Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....All I'm pointing out is that there was, quite naturally, a long standing, and subversive, Jewish dissident background with highly developed theological propaganda, that the emergent church and its writings was based upon and in the composing of the Epistles and Gospels, heavily drew upon.

Please point out the source for your claims. There is ZERO evidence that there was any Jesus movement or story in the 1st century in Judea and practised or developed by people with Jewish dissident [i] background].

We have DATED Texts to the 1st century, the DSS, and we have Philo and Josephus. There is no mention of any highly developed theological propaganda by Jewish dissidents or people with that bacground.

The earliest story of Jesus in the short-ending gMark was NOT likely to be written by a Jew and does NOT show a highly developed theology.

Sheshbazzar · 05-04-2012, 09:21 AM

It was perhaps somewhat lost in the explanation that I presented in Post #67
But what I have really been pointing out here is that at least as early as the 3 century BCE based upon simple linguistic evidence, there were already Greek speaking Hellenistic Jews and their Gentile companions who were already talking about, and believing in a χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν "christos Iēsous" > 'christ Jesus'.

χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν 'Christ Jesus' and his 'sayings' had been around for centuries before being finally 'born' in the 1st century.

What χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν ('christos Iēsous') was, and signified, during this long formative period, was a mythical messianic figurehead, an ancient equivalent of an 'Uncle Sam'.
Searching for a 'historical Jesus' is on the par of searching for the real flesh and blood historical 'Uncle Sam' of America.

Did a real flesh and blood historical 'Uncle Sam' exist? Well, on one hand many Americans -do- have an uncle named 'Sam'.

Who would ever even think of making up an Uncle Sam unless there had been a real living historcal Uncle Sam to inspire the fictional one? [HJ] 'reasoning' [/HJ]

But the 'Uncle Sam' of yore, the one that has appeared in millions of political commentaries and advertisements, That Uncle Sam that WANTS YOU! is going to be a bit difficult to locate.
Same with Christ Jesus, 'he' was, is, and always has been from the beginning, a figurative political character, a SYMBOL of a political/religious alignment that WANTS YOU! (to join and support that political/religious movement of which 'he' is the iconic figurehead.)

The circumstances of the late 1st century Israel brought this formerly moderately obscure figure of a desire for Justice and of opposition to 'The System' into the limelight. And it wasn't long before every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Yo'hachanan with gripe against 'The System' or a political or religious axe to grind became skilled at channeling it through this 'Christ Jesus' figure (whether the 'System' being despised and attacked was the 'Jewish', the 'Greek', the 'Roman', the 'Egyptian', or.....)

'Jesus' is simply a [i]political[i]/religious figure still being used in the exactly same way right up to todays news.
You're never going to locate 'Uncle Sam's' hometown, any of his family members, nor any witnesses that can give credible accounts of their daily lives with him.

From the beginning, people made up stories, and things that Ἰησοῦν >'Jesus' allegedly 'said', the motives were often political, or an expression of their own hopes, dreams, and yearnings.

They still do, because it is much harder for their opponents and 'The System' to fight against an untouchable and intangible 'Jesus' than against them.
'Jesus said...' is the ultimate escape from personal culpability, by shifting of the responsibility for ones own personal political and religious opinions to this totally imaginary figure.

.

Duvduv · 05-08-2012, 12:19 PM

In all the discussion over whether Christian writers actually existed in the 2nd century has there every been an inventory done of the frequency of citations of the earliest apologists/writers in the works of later writers from the 4th or 5th centuries or even before?

Presumably, if an early name doesn't show up until rather late as a major source of knowledge about Christianity, that would call into question whether that person actually existed as claimed in the 2nd century.

I have tried googling around on this subject but haven't found anything. Furthermore, this would also apply even to the canonical texts if commentaries to the epistles, for example, don't show up until the end of the 4th century, i.e. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Here is a commentary of Theodore on the Nicene Creed. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th..._02_text.htm#2
You will see how frequently he cites "the virgin Mary" and "under Pilate." But not a single time does this commentary identify WHERE or WHEN Pontius Pilate actually was, nor anything about the Virgin Mary at all.
"Blessed Paul" is mentioned many times without any biographical information at all. As a matter fact, in Theodore's commentary on Acts he doesn't mention anything biographical about Paul at all.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th...rologue_02.htm

Duvduv · 05-08-2012, 03:41 PM

I would want to look to Antioch and Alexandria, the Cappadocia Fathers, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Mopsuestia and the like as the authors of interpolations, development of dogma, canon, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In all the discussion over whether Christian writers actually existed in the 2nd century has there every been an inventory done of the frequency of citations of the earliest apologists/writers in the works of later writers from the 4th or 5th centuries or even before?

Presumably, if an early name doesn't show up until rather late as a major source of knowledge about Christianity, that would call into question whether that person actually existed as claimed in the 2nd century.

I have tried googling around on this subject but haven't found anything. Furthermore, this would also apply even to the canonical texts if commentaries to the epistles, for example, don't show up until the end of the 4th century, i.e. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Here is a commentary of Theodore on the Nicene Creed. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th..._02_text.htm#2
You will see how frequently he cites "the virgin Mary" and "under Pilate." But not a single time does this commentary identify WHERE or WHEN Pontius Pilate actually was, nor anything about the Virgin Mary at all.
"Blessed Paul" is mentioned many times without any biographical information at all. As a matter fact, in Theodore's commentary on Acts he doesn't mention anything biographical about Paul at all.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th...rologue_02.htm

Duvduv · 05-09-2012, 01:48 PM

Now coming as far as the year 451 to the Chalcedon Creed, where at a time when there were supposedly several TENS OF MILLIONS of identifying Christians (presumably of one sort or another) only approximately 370 bishops attended and produced yet a new Creed restating some of the previous creeds AND a couple of new things, i.e. that Jesus himself was not only part of the trinity but was God himself, a slap at the Nestorians who managed to survive.

It also had a bunch of canons prohibiting various things which presumably means it had the power to enforce and coerce within its domain. Yet, it took FOUR HUNDRED years from the time the official doctrine said the religion was established to make final determinations about their savior based on the trinity that apparently emerged only over a century earlier and "handed down" from Nicea.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Duvduv · 05-10-2012, 04:49 AM

What was insufficient about all the previous explanations of the Trinity that required the Chalcedon creed to state that the historical Jesus was actually God, and how did supposedly 370 bishops exert their Creed and canons on what were supposedly millions of people in the fifth century? Or was it the case that even Christian clergy ever since Constantinople 70 years earlier couldn't explain the meaning of the Trinity much less understand this new concept, or why it took almost 400 years since the supposed days of Jesus to clarify this essential pillar??

Toto · 05-10-2012, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What was insufficient about all the previous explanations of the Trinity that required the Chalcedon creed to state that the historical Jesus was actually God, and how did supposedly 370 bishops exert their Creed and canons on what were supposedly millions of people in the fifth century? Or was it the case that even Christian clergy ever since Constantinople 70 years earlier couldn't explain the meaning of the Trinity much less understand this new concept, or why it took almost 400 years since the supposed days of Jesus to clarify this essential pillar??

The concept of the Trinity was not clarified after almost 400 years. It has never been clarified, and is inherently unclear. But it is not an essential pillar of Christianity in any case.

Duvduv · 05-10-2012, 08:57 AM

Come on, Toto. Find me a single Christian who doesn't know or believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.....and who will say it's not an essential pillar of the Christ belief!
Does it make sense that the early Christians believed this teaching was an integral part of the revelation of the Christ and yet was incomprehensible to them and their own apostolic tradition for FOUR HUNDRED years??! What happened to the tradition of the apostles?!

Despite the fact that Paul's revelation in Galatians had NOTHING to do with the trinity. One would imagine that had the Trinity been an early development according to Christianity, it would have been revealed to Paul!
"Greetings, Paul. I am the the Son, one of the three persons of God!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What was insufficient about all the previous explanations of the Trinity that required the Chalcedon creed to state that the historical Jesus was actually God, and how did supposedly 370 bishops exert their Creed and canons on what were supposedly millions of people in the fifth century? Or was it the case that even Christian clergy ever since Constantinople 70 years earlier couldn't explain the meaning of the Trinity much less understand this new concept, or why it took almost 400 years since the supposed days of Jesus to clarify this essential pillar??

The concept of the Trinity was not clarified after almost 400 years. It has never been clarified, and is inherently unclear. But it is not an essential pillar of Christianity in any case.

arnoldo · 05-12-2012, 06:47 AM

This very division within the christian church is the issue which the Emperor Julian wished to use to weaken, if not destroy, the church. Upon becoming Emperor, one of the first acts decreed by him was to recall all of the previously exiled Arian Bishops. Still, when conditions warranted, he did not hesitate to rule against the Arians which is illustrate by his alleged letter written to Hecebolius concerning a disturbance in Edesssa.

Quote:

To Hecebolius, — I treat all the Galileans with so much consideration and benevolence that none of them have ever suffered violence, and I do not wish that any of them should be dragged to the temples, or forced to do anything contrary to their convictions. But those of the Arian Church, puffed up with pride on account of their wealth, have assailed the Valentinians, and committed disorders in Edessa that should not be permitted in any well-conducted city. A most admirable law, however, teaches the Christians that it is necessary to be poor to enter the kingdom of heaven ; now to assist them, we command that all the property of the Church of the Edessians be confiscated and distributed to the soldiers, and the lands form part of our domain. Thus, being impoverished,they will become wise, and will obtain the hoped-for kingdom of heaven.

Besides dealing with the Christians, or Galileans as he calls them, he seemed to have to contend with massive indifference towards the pagan religion he was seeking to revive. Upon entering a pagan temple in Antioch instead of finding lavish offerings to the pagan gods, Julian allegedly found the following. .

Quote:

. . But when I entered the temple, I did not see either incense or offerings of fruit or victims. I was profoundly astonished at this, and supposed that you were outside waiting for me to appear and give the signal, as I am the great Hierophant. But when I questioned the priest about the sacrifice the city was supposed to offer on the occasion of the annual festival, he replied : ' Well, I bring from my house a goose for the god, but the city has not prepared anything.' Then, overcome by indignation, I addressed to the Council this severe reprimand, which it is, I think, advisable that I should record : ' It is shameful,' I said, ' that such a great city should be so . . . in the worship of the gods ; this would not have happened in the poorest village of the Pontus. The city owns large tracts of land, and notwith- standing this, at the annual feast of its national god, the first time since the clouds of atheism have been dispersed, it does not even offer a bird, when it should offer an ox for each of its wards, or, if this were too much, all should combine to offer in common one bull.. . But it is on the city that falls the obligation of offering sacrifices, individually and as a whole. Now, every one of you permits your wives to carry everything to the Galileans, so that, with your money, they feed the poor, thus making atheism appear most admirable to those in want. And these form the greatest number. And you imagine that you do no evil in omitting to honour the gods. No poor people present themselves at the temples, for there they would find nothing to feed them.
Julian The Apostate

sotto voce · 05-12-2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Come on, Toto. Find me a single Christian who doesn't know or believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

It's not Christians who call their deity a ghost.

In the Bible, deity is described as father, spirit and 'Son' or physical manifestation. That manifestation is the cause of the fatherhood of deity, and likewise the cause of the spirit of that same deity in the world; which deity is of course just one person.

False Christians devised the polytheism of a trinity, by which father, spirit and Son were effectively made into three deities by the use of the word 'persons'. At the Reformation, very few recognised this error, doubtless having their minds fixed on such pressing issues as Mass sacrifice, works justification and concomitant scandals, as perceived. But in recent years many have recognised trinitarianism as heresy, and in some unlikely places, too. Even senior Anglican teachers have expressed doubts about the trinity teaching; as well they might, under the accusation that trinitarianism is a logical nonsense that could only have got established by coercion and ignorance of medieval proportion. Trinitarians have more or less given up attempting to defend their doctrine. So skeptics/atheists, who so often seem determined to insist that trinitarianism is an integral part of Christianity, are behind the times, and are again in danger of taking sides with the dinosaur of Constantinianism and its coercive nature. Not a freethinker's characteristic or commendation.

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

05-04-2012, 09:21 AM	#82
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It was perhaps somewhat lost in the explanation that I presented in Post #67 But what I have really been pointing out here is that at least as early as the 3 century BCE based upon simple linguistic evidence, there were already Greek speaking Hellenistic Jews and their Gentile companions who were already talking about, and believing in a χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν "christos Iēsous" > 'christ Jesus'. χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν 'Christ Jesus' and his 'sayings' had been around for centuries before being finally 'born' in the 1st century. What χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦν ('christos Iēsous') was, and signified, during this long formative period, was a mythical messianic figurehead, an ancient equivalent of an 'Uncle Sam'. Searching for a 'historical Jesus' is on the par of searching for the real flesh and blood historical 'Uncle Sam' of America. Did a real flesh and blood historical 'Uncle Sam' exist? Well, on one hand many Americans -do- have an uncle named 'Sam'. Who would ever even think of making up an Uncle Sam unless there had been a real living historcal Uncle Sam to inspire the fictional one? [HJ] 'reasoning' [/HJ] But the 'Uncle Sam' of yore, the one that has appeared in millions of political commentaries and advertisements, That Uncle Sam that WANTS YOU! is going to be a bit difficult to locate. Same with Christ Jesus, 'he' was, is, and always has been from the beginning, a figurative political character, a SYMBOL of a political/religious alignment that WANTS YOU! (to join and support that political/religious movement of which 'he' is the iconic figurehead.) The circumstances of the late 1st century Israel brought this formerly moderately obscure figure of a desire for Justice and of opposition to 'The System' into the limelight. And it wasn't long before every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Yo'hachanan with gripe against 'The System' or a political or religious axe to grind became skilled at channeling it through this 'Christ Jesus' figure (whether the 'System' being despised and attacked was the 'Jewish', the 'Greek', the 'Roman', the 'Egyptian', or.....) 'Jesus' is simply a [i]political[i]/religious figure still being used in the exactly same way right up to todays news. You're never going to locate 'Uncle Sam's' hometown, any of his family members, nor any witnesses that can give credible accounts of their daily lives with him. From the beginning, people made up stories, and things that Ἰησοῦν >'Jesus' allegedly 'said', the motives were often political, or an expression of their own hopes, dreams, and yearnings. They still do, because it is much harder for their opponents and 'The System' to fight against an untouchable and intangible 'Jesus' than against them. 'Jesus said...' is the ultimate escape from personal culpability, by shifting of the responsibility for ones own personal political and religious opinions to this totally imaginary figure. .

05-08-2012, 12:19 PM	#83
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In all the discussion over whether Christian writers actually existed in the 2nd century has there every been an inventory done of the frequency of citations of the earliest apologists/writers in the works of later writers from the 4th or 5th centuries or even before? Presumably, if an early name doesn't show up until rather late as a major source of knowledge about Christianity, that would call into question whether that person actually existed as claimed in the 2nd century. I have tried googling around on this subject but haven't found anything. Furthermore, this would also apply even to the canonical texts if commentaries to the epistles, for example, don't show up until the end of the 4th century, i.e. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Here is a commentary of Theodore on the Nicene Creed. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th..._02_text.htm#2 You will see how frequently he cites "the virgin Mary" and "under Pilate." But not a single time does this commentary identify WHERE or WHEN Pontius Pilate actually was, nor anything about the Virgin Mary at all. "Blessed Paul" is mentioned many times without any biographical information at all. As a matter fact, in Theodore's commentary on Acts he doesn't mention anything biographical about Paul at all. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/th...rologue_02.htm

05-09-2012, 01:48 PM	#85
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Now coming as far as the year 451 to the Chalcedon Creed, where at a time when there were supposedly several TENS OF MILLIONS of identifying Christians (presumably of one sort or another) only approximately 370 bishops attended and produced yet a new Creed restating some of the previous creeds AND a couple of new things, i.e. that Jesus himself was not only part of the trinity but was God himself, a slap at the Nestorians who managed to survive. It also had a bunch of canons prohibiting various things which presumably means it had the power to enforce and coerce within its domain. Yet, it took FOUR HUNDRED years from the time the official doctrine said the religion was established to make final determinations about their savior based on the trinity that apparently emerged only over a century earlier and "handed down" from Nicea. We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

05-10-2012, 04:49 AM	#86
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What was insufficient about all the previous explanations of the Trinity that required the Chalcedon creed to state that the historical Jesus was actually God, and how did supposedly 370 bishops exert their Creed and canons on what were supposedly millions of people in the fifth century? Or was it the case that even Christian clergy ever since Constantinople 70 years earlier couldn't explain the meaning of the Trinity much less understand this new concept, or why it took almost 400 years since the supposed days of Jesus to clarify this essential pillar??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.