Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-19-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Why would they do that? Why they have any interest in the words of the Jewish prophets? Why would they think that the Septuagint told of a 'Big Picture' into which their 'nations' should fit? Why wouldn't any Greek-speaking Gentiles who somehow came across the Septuagint simply say 'Hmm, total bunch of crap'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

My question could have been answered much more simply by saying 'There's one born every minute'. But I forgot that, so I owe you thanks for reminding me.

Not really, as such a reply would not have adequately addressed your four separate questions and concerns.

It would have been adequate for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

If you don't want to receive detailed answers, then simply stop with the posing of such trite questions.
Keep on asking such, and you will keep receiving answers that you don't like.

What a strange misapprehension you are under if you think I don't like receiving answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And certainly the rate is far higher than one every minute.

(eta)
But thank you, for the additional opportunity to further explain why there would have been Gentile Believers as early as the 3rd century B.C., and that these would have also been earnestly awaiting the -"Christ"- figure described in The LXX , making them the first, and original "Christ"-ians, centuries before the alleged events related in The NT.

I think I need to point out to you, that I do not believe those stories, found either of the "Old" or of the "New Testaments", but I am able to follow and respect the thought processes that were involved in the creation of these LEGENDS, and my fellow humans reasons for clinging on to hope, and for exercising faith.
There is a difference between myth and LEGEND. Legend is created and promoted to serve specific social needs.
The Jewish religion's peculiar LEGENDS and customs served to unify a small and otherwise insignificant nation in the midst powerful and what would have otherwise been overwhelming powers. The LEGEND of YAH-hoshua,(Numbers 13:16) "YAHs-Deliverer" ("Joshua" sic) was just revived and continuated as Judas Maccabee's "watchword" and midrashed into the iconic LEGENDARY Messianic figure of Y'shua-ben-Y'oseph, called by the Gentile "christians"- "Joshua the christ", "Jesus Christ", but then they also pronounced the name "Joshua" of the Old Testement as "Iasus" as had been the custom at least since the introduction of The LXX.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of Gentile believers of the kind you describe? So far you haven't presented any.

Sheshbazzar · 11-19-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Not really, as such a reply would not have adequately addressed your four separate questions and concerns.

It would have been adequate for me.What a strange misapprehension you are under if you think I don't like receiving answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And certainly the rate is far higher than one every minute.

(eta)
But thank you, for the additional opportunity to further explain why there would have been Gentile Believers as early as the 3rd century B.C., and that these would have also been earnestly awaiting the -"Christ"- figure described in The LXX , making them the first, and original "Christ"-ians, centuries before the alleged events related in The NT.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of Gentile believers of the kind you describe? So far you haven't presented any.

First off, I'd like to remind you that The Torah has always specifically provided for the accommodation of "strangers", Gentiles that would live among the Jews, yet remain as Gentiles.
These Laws deliniated both what was required as to the Jews treatment of, and obligations towards "strangers" within the gates", and what would be the minimum requirements expected of such "strangers", and what restrictions these "strangers" would need to submit to to live peaceably among the Israelites.
There were also those "strangers" who did not live in eretz Yisrael (The Land of Israel) nor dwell among among the Jews, yet believed in the Scriptures, and accepted and served the Elohim of the Hebrews (Job 1:1)
I will forgo the reciting of and expounding upon the many verses that deal with these, and rather just summarise the major categories of these "strangers" as regulated under Jewish law.
The first, simplest, and least restrictive category is the -ben Noach-, literally "son of Noah", such person would be expected to abide by the Noachide laws, and be monotheist (although not necessarily even the Elohim of the Hebrews, YHWH_ but preferably) such would not need be observant of the Jewish laws regarding circumcision, diet, and clothing.
But still required to rest upon The Sabbath day(s), and would be barred from participation in the Passover.

The second category is the "stranger in the gate", the -ger toshav- these were those -proselyte-, Gentiles who upheld and followed to various degrees the laws of the Jews, yet had not submitted to the rite of circumcision, and thus remained outside of The Covenant of The Law.

The third category being the true proselyte, the -ger tzediq- a former Gentile who underwent the rite of circumcision, endeavored to obey all of The Law, and thus became fully Jewish, and accounted equally an Israelite.
All this had been going on long before NT times.

Of particular note in this discussion however, is the first two categories, but particularly the second, The thousands of -ger toshav-Gentiles, deeply involved in the Jews religion for hundreds of years, while yet already restraining from submitting to the rite circumcision. With The LXX they already had their "christ" to believe in, as it was written right there in the LXX text which they read and expounded.

When the "times got tough" in the first century, it was easy for these to separate from the legalistic Jewish "Nazarene" messianic factions rulings, and split off into those Gentile dominated "christ cults" that rejected The Law and the practice of circumcision.

As I said before, what "Paul" was preaching didn't just come to 'him' in some 'vision' on the road to Damascus. These proto-christ-ians had been hashing over and revising this antinomian so-called "Gospel to the Gentiles" for centuries, and "Paul" became a convenient sock-puppet to disseminate the "new" quasi-pagan theology.
The real Nazarenes got sidelined and virtually forgotten, a minor Jewish sect despised by both Christians and Jews.
The Christians hating them for their retention of "the works of The Law", and their continued practice of circumcision. The Jews cursing them for their acceptance of the Nazarene Y'shua as being the promised Messiah.

J-D · 11-19-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It would have been adequate for me.What a strange misapprehension you are under if you think I don't like receiving answers to my questions.Do you have any evidence for the existence of Gentile believers of the kind you describe? So far you haven't presented any.

First off, I'd like to remind you that The Torah has always specifically provided for the accommodation of "strangers", Gentiles that would live among the Jews, yet remain as Gentiles.
These Laws deliniated both what was required as to the Jews treatment of, and obligations towards "strangers" within the gates", and what would be the minimum requirements expected of such "strangers", and what restrictions these "strangers" would need to submit to to live peaceably among the Israelites.
There were also those "strangers" who did not live in eretz Yisrael (The Land of Israel) nor dwell among among the Jews, yet believed in the Scriptures, and accepted and served the Elohim of the Hebrews (Job 1:1)
I will forgo the reciting of and expounding upon the many verses that deal with these, and rather just summarise the major categories of these "strangers" as regulated under Jewish law.
The first, simplest, and least restrictive category is the -ben Noach-, literally "son of Noah", such person would be expected to abide by the Noachide laws, and be monotheist (although not necessarily even the Elohim of the Hebrews, YHWH_ but preferably) such would not need be observant of the Jewish laws regarding circumcision, diet, and clothing.
But still required to rest upon The Sabbath day(s), and would be barred from participation in the Passover.

The second category is the "stranger in the gate", the -ger toshav- these were those -proselyte-, Gentiles who upheld and followed to various degrees the laws of the Jews, yet had not submitted to the rite of circumcision, and thus remained outside of The Covenant of The Law.

The third category being the true proselyte, the -ger tzediq- a former Gentile who underwent the rite of circumcision, endeavored to obey all of The Law, and thus became fully Jewish, and accounted equally an Israelite.
All this had been going on long before NT times.

Of particular note in this discussion however, is the first two categories, but particularly the second, The thousands of -ger toshav-Gentiles, deeply involved in the Jews religion for hundreds of years, while yet already restraining from submitting to the rite circumcision. With The LXX they already had their "christ" to believe in, as it was written right there in the LXX text which they read and expounded.

When the "times got tough" in the first century, it was easy for these to separate from the legalistic Jewish "Nazarene" messianic factions rulings, and split off into those Gentile dominated "christ cults" that rejected The Law and the practice of circumcision.

As I said before, what "Paul" was preaching didn't just come to 'him' in some 'vision' on the road to Damascus. These proto-christ-ians had been hashing over and revising this antinomian so-called "Gospel to the Gentiles" for centuries, and "Paul" became a convenient sock-puppet to disseminate the "new" quasi-pagn theology.
The real Nazarenes got sidelined and virtually forgotten, a minor Jewish sect despised by both Christians and Jews.
The Christians hating them for their retention of "the works of The Law", and their continued practice of circumcision. The Jews cursing them for their acceptance of the Nazarene Y'shua as being the promised Messiah.

There's no evidence there of the kind I asked for. The fact that Jewish law made provision for the 'ger toshav' is not evidence that there were thousands of them, or that there were any at all.

Sheshbazzar · 11-19-2008, 10:46 PM

It didn't take much time to turn up this one on Wiki;

Quote:

Izates II or Izates bar Monobaz (also known as Izaates) (ca. 1-55 CE) was a proselyte to Judaism who became King of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene. He was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene and Monobaz I. During his youth he was sent by his father to the court of King Abennerig of Characene in Charax Spasinu. While in Charax Izates became acquainted with a Jewish merchant named Ananias, who familiarized him with the tenets of the Jewish religion, in which he became deeply interested. Izates married King Abennerig's daughter Symacho who had been converted to Judaism through the efforts of Ananias. Unbeknownst to him, his mother roughly contemporaneously converted to Judaism. On returning home and ascending the throne on the death of his father, Izates discovered the conversion of his mother; and he himself intended to adopt Judaism, and even to submit to circumcision. He was, however, dissuaded from this step both by his teacher Ananias and by his mother, but was ultimately persuaded thereto by another Jew, Eleazar.[1]

For some time Izates enjoyed peace; and he was so highly respected that he was chosen as arbitrator between the Parthian king Artabanus and his rebellious nobles. But when several of Izates' relatives openly acknowledged their conversion to Judaism, some of the nobles of Adiabene secretly induced Abia, an Arab king, to declare war against him. Izates defeated his enemy, who in despair committed suicide. The nobles then conspired with Vologases, King of Parthia, but the latter was at the last moment prevented from carrying out his plans, and Izates continued to reign undisturbed for twenty-four years.

Izates died around 55 CE. His mother Helena survived him for only a short time. He left twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters. Izates was succeeded by his brother Monobaz II, who sent Izates' remains and those of Queen Helena to Jerusalem for burial.

There are extensive Jewish writings on the subject of the -ger toshav-, which is not likely have been the case if such was uncommon.
If it were possible through much careful research to ferret out even a few hundred documented cases, complete with names, dates, and the synagogues involved, you would still be able to make the same objection, So I'll not expend the effort.

You are free to believe whatever you want. You want to to believe that "Paul" recieved his theology lock stock and barrel solely through the means of a vision?

Quote:

" If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:22

I'm sure a majority of Fundies will applaud for your support of their fairy tale.

J-D · 11-20-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It didn't take much time to turn up this one on Wiki;

Quote:

Izates II or Izates bar Monobaz (also known as Izaates) (ca. 1-55 CE) was a proselyte to Judaism who became King of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene. He was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene and Monobaz I. During his youth he was sent by his father to the court of King Abennerig of Characene in Charax Spasinu. While in Charax Izates became acquainted with a Jewish merchant named Ananias, who familiarized him with the tenets of the Jewish religion, in which he became deeply interested. Izates married King Abennerig's daughter Symacho who had been converted to Judaism through the efforts of Ananias. Unbeknownst to him, his mother roughly contemporaneously converted to Judaism. On returning home and ascending the throne on the death of his father, Izates discovered the conversion of his mother; and he himself intended to adopt Judaism, and even to submit to circumcision. He was, however, dissuaded from this step both by his teacher Ananias and by his mother, but was ultimately persuaded thereto by another Jew, Eleazar.[1]

For some time Izates enjoyed peace; and he was so highly respected that he was chosen as arbitrator between the Parthian king Artabanus and his rebellious nobles. But when several of Izates' relatives openly acknowledged their conversion to Judaism, some of the nobles of Adiabene secretly induced Abia, an Arab king, to declare war against him. Izates defeated his enemy, who in despair committed suicide. The nobles then conspired with Vologases, King of Parthia, but the latter was at the last moment prevented from carrying out his plans, and Izates continued to reign undisturbed for twenty-four years.

Izates died around 55 CE. His mother Helena survived him for only a short time. He left twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters. Izates was succeeded by his brother Monobaz II, who sent Izates' remains and those of Queen Helena to Jerusalem for burial.

That is an example of somebody--rather, there are references to a number of people--who made a full conversion to Judaism, not merely a 'ger toshav'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There are extensive Jewish writings on the subject of the -ger toshav-, which is not likely have been the case if such was uncommon.

I disagree. The existence of those writings is suggestive, but not persuasive. I expect there are also extensive Jewish writings on the subject of the red heifer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

If it were possible through much careful research to ferret out even a few hundred documented cases, complete with names, dates, and the synagogues involved, you would still be able to make the same objection, So I'll not expend the effort.

Whatever your justification, the fact remains that you have presented no evidence of any cases yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You are free to believe whatever you want. You want to to believe that "Paul" recieved his theology lock stock and barrel solely through the means of a vision?

No, I don't want to believe that. Why would you think so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

" If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:22

I'm sure a majority of Fundies will applaud for your support of their fairy tale.

You have, without justification, uttered a falsehood about me, and I resent it.

mountainman · 11-20-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I'm sure a majority of Fundies will applaud for your support of their fairy tale.

You have, without justification, uttered a falsehood about me, and I resent it.

Dear J-D,

Only Eusebian apologists without justification or evidence cling to conjectures of an "early christian origin" based on a first century chronology such as you yourself admit subscription to. I asked you once to cite some evidence for such an apologetic belief structure based on the first century, and its evidence. You responded with a bable of hearsays. What do you expect? To be classed with the infidels? Pull the other leg mate.

Best wishes,

Pete

J-D · 11-20-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have, without justification, uttered a falsehood about me, and I resent it.

Dear J-D,

Only Eusebian apologists without justification or evidence cling to conjectures of an "early christian origin" based on a first century chronology such as you yourself admit subscription to. I asked you once to cite some evidence for such an apologetic belief structure based on the first century, and its evidence. You responded with a bable of hearsays. What do you expect? To be classed with the infidels? Pull the other leg mate.

Best wishes,

Pete

You have a strange idea of what constitutes 'best wishes'. But then, as I've told you before, you're not fooling anybody.

Sheshbazzar · 11-20-2008, 07:51 AM

Right on mountainman!
J-D expects me to supply reams of documentation, outside of that found in the Bible and in early Jewish texts, to support a simple and natural premise of the existence of proselytes, while at the same time his acceptance and support of the existence of first and second century Christianity rests upon.......pfffff!
Employing the debate tactic of question after question after question endlessly, all the while avoiding having to do any study, research, or ever having to actually provide any more reasonable explantion.

Although the readers of this thread may not agree with my explanation, and I have no problem with that, anyone can look back over these posts and determine that I, (and mountainman) have attempted to explain, and provide reasoned information, while the detractors simply employ the dodge of a retreat into the fallacy of many questions.

But talk about dumbing down! I can't help wonder how many here are ready to buy into J-Ds suggestion that there never were any proselytes?
(and please note that in post # 464 above I did provide evidence of at least one)
So a question from me for a change, who reading this thread, besides J-D, seriously doubts the existance of Jewish proselytes during the Old Testement (pre-'Christian") epoch?

mountainman · 11-21-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

What is the evidence of Dura Europos?

1) a depiction of two women visiting a tomb

2) a depiction of a guy with a magic wand, another guy carrying a bed and a third guy lying in bed.

3) a depiction of three people in a boat, and two other people wading in or walking on the water beside the boat.

4) a depiction of a man carrying a sheep over his shoulders.

5) a fragment that said:

· [ ]ee and Salome a[ ] the women
· [ ] those who followed him from
· [ ]ee to see the cr{....} And it was
· [ ]y of preparation [....] Sabbath was dawn-
· [ ] And as it was becoming [ ]ate on the prep-
· [ ] which is before the sabbath, there came
· [ ] a councilman [ ]
· [ ] from Erinmathaia, a city of
· [ ]a, Jo[ ] by name, good, right-
· [ ] who was a disciple of Je[ ], but in
· [ ]ing on account of fear of the
· [ ]s, and this man was awaiting
· [ ] k[ ] of G[ ]d. This man was
· not [ ]ing to the c[ ]

6) a Jewish synagogue with extensive depictions of Jewish themes.

---------------------------------------

What other facts do we know that are relevant to whether any of these objects are Christian or not?

1) We have reason to believe that there were a large number of pagans including Roman solders in the city.

2) We know that 4th century Christians adopted a large number of pre-existing Jewish depictions and Pagan depictions. For example, the Christian Madonna and child were often indistinguishable from earlier pagan Madonna and child depictions. Also, Christian good Shepard depictions were often indistinguishable from earlier pagan good Sheppard depictions.

3) Women visit tombs all the time. You and I do not know that two women visiting a tomb was a common pagan or Jewish theme or not. I do not recall seeing any early Christian depictions of this in the 4th or 5th century.

4) You and I do not know if the mural depicts wading to get into or out of a boat or walking on water, and we do not know if walking on water was a common pagan theme or not.

5) We do not know whether the fragment was actually found in Dura-Europos or was purchased from an antiquities dealer. 1933 was before many modern archeological practices and precautions were commonly used, and there was a lot of motivation to claim that important archeological discoveries were made at the site. Many discoveries made at similar sites have turned out to be forgeries.

----------------------------------

The fragment is not convincing. Also, I could not find any evidence that Erinmathaia is a real city.

The healer has a magic wand. In the 4th and 5th century Jesus is often depicted using a magic wand to do his physical (non-medical non-exorcism) miracles, but when he cures diseases or performs exorcisms, he was never depicted with a wand. I think other healers were often depicted with magic wands at the time.

The only evidence that I think is important is the depiction of wading in or walking on water. However, people wading in the water near the shore is the only way to get between a boat and the shore, so such a depiction is not at all surprising. Even if you could show that this is a depiction of walking on water, that is a very easy magic trick to perform, and there is no reason to think that it was identified with Jesus more than any other magicians of the time.

MM claims that Christianity was invented by Constantine, and he does not consider the Gnostics and followers of Arius to be Christians. So under MM's theory, Christian presumably means that you agree with everything in the Nicene creed or 325.

You have not shown that anyone in Dura-Europos believed in everything in the Nicene creed or 325. How does any of the evidence show that anyone believes in any of the articles of the Nicene creed or 325?

Dear Pat,

Just a note to say that while doing some research on the background to the rise and fall of Dura Europa, I came across this reference:

Quote:

from p.120

SASSANID COINS

Ardashir depicts a fire burining upon a tripod.
Later kings (eg: Shapur I):
fire on an altar in the form of a column
and without a tripod, flanked by two men
holding in their hands some rod-like object.

Running around the obverse of Sassanian coins
is frequently found the legend:
The Fire of XXXX (where XXX is the ruler).

p.121.
INTERESTING

The brother of Shapur I -- Peroz (Shah)
"the worshipper of Mazdah" featuring
the image of Buddha, bear striking
testimony to a peaceful rapprochement
between the two religions.

--- Cambridge Ancient History
Volume XII
The Imperial Crisis and Recovery (193 to 324 CE)

Chapter 5: SASSANID PERSIA
The Sassanian Empire: Political History

It would be interesting to compare the "wands". The wands seem as if they may signify some sort of "priest status" / "clergy status" (or rather "Magi status" in the Mazdean / Zoroastrian Official State Religion created by Ardashir c.222 CE)

Can we match the wand in the Dura Europa art-work with the wand on the coins of Shapur I? If so, I believe the OP should withdraw the conjecture that we are dealing with "something christian" here, on the Persian frontier.

Best wishes,

Pete

spamandham · 11-21-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You are free to believe whatever you want. You want to to believe that "Paul" recieved his theology lock stock and barrel solely through the means of a vision?

Quote:

" If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:22

How do we know he didn't? Isn't it only because we tend to assume Paul's theology was *not* unique to Paul that it seems so unlikely? But what if it was an innovation unique to Paul?

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

11-20-2008, 07:51 AM	#468
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Right on mountainman! J-D expects me to supply reams of documentation, outside of that found in the Bible and in early Jewish texts, to support a simple and natural premise of the existence of proselytes, while at the same time his acceptance and support of the existence of first and second century Christianity rests upon.......pfffff! Employing the debate tactic of question after question after question endlessly, all the while avoiding having to do any study, research, or ever having to actually provide any more reasonable explantion. Although the readers of this thread may not agree with my explanation, and I have no problem with that, anyone can look back over these posts and determine that I, (and mountainman) have attempted to explain, and provide reasoned information, while the detractors simply employ the dodge of a retreat into the fallacy of many questions. But talk about dumbing down! I can't help wonder how many here are ready to buy into J-Ds suggestion that there never were any proselytes? (and please note that in post # 464 above I did provide evidence of at least one) So a question from me for a change, who reading this thread, besides J-D, seriously doubts the existance of Jewish proselytes during the Old Testement (pre-'Christian") epoch?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.