Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 03-16-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yea, I'll give it to you. Though I have other issues with this particular epistle and is why I originally wanted to stay away from them as evidence.

Suckered. In the diaspora the word for messiah was "christ" as the LXX shows. ApostateAbe should know better by now than to give a tendentious translation which uses "church" for a term which at the time simply meant "assembly". What the verse actually says is "the assemblies of Judea that are in the messiah". Bye-bye go the anachronisms. :wave:

spin

Indeed you are correct. Doesn't change the fact that I didn't want to derail the thread arguing Paul.

I am sincerely interested in the answer to the OP question. So far I have two sources, Tacitus and Josephus and a possible third being a Talmudic reference which I know nothing about.

Are there any others?

How abut archeological?

Toto · 03-16-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...
How abut archeological?

A Christian church that can be dated to the third century is a remarkable find.

gurugeorge · 03-16-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yeah, that seems to be Doherty's idea, and it's an idea I've come across in other places too, it's probably the most intriguing idea about Christian origins.

Consider "socialism". When we hear the word "socialism", the first form of it that usually pops into our minds is Marxism; but at the end of the 19th century, Marxism wasn't the most popular form of socialism, there were many forms. It's mainly through Marx's own political in-fighting and a series of historical accidents that Marxism came to almost define socialism (in the eyes of many).

Socialism was a movement of ideas that was "in the air" throughout the 19th century, with antecedents even older.

So the idea here might be that Christianity was more like Socialism than like Buddhism - more a broad, loose movement of ideas than a set of responses to one man (or even a singular imaginary deity); but eventually one form of it became the most famous and sort of "drowned out" the others.

The thing that needs addressing in this context is why the term "Christianity"?

Well, what if it originally meant nothing more than "Anointedism", or (taking the term as it may originally have been for many) "Goodism" (Chrestianity)?

In this context, I've mentioned this before, but I once found in a bookshop (before I became really interested in these matters) a late 19th century monograph that (to my continued chagrin) I later lost in a basement flood - it was most intriguing, because it purported to show evidence of "Christian" on Roman tombs BEFORE 0BCE - the author, IIRC, hypothesised that "Anointed" was a term used in the Mysteries, or something like that. I can't even remember the author - but I guess he must have been one of the old 19th century mythicists. Again, IIRC, he'd scoured archaeological records of the day to find this, and he was presenting it as something nobody had yet noticed.

But anyway, if that were true, it could clinch the deal: if "Christian" wasn't a term specifically associated with a Jewish religion only, but was more broadly a term associated with the Mysteries, the whole problem is solved.

Well, Justin Martyr has solved all your problems. Justin is probably the first writer in the 2nd century to expose the fact that during the time of Claudius, since between 41-54 CE, almost the whole of Samaria were called Christians by worshiping Simon Magus, a magician.

Justin also mentioned Christians who followed Menander, the doctrine of Valentinus, Basilides, Saturnilus and the Marcians.

There are also persons like Theopohilus of Antioch, Octavius in Minucius Felix, Tatian, and Athenagoras who were called Christians but did not worship any character called Jesus as a God.

From Justin's writings it would appear that Jesus believers were treated with scorn by other Christians and that those who believed in the Jesus God/man story may not have been prominent at all.

Justin Martyr's conversion story exposes the fact that Jesus believers were extremely difficult to find in the 2nd century. It was an old man whom Justin met by accident that told him about Jesus believers.

Yeah that sure gives us an impression of diversity, and it shows that the Jesus fellow wasn't as central to whatever the hell it was that was called "Christianity", or to "Christians" or "Chrestians", as he later came to be. I mean it's really hard to read something like the Octavius of Minucius Felix, and still think that what he's talking about is the Christianity we know about today, or even the orthodox Christianity of the day - it really looks like something weird and different from that, much more philosophical and much more solidly part of the Hellenistic sphere of ideas.

But it's the term itself that requires explanation. We're so used to thinking of it as a translation of "Messiah", but the concept of anointing isn't exclusively Jewish is it? What if initiates of the Mysteries were already called "Christs", or were somehow considered to be imbued with the Platonic Son/Sun/Saviour thing?

(I think this is something like Freke & Gandy's idea - that this loose, broad-based "Christian" movement was something like an exotericization of the Mysteries, a throwing them open to the public in some sense - and although their scholarship has been criticized - after all it's a very bold idea, so it needs good evidence - it's definitely intriguing, and fits everything rather nicely.)

mountainman · 03-16-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...
How abut archeological?

A Christian church that can be dated to the third century is a remarkable find.

A Christian inscription, statue, cross, artwork, frescoe, burial relic, trinket, papyri fragment (undated), grafitti, etc, etc, etc --- that can be dated to the third century is a remarkable find. The total absence of evidence is a remarkable fact - is there an elephant in the room of "early christianity"?

mountainman · 03-16-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am sincerely interested in the answer to the OP question. So far I have two sources, Tacitus and Josephus and a possible third being a Talmudic reference which I know nothing about.

After duly registering Josephus, surely you should formally deregister him again since most freethinkers in the world acknowledge the reference as a 4th century interpolation. ie: Josephus did not in fact author that paragraph in the 1st century.

mountainman · 03-16-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

... the reference from Tacitus.

This may be questioned and has been questioned.

See WIKI's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
I think the "questionableness of the reference" does not just relate to Jesus aka christ
but also applies to whether Tacitus actually mentions "christians" or "chrestians".
Who were "chrestians"?
Tacitus is suspect.

Huon · 03-16-2010, 03:37 PM

SEMO SANCUS was an Italian divinity worshipped by the Sabines, Umbrians and Romans, also called Dius Fidius. Sancus is obviously from sancire, meaning one who hallows the acts in which he takes part. Semo has been variously explained as: (r) one who presides over seed-time and harvest (serere, cf. the female Semonia); (2) a being apart from and superior to man (se-homo); (3) a demi-god (semis).

He had a sanctuary on the Quirinal. There was a second chapel of Semo Sancus on the island in the Tiber with an altar, the inscription (Semo Sancus Dius Fidius) on which led Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius) to confuse him with Simon Magus, and to infer that the latter was worshipped at Rome as a god. The cult of Semo Sancus never possessed very great importance at Rome.

mountainman · 03-16-2010, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Simon was honoured in Rome.

SEMO SANCUS (see above) was honoured in Rome. Justin and Eusebius made a mistake about this statue being related to "simon magus" and made another mistake when they said that "simon magus" was honoured by the Roman senate. IMO Justin and Eusebius were quite deliberately mistaken and were simply embellishing their story for the benefit of their readers.

dog-on · 03-17-2010, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yea, I'll give it to you. Though I have other issues with this particular epistle and is why I originally wanted to stay away from them as evidence.

Suckered. In the diaspora the word for messiah was "christ" as the LXX shows. ApostateAbe should know better by now than to give a tendentious translation which uses "church" for a term which at the time simply meant "assembly". What the verse actually says is "the assemblies of Judea that are in the messiah". Bye-bye go the anachronisms. :wave:

spin

Spin, one other question.

What is the actual Greek word that Paul uses here?

What would it have meant to a Greek speaker, in normal use?

spin · 03-17-2010, 07:40 AM

Here's the phrase:

ταις εκκλησιαις της ιουδαιας εν κυριω

the assemblies of Judea in the lord

Note that the word usually translated as "church" is used frequently through the LXX. See for example 1 Kgs 8:22, "And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation (=εκκλησια) of Israel".

spin

03-16-2010, 03:37 PM	#37
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	SEMO SANCUS and Simon Magus SEMO SANCUS was an Italian divinity worshipped by the Sabines, Umbrians and Romans, also called Dius Fidius. Sancus is obviously from sancire, meaning one who hallows the acts in which he takes part. Semo has been variously explained as: (r) one who presides over seed-time and harvest (serere, cf. the female Semonia); (2) a being apart from and superior to man (se-homo); (3) a demi-god (semis). He had a sanctuary on the Quirinal. There was a second chapel of Semo Sancus on the island in the Tiber with an altar, the inscription (Semo Sancus Dius Fidius) on which led Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius) to confuse him with Simon Magus, and to infer that the latter was worshipped at Rome as a god. The cult of Semo Sancus never possessed very great importance at Rome.

03-17-2010, 07:40 AM	#40
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Here's the phrase: ταις εκκλησιαις της ιουδαιας εν κυριω the assemblies of Judea in the lord Note that the word usually translated as "church" is used frequently through the LXX. See for example 1 Kgs 8:22, "And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation (=εκκλησια) of Israel". spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.