Doug Shaver

If the same person were to argue both "Christianity was not unprecedented, therefore it is wrong" and "Christianity rejected all precedents, therefore it is wrong," then I would agree that such a person ought to make up his mind. But I don't know any skeptic who ever made both arguments.

I myself, by the way, have never made or endorsed either argument.

Walrus

I'm happy to see some intelligence finally at work in this place. I don't plan on making a study of whether it was the same exact person making both arguments, I just know I have now seen it argued from both sides here, although it is good to see that you and Toto (in post #2) see the pointlessness of this criticism.

Toto

Hi Walrus - you seem to be new around here. mountainman has some unorthodox interpretations of early Christian history which he has expounded on in the past, but has not actually found any takers for. He thinks that Christianity was an invention by Constantine imposed on the Roman Empire. He sees this period as bad guys versus good guys, with Constantine and his minions the bad guys and pagan, ascetic, vegetarian pseudo-Buddhist priests the good guys.

I am thinking that this thread belongs in the newly reopened ~E~.

mountainman

A Silence of a few moments duration (whether or not in response to questions) is certainly not the same thing as the "Noble Silence" which has been explicitly defined in the opening post. The practice of this "Noble Silence" lasted days, weeks, months, if not -- in the case of the Pythagoreans - five years.

mountainman

The practice was also that of the Pythagoreans and thus would have been known to all Greeks in the epoch of the first few centuries of the common era. Every Greek man and his dog would have been aware that one of the prerequisites of the early Pythagoreans involved the practice of keeping "Noble Silence" for a period of five years.

One need only read Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" to see an example of this practice in the person of Apollonius in the first century.

The new testament was written in Greek, for the benefit of a Greek audience who were familiar with the basic precepts of Greek sages and revered and Greek Holy men, Greek sages, Greek philosophers, etc. One of the fundamental Greek precepts was the vow of "Noble Silence". While this may have been ultimately derived from Buddha, it is obvious that some of the most ancient and highly revered Greek "philosopher-sages" took to this practice as their own.

The authors of the NT -- writing in Greek for the Greeks -- appear to have disdainfully avoided this core precept of the Greek philosopher/sages. Why was this? It appears that the authors of the NT were not out to win Greek friends and influence Greek people. In fact, it appears that the authors of the NT saw themselves as a brand "NEW and STRANGE" (to quote Eusebius) authority in their own right. How does one explain this petulance?

mountainman

G'Day aa5874,

I think your response is quite astute.

The authors of the NT appear to be writing in Greek with a great authority behind them --- but that great authority had absolutely nothing to do with religion (as the Greeks perceived it) at all.

mountainman

I saw this as an attempt to make a generalisation.

Noble Silence was extremely well known to the Greeks.
The other listed precepts would have been similarly well known to the Greeks.
And yet these well known precepts are omitted from the NT which was written in Greek for the Greeks.

I think the reason which you outlined for this omission of "Noble Silence" is a valid reason why the authors did not include any reference to "Noble Silence" and I generalised the question to include other Greek precepts also omitted.

mountainman

It is interesting to note that the story of Buddha's enlightenment has him becoming enlightened under a fig tree.





According to the "story" (fiction or otherwise) Jesus was silenced by the Romans who oversaw the crucifixion, but not before out of the mouth of Jesus, in the first instance, he says -- regarding the Roman's taxtion policies ...

RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S

Obviously, it would appear that these words in the story of the NT represent a public relations exercise on behalf of the imperial Roman taxation treasuries.

mountainman

Do you mean to imply that Christianity is beyond reproach?

Toto

There is no mention in the NT of vegetarianism or of meditation. There is only a passing reference to Greek philosophy in Acts.

Possibly the reason is that the gospels were written for the general public, initiates and householders, not for those who were part of the inner circle.

There are more references to Jewish practices - handwashing, circumcision, Temple sacrifices, reading the scriptures in synagogues. What do you make of that?