stonewall1012

Toto please point out where I am misrepresenting Mr Price. (I appologize over the R instead of the P I'm not exactally in a scholarly environment) You pointed me towards his article. I read it. Nearly right off the bat he asserts that history is written by the "winners"(what does that mean?). Later he asserts the entire book of 1 Corinthians is forged, still later he asserts the "creedal" formula is forged and that the 500 witnesses is interpolated. His evidence is that James and Peter are mentioned together implying that the "disagreement" is over. His documental evidence as he states is zero, meaning this evidence is interpretational evidence.

If I have misrepresented anyone here please stepforward and correct me: the Chronos argument may be over, but I stand by the assertion that many of you contend that Chrisianity is a combination of Jewish belief and some other religion. I have not ran across any one so far who believes the "gospel" accounts are remotely accurate in any way, nor that Jesus even existed. Please step forward if you do not fit this description.

Toto

Price does not believe in some conspiracy theory. I do not have time now to go through the article. His style can be difficult to follow at times. You seem to reject the entire field of literary analysis, so I don't know what to say.

If you don't know what the common statement means that history is written by the winners, I don't know how to have a conversation with you.

Please stop trying to generalize about people here. I have no idea what you mean by "Christianity is a combination of Jewish belief and some other religion."

There are a number of people here who that that Jesus existed. There are not many who think that the gospels are a source for history.

Reason

Yes, I do, simply because people literate in English make just that sort of mistake all the time, especially if reading quickly. Just because the language is Greek does not immune a reader--or scribe--to such mistakes.

Further, I can see how a semi-literate reader could make such a mistake and come up with "Christ" after reading a Bronze Age advertisement for wristwatches. "Chronos--the timepiece of the gods." :Cheeky: Okay, I am half kidding. Seriously, mistaken readings or corruption of spoken words could easily account for much of xtian mythology.

Clivedurdle

The original thread was about the use of the term christ. We have clear confusion with chrestus and all I am proposing is a possible confusion with the extremely well known god of time chronus - not the titan cronos.

We have three of the four accepted symbols of Christ being used by Chronus.

I am actually putting forward a chinese whispers theory of the emergence of xianity, not that Chronus is Christ.

the_cave

Thank you, Toto.

Let's just take it for granted that there was a shared symbology among different Mediterranean religions for their deities.

Once Christ became identified with the Jewish god, he naturally picked up that symbology.

It's well-known that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was gradual, that it's unclear what the Chi-Rho on his sodiers' shields was supposed to represent, and that he conflated Christianity with the religion of Sol Invictus for many years.

Unsurprising that the Chi-Rho might predate the battle of the Milvian bridge.

stonewall1012

Toto: "If you don't know what the common statement means that history is written by the winners, I don't know how to have a conversation with you."

I know what history is written by the winners means. except you seem to believe that the sides were so clearly drawn by the beginning of the 2nd century that the "winners" and "loosers" had a clear line of continunity from the 1st century to the 4th. IF you believe that you undestand less of church history than I thought. It was a very muddled time: Origin is technically a heritic but still very well respected by the 4th century. Hence we have his teaching but the church didn't accept it whole sale

I don't disbelieve in literary criticism but part of literary criticism is contextuality of the text. When it was written by whom for what purpose in the context of history. To my analysis Mr. Price didn't satisfy this for me.... Who forged the Pauline document of 1 corthinains and for what purpose? Who forged the Creedal statement and for what purpose? Who then inserted the 500 for what purpose?

As I said before nearly everyone acknowledges the 500 sticks out in the creedal formula. Without textual evidence that proves there is a version of 1 Corinthians without it- what make his theory more likly than that it was a parenthetical phrase that we would put in foot notes but the greeks did not have nor use?

You seem to believe that unless I buy into Mr. Price analysis whole sale I'm like some wayward lost pseudo historical soul who just can't "see" the truth... On the contrary.. I was ready to accept that the 500 was a interpolation (because I know the quote) if Mr. Price could prove it. To my analysis not only did he not prove it he displayed his bias that it HAD to be an interpolation.

It seems to me that this is an argument by "appeal to authority" (Mr. Price says so) If you believe his anaylsis than defend it... I do believe in literary criticism. However I am very cautious... According to "literary criticism" 100 years ago the Gospel of John simply couldn't have been written in the 1st century. Then the Nag hammadi discovery is revealed and P52 has it being written at least by the early 2nd century more than likely the 1st century. Literary cirticism is a speculative venture at best-it is useful but I prefer a more evidential method of historical inquiry.

stonewall1012

the cave: "Let's just take it for granted that there was a shared symbology among different Mediterranean religions for their deities."

Ok, lets take it for granted that the moon is made of cheese...

In historical inquiry it's supposed to begin with FACTS. Where is you evidence that all religions in the mediterranean had a "shared symbology"? Can you please point that out to me.
So Constantine gradually accepted Christianity but confused it with Sol Invictus for many years? Why then did he hold the Council of Nicea? Was he not listening to what was going on?

the_cave

Can't do that, as there is no evidence for it

Read again carefully--I said no such thing. I said there were different Mediterranean religions that shared a symbology. One of those was Greek. The other was Israelite. Maybe there were more, I dunno--all I need is two. Point being that that symbology predated Christianity, even in Palestine.

He held it after he started leaning more definitively towards Christianity.

stonewall1012

Now I am confused... Are you saying that some religions used symbols or that Greeks and Jews used the same symbols?

Clivedurdle

There are relationships, patterns there, involving the points of the compass, solar deities and three religious groups - the various true gods, Judaism and Xianity.

Why is that not enough to provoke some serious further research, remembering there is a further area of research - Baal and Carthage - that has been lost in the thread split.