Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-15-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....We first start hearing of Christians in datable contexts in the 2nd century CE. Pliny the Younger notes that even Roman citizens were members of this association called Christian around the first decade of the 2nd century. ....

But, any one famaliar with writings of antiquity would know that there was NO MENTION of any character called JESUS the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator, and the Messiah external of apologetic sources.

Justin Martyr clearly wrote that there were people in the 1st century who were called Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus the God/man.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXX

Quote:

...Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. .............. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians....

Please do not imagine that in the 1st century "Christians" ONLY mean Jesus believers or believers in Jesus the God/man.

DCHindley · 05-15-2010, 03:48 PM

I wasn't saying anything about whether Jesus existed, only whether in the 1st century anyone mentions "Christians" or whether they left any clearly identifiable relics. But we do meet with independent mention about them in the 2nd century and there are at very least papyrus reliucs that are clearly Christian literature. I don't care whether they popped up like mushrooms, but for the sake of the argument I assumed that this represented part of a development from a movement of relative insignificance to a movement that more people could relate to, possibly on account of the high Christ theology that had developed.

I must play chauffeur to my son now, please excuse me ...

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....We first start hearing of Christians in datable contexts in the 2nd century CE. Pliny the Younger notes that even Roman citizens were members of this association called Christian around the first decade of the 2nd century. ....

But, any one famaliar with writings of antiquity would know that there was NO MENTION of any character called JESUS the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator, and the Messiah external of apologetic sources.

Justin Martyr clearly wrote that there were people in the 1st century who were called Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus the God/man.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXX

Quote:

...Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. .............. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians....

Please do not imagine that in the 1st century "Christians" ONLY mean Jesus believers or believers in Jesus the God/man.

mountainman · 05-15-2010, 04:42 PM

From the perspective of ancient history and "Christian Origins" at times I have looked at the Christian perspectives in the Eastern Roman Empire as falling along a two ended spectrum - the rainbow following the storm troopers of Constantine and their victory celebrations at Nicaea: the Greek Arians dissenters and Imperial Orthodox followers. Graeco-Roman [Hellenistic] Divinity and the Logos and the Holy Trinity of Plotinus got a New Shiny Tin Badge cast in the high technology of the codex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

At times I have looked at Christian perspectives in the western hemisphere as falling along a two ended spectrum: at the extreme right is conservative (emphasizes an individuals' personal relationship with, and responsibilities to, God through the sacrifice of Christ), and on the extreme left is liberal (emphasizing the social obligations taught by Jesus).

These extremes are not mutually exclusive, but a matter of emphases only. Conservatives often do believe that their faith carries social obligations, but usually as a means to an end (the conversion of lost souls). Liberals may also believe that a personal relationship with God helps the individual prioritize their needs and tasks to help them work the work of the social gospel, or conversely, that fixing social problems like poverty or addiction helps people find the strength to improve their individual relationships with God.

And so it is entirely possible for a liberal to be agnostic about his individual relationship with God (not choosing one or the other denomination as the true path to faith, or necessarily believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a basic tenet of most Christian denominations) but devoted to the social benefits he believes Christian ethical teachings have brought to the world at large, especially the northwestern hemisphere.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Rodney Stark claimed to be an agnostic when he wrote The Rise of Christianity. He had spent his career up to then as a sociologist of religion, focused on the "new religions" a/k/a/ cults, in particular the Unification Church and the Mormons, where he seemed to some of his critics to be a cult apologist, trying to portray the Moonies as making a rational choice in their conversion rather than being the brainwashed cult members that others saw. (He was criticized for taking money from the Moonies.) He regards religion as a rational choice.

The Rise of Christianity does seem critical of some Christian beliefs, since it portrays the growth of Christianity as a natural social process that did not require any miracles or exceptional founding figure. But it contains a very sympathetic view of early Christians, and Christians have tended to approve of the book.

Stark is overly accepting of the historicity of Acts. But since he is looking at this from a broad social science perspective, he is more concerned with trends than particular events. His picture of early Christianity is not based on any original research. He relies on established histories, even where he shows some skepticism.

In 2004, Baylor University made Stark the head of their Institute for Studies of Religion, which they considered a coup. As a condition of taking this appointment, Stark agreed to convert to Christianity(!?!) His writings around this time became notably more pro-Christian.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.