I think that this ancient Greek concept of divinity involved the concept of nonduality as espoused by Plotinus and the Platonists and Pythagoreans via Peter Kingsley. Instead, Arius attempted to argue that the divinity of Jesus was just roughly "similar to" this traditional Greek [nondual] concept of divinity.

Quote:

The latter seemed to have won out, especially with Constantine demanding a final conclusion to the matter. So off went the bishops to Nicea and finalized a solution to the Christ problem. He would be "god from god" and "light from light" and Easter day would be according to the Equinox or something.

The point is, these bishops didn't have a clue as to what they were to write as doctrine but they knew they could make it up as they went along. And Constantine wanted something to unite his empire and lessen the arguments of another god-man being created. And so Constantine thought, "just get it over with for Christ sake and bring me my dinner." So that's basically what they did.

aa5874 · 03-08-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Passion Narrative is the only real case for an historically derived Jesus.

Last I checked, Josephus was the only evidence for a historical Jesus.

Its not possible to pull history out of an ahistorical document through internal critique. That's a logical fallacy. No matter how fancy your internal critique is, external evidence is the only historical evidence there can be in this type of case.

You must mean planted evidence.

The works of Josephus when examined in total exposes AJ 18.3.3 AND 20.9.1 AS PLANTED EVIDENCE about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ.

storytime · 03-08-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

The chocolate center would be politics?

And, as usual, rotten to the core.

Political power over all other competing religions in the Roman empire.
Confiscation of gold, silver, brass, treasures, art, statues, foundations, etc, etc from "Other Unauthorised Churches"

The Pontifex Maximus and his treasury.

I think that in the final analysis the Nicaean decision was forced about whether the divinity of Jesus was to be formally considered either homoiousios or homoousios (ie: exactly the same, or just similar) with respect to the traditional concepts of divinity at that time and epoch.

homoiousios vs. homoousios

Definition:

The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean
"similar essence" and "same essence."

They were part of a controversy in Christianity
during the 4th century when people disagreed over
the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.

According to those who adopted homoiousios,
Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence."

According to those who argued for homoousios,
the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy,
Jesus and God had the exact same essence.

I think Arius was trying to ameliorate Constantine's claim that the divinity of Jesus was identically the same as the very long-standing and traditional Greek Platonic concept of divinity. I think that this ancient Greek concept of divinity involved the concept of nonduality as espoused by Plotinus and the Platonists and Pythagoreans via Peter Kingsley. Instead, Arius attempted to argue that the divinity of Jesus was just roughly "similar to" this traditional Greek [nondual] concept of divinity.

Quote:

The latter seemed to have won out, especially with Constantine demanding a final conclusion to the matter. So off went the bishops to Nicea and finalized a solution to the Christ problem. He would be "god from god" and "light from light" and Easter day would be according to the Equinox or something.

The point is, these bishops didn't have a clue as to what they were to write as doctrine but they knew they could make it up as they went along. And Constantine wanted something to unite his empire and lessen the arguments of another god-man being created. And so Constantine thought, "just get it over with for Christ sake and bring me my dinner." So that's basically what they did.

Wasn't Caesar also hailed as "god from god"? A most illuminating position for sure.

Yes, the treasury department would have been a most desired element of their prospecting.

aa5874 · 03-08-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

....... Note than that the creation of the Passion is backwards, a sure sign of Satan. Paul takes his historical observation of suffering for Jesus and connects it to his imagination (revelation) that this suffering for Jesus parallels Jesus' suffering. "Mark" than uses the outline from Paul to reverse the relationship, it was Jesus' historical suffering which created the need to suffer for Jesus in his ("Mark's") time....

This is exactly what happens when it is believed the Pauline writings predate gMark, we get utter confusion.

It is most obvious that the betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ as found in gMark is not at all from the Pauline writings. This can be easily demonstrated.

There is nothing in the Pauline writings with any details about the betrayal.

The betrayal scene of gMark is fundamentally based on a passage found in Psalms 41.9. This passage in Psalms predated the Pauline writings by hundreds of years.

Psalms 41:9 -

Quote:

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

This is found in gMark 14.18

Quote:

And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily, I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

The Markan writer only has to supply the name of Jesus' betrayer, Judas, and not even the name Judas can be found in the Pauline Epistles.

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper appears to be based on Exodus 24.8

Quote:

And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord had made with you concerning all these words..

Mark 14.24

Quote:

And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many

The words of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in gMark is not from the Pauline writer but from writings written hundreds of years before in Daniel 7.13.

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven.....

Mark 14.62

Quote:

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds in heaven.

The activities at the crucifixion scene in gMark is not from the Pauline writings they are based on Hebrew Scripture written hundreds of years before.

This is Psalms 22.18

Quote:

18They part my garments among them,
and cast lots upon my vesture.

Mark 15.24 -

Quote:

And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

Quote:

All they that see me laugh me to scorn:
they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him:
let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Mark 15.30-31

Quote:

Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.[/b]

Psalms 22.1

Quote:

1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

Mark 15.34

Quote:

.........My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The author of gMark did not need the Pauline writings. The Markan writer used Hebrew Scripture, written hundreds of years earlier, sometimes word for word to develop his Jesus. The "FLESH" of the MARKAN Jesus is from Hebrew Scripture.

[b]If there were no Pauline writings the Markan Jesus could still have been written with the exact same details.

Just tear out and discard the Pauline Epistles and it has NO effect on gMark's Jesus and the betrayal, arrest, crucifixion and death of Jesus.

David Deas · 03-09-2010, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Last I checked, Josephus was the only evidence for a historical Jesus.

Its not possible to pull history out of an ahistorical document through internal critique. That's a logical fallacy. No matter how fancy your internal critique is, external evidence is the only historical evidence there can be in this type of case.

You must mean planted evidence.

The works of Josephus when examined in total exposes AJ 18.3.3 AND 20.9.1 AS PLANTED EVIDENCE about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ.

I'm well aware of their dubious nature. But I'm also well aware that they form the only *real* case for a historical Jesus.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.