gstafleu

Compare this to the "king for a day" rites, where in some versions the "king" in the end gets sacrificed (the "king" then sometimes being chosen from the available stock of criminals). These rites were usually at the new year, and the vernal equinox was the new year for many cultures. In this light, also compare Matthew 27:29, "And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" We probably see a remnant of such rites there.

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse

Wasn't this set in the Western Isles? If so, it demonstrates how little those who control the media knew about their own country, since the Western Isles was the site of Britains most recent revival, in the 1950's.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnnyboy

Sorry, I forgot the link.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190557

The Evil One

Quite possibly, I have only the vaguest memories of it, I had Cornwall in my head but the Western Isles sounds just as likely now you mention it.

Thomas II

I have heard it all :grin: and for those interested, this site covers a lot of it,
http://sciastro.net/portia/articles/thestar.htm
But what is the implication of this story?
That astrology is a science?
That Christian religion should be interested in astrology?
That the stars or planets in the cosmos are celebrating the birth of a religious figure on Earth?
That the son of the ruler of the universe was born? Kind of like a miniature forth of July display for three wise guys from Persia?
And then when Jesus died there was a little rumble too...Wow!
Why not an eclipse or even a tsunami?
I mean, if he is trying to say something why not say it in earnest?:huh:

David B

The Wicker Man was a remarkable low budget Brit film set in the 70s, and, as others have said, the western Isles.

I love the film. In a sense it is a musical (wonderful soundtrack), in another sense it is a fim about sacrifice. It contrasts a body hating brand of Christianity with the much more free and open Paganism, but also exposes the darker side of Paganism.

christopher Lee was the star, and he thought it his best film. He was intrigued enough with the project to do it for no fee.

The rationale for the sacrifice made in the film seems no more odd to me, though, to be no more odd than the rational for Jesus alleged sacrifice to atone for the original sin of Adam and Eve, which I understand to be, pretty much, the Christian answer to why the sacrifice was necessary.

I don't see this as being a satisfactory answer to why a putitive god might have sacrificed himself to himself in order to save his own creation from his own wrath.

Back to a small point from an earlier post

I think not. That Christianity existed was mentioned in later extra biblical sources, AFAIK, but I know of no contemporary, or even near contempory, non biblical sources concerning the existence of Jesus. Unless, perhaps, you want to include the also non contemporary gnostic gospels as extra biblical, which I suppose is debatable.

I am ready to stand corrected, of course, but I think I would have come across such sources if they existed.

Ae you perhaps not basing your faith on a misapprehension?

David B

Roger Pearse

There is a problem with this frequent appeal to 'contemporary' only sources that one sees online, in that it simply doesn't work for ancient history. 99% of ancient literature is lost (so Pietro Bembo, endorsed by N.G.Wilson), and this means that we have to take data where we find it. (The idea of contemporary-only is something from modern history, where the mass of sources is so great that some kind of arbitrary rule has to be used to reduce it; contemporary-only is one of those rules). Our only information on events in Britain between 396 and 410 is from Zosimus, writing ca. 520 and living in the Eastern empire at a time when the Western empire as a whole was vanishing from memory. But he had access to sources that we do not. Do we ignore this, because of some arbitrary chronological rule?

Likewise there is no special virtue in being contemporary; what we want, surely, is accurate, well-informed information? The only benefit of contemporary is that (we hope) fewer people are involved, and other things being equal this must be an improvement. But it can never be a reason to discard all the data and then argue from the absence of data, surely?

So we should ask what extra biblical sources exist for the same period generally? The history of the first century is known to us from Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus, all writing ca. 100 except Dio who writes rather later. These are the main sources for everyone in the reign of Tiberius. Most other literature of the period tells us nothing about events in the East.

As everyone knows, Tacitus refers to Jesus and his followers; Josephus certainly refers once to Jesus, and probably did in another passage now probably corrupt; Suetonius may refer to Jesus (depending on our interpretation of a reference which refers to an otherwise unknown 'Chrestus' causing dissention among Jews in Rome) and does refer to his followers; and Cassius Dio doesn't mention either at all. A few scraps for an obscure religious leader in a remote region, and indeed that is about the most that one might expect, and more than one could reasonably demand. The cult of Glycon, in the second century, attracted the support of emperors and so appears on imperial coinage, yet our only account is the bitter attack of Lucian. What chance for a Jewish nobody?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

David B

Thanks for your thought provoking post, Roger.

Some points definitely taken on board, there.

As I've said before, I admire your scholarship.

At risk of going off topic - which could always be split off - I expect that you are better informed than I about sources about Simon Magus, and other charismatics of about the same time.

Are they, I wonder, well documented in very old documents?

David B

angela2

Actually JC atoned for the sins of the world. Everyone everywhere who has ever lived or will live.
It's not an attempt at an answer, but rather an attempt to engage you in a more subtle conversation. Take it you're not interested.

Roger Pearse

You're very welcome. All this is common ground to people whatever their religious position, of course.

The term charismatic would be anachronistic for that period and those people I suspect.

I haven't looked at these very early heretics much, since there is very little on first century heretics at all. If I were to look up something about them, I'd start by looking for his name (Ctrl-F) in Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History and see what he says (because he might quote some very ancient text, and has some good bits on Cerinthus and St. John). For heresies the Panarion of Epiphanius is always good, although a bit late. I'd also try Irenaeus Adversus Haereses, and see what Tertullian had to say.

None of the very first heretics are that well-documented today (although of course the fathers knew much that we don't). The anti-heretical works of the 2nd century -- from which we get this stuff -- have mostly perished. It's only by accident that as much of the apologies exists as we have. This accident was that the humanist Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea in the 10th century -- before the massive losses in 1204 -- was interested in very early anti-pagan apologies. Someone searched out and compiled up a manuscript containing a bunch of them for him. That manuscript happens to survive, and is the only source for much of what it contains. Sadly no-one felt the need for Justin's work against Marcion, or whatever, even if it existed at that date. The losses...

But then again we're still losing manuscripts. We're still losing manuscripts containing unpublished texts, or the earliest copy of texts. The odds are very good that they're being lost in Iraq right now.

All the best,

Roger Pearse