Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-01-2011, 11:25 AM

Again, it is mere propaganda that any reference to the Father and Son is about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

That is far from the truth.

There some who did NOT believe that the Son of God was a man but was the LOGOS of God.

Examine "A plea for the Christian" by Athenagoras"

Quote:

...... for we acknowledge also a Son of God.

Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.

For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one.

And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God.....

Athenagoras did NOT mention any character called Jesus Christ or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

And further, Athenagoras wrote a book on the resurrection and did NOT mention Jesus or Jesus Christ or that he was raised from the dead.

It is clear that there were Christians that BELIEVED ONLY in GOD and the Logos of God (REASON).

steve_bnk · 10-01-2011, 11:31 AM

The first 'christians' were Jews who the Romans considerd Jewish heretics.

Christianity became a distinct identity late in the first century.

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 11:35 AM

Exactly only the people from Seattle seem to get it. Starting to rain here again. Six months to go

Stringbean · 10-01-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Here from Live Science is the scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a mid-late Second century myth that we all have been waiting for.

According to the article, the earliest Christian inscription is Valentinian.
This is the earliest Christian inscription, the only one that can safely be placed in the First or Second Centuries:

Quote:

To my bath, the brothers of the bridal chamber carry the torches,
[here] in our halls, they hunger for the [true] banquets,
even while praising the Father and glorifying the Son.
There [with the Father and the Son] is the only spring and source of truth.

In Chrestianity/Christiany, we are dealing with late First Century neo-Platonic mystery Religions that were reinterpreted into Jewish History in the Mid-Late Second Century.

The fact that no inscription or writing of the New Testament and proto-orthodox Christianity can be safely dated to the Second Century and this Valentian inscription can provides scientific evidence for this view.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Thanks Jay.

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 01:05 PM

Of course I was directing my vitriol at scholarship generally rather than Jay whom I adore

aa5874 · 10-01-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The first 'christians' were Jews who the Romans considerd Jewish heretics.

Christianity became a distinct identity late in the first century.

"Christians" or "Christianity" is an ambiguous name given to people of antiquity who might or might not have believed the Jesus story.

There were "Christians" since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE who did NOT believe Jesus Christ story based on Justin Martyr.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that a Jesus Christ cult or story was known by any Jewish writer in the 1st century.

When the Jewish Temple fell, and after the Jewish War, Josephus was completely UNAWARE of a Jewish Messiah called Jesus who was known to have PREDICTED correctly the fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in books called Gospels and promoted by Paul as the Son of God and the END of the LAW.

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 01:39 PM

On the origins of the 'bridal chamber' metaphor within Judaism see The Jewish family: metaphor and memory By David Charles Kraemer Oxford University Press:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bCc...page&q&f=false

steve_bnk · 10-01-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The first 'christians' were Jews who the Romans considerd Jewish heretics.

Christianity became a distinct identity late in the first century.

"Christians" or "Christianity" is an ambiguous name given to people of antiquity who might or might not have believed the Jesus story.

There were "Christians" since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE who did NOT believe Jesus Christ story based on Justin Martyr.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that a Jesus Christ cult or story was known by any Jewish writer in the 1st century.

When the Jewish Temple fell, and after the Jewish War, Josephus was completely UNAWARE of a Jewish Messiah called Jesus who was known to have PREDICTED correctly the fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in books called Gospels and promoted by Paul as the Son of God and the END of the LAW.

Which is why ir should be called Paulism instead of Christianity.

An astute observer would have seen the fall comming son of god or not. Sedition and revolution against Rome was in trhe air.

Are you arguing JC would not have been Jewish? Considerding the tale is centered on an itinerant Jewsh rabai who allegedly raised a commotion in the Jewish community, it would be remarkable that their was no notice in Jewish or Roman records. All the more pointing to gospels as a fabrication or at best an embellisshment of a minor figure.

Solo · 10-01-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't see why the inscription is specifically Valentinian. “Bridal chamber” is an Aramaism

Whatever the Aramaic origins of the term (most probably through the Song of Songs) the marriage allegory was picked up by Paul (... I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. 2 Cr 11:2) and then popularized by the gospel parables as a gnostic cipher for the euphoric peak of epiphany. Among the Valentinians "the bridal chamber" became a thinly disguised reference to pleroma (Gospel of Philip: "Bridegrooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. Noone shall be able to see the bridegroom with the bride unless one becomes One."). The Valentinian flavour of gnosis, as marriage of the Saviour with Sophia/Mother Achamoth, echoes in John 3:29. See Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism, N.Y. Harper, 1961 pp 163-181.

stephan huller · 10-01-2011, 03:06 PM

But there's nothing specifically gnostic here or at the very least nothing that you wouldn't find in a typical Syriac hymn associated with someone in the tradition of Ephrem or the like. It's just the way Semitic Christians expressed themselves. Pleroma is another Aramaism. None of this is proof the inscription is 'gnostic.' I don't even know what that word means other than a transplanted Jewish wisdom tradition. Look at the Edessan Chronicle for the connection with the Song of Songs. Is that a 'gnostic' text too? What about the Acts of Judas Thomas? So everything Semitic is gnostic? The two terms must be interchangeable.

I think sometimes this 'gnostic' business is a catch all phrase which ghettoizes the authentic Jewish core of Christianity.

That's also what bothers me when people say the Marcionites weren't 'gnostic.' I am not sure what people think is 'gnostic' is really 'gnostic.' Poetic ambiguity is a Semitic characteristic.

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

10-01-2011, 11:31 AM	#12
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	The first 'christians' were Jews who the Romans considerd Jewish heretics. Christianity became a distinct identity late in the first century.

10-01-2011, 11:35 AM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Exactly only the people from Seattle seem to get it. Starting to rain here again. Six months to go

10-01-2011, 01:05 PM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Of course I was directing my vitriol at scholarship generally rather than Jay whom I adore

10-01-2011, 01:39 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On the origins of the 'bridal chamber' metaphor within Judaism see The Jewish family: metaphor and memory By David Charles Kraemer Oxford University Press: http://books.google.com/books?id=bCc...page&q&f=false

10-01-2011, 03:06 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But there's nothing specifically gnostic here or at the very least nothing that you wouldn't find in a typical Syriac hymn associated with someone in the tradition of Ephrem or the like. It's just the way Semitic Christians expressed themselves. Pleroma is another Aramaism. None of this is proof the inscription is 'gnostic.' I don't even know what that word means other than a transplanted Jewish wisdom tradition. Look at the Edessan Chronicle for the connection with the Song of Songs. Is that a 'gnostic' text too? What about the Acts of Judas Thomas? So everything Semitic is gnostic? The two terms must be interchangeable. I think sometimes this 'gnostic' business is a catch all phrase which ghettoizes the authentic Jewish core of Christianity. That's also what bothers me when people say the Marcionites weren't 'gnostic.' I am not sure what people think is 'gnostic' is really 'gnostic.' Poetic ambiguity is a Semitic characteristic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.