Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-14-2003, 12:29 AM

yeah, I get the point of the argument, Gak & Vin. It is to shift the burden or proof. First, don't take me to be Doherty - I can't answer for him.

But again I want to emphasize that it is not necessary to explain the lack of tradition for the myth position. The entire position is that there is no place or things to venerate. There's no primary source verification of the Teacher of righteousness. So myth there too - nothing to venerate.

Now, please fellas - I insist it is not my duty to explain how long it would take for veneration of a mythical site to take place. There are some tremendous difficulties with this. If you invent the tomb, for example - this would have been private property and simple enough to go through the chain of title asking the family about their tradition of letting Jesus hang out there for a few days on his way to heaven. Fraud exposed.

There's a Joseph mentioned as a tomb owner in Mathew 27. How original. Joe's tomb. Hey - anybody remember old Joe from 70 yeas ago? Does Constantine trace chain of title to old Joe? I doubt it.

In the myth position it has to be long, long after the gospels to come up with the tomb if a fraud is going to do it. It is not an embarassment to the myth position. It is entirely consistent with it.

Anyway, stop fabricating straw man myth positions. You guys are fabricating the idea that "according to the myth position there should have been veneration by 100 A.D." Absolutely not. Far too easy to expose a fraud at such an early date.

mike_decock · 12-14-2003, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
This is highly problematic because if true tomb veneration and so on did not occur until later on. How embarrassing is it for the mythicist who use these arguments if tomb veneration and Jesus relics didn't start popping up until the third or fourth century? This is well after an historical Jesus was firmly established.

Perhaps the expectation of the return of Jesus to "this generation" was so high during the first few centuries that there was no motivation for veneration. As the event and the early followers pass into history, the later followers would be more interested in finding something to "connect" them more closely to the object of their faith.

Just a thought.

-Mike...

GakuseiDon · 12-14-2003, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
But again I want to emphasize that it is not necessary to explain the lack of tradition for the myth position. The entire position is that there is no place or things to venerate.

Sure there is. What is at Lourdes? The very place itself where the visions occured. So why no tradition of veneration of the places where visions of Jesus were seen? I don't understand why this isn't a problem for mythicists.

Quote:

Anyway, stop fabricating straw man myth positions. You guys are fabricating the idea that "according to the myth position there should have been veneration by 100 A.D." Absolutely not. Far too easy to expose a fraud at such an early date.

When should such veneration have started then? I think you see the problem. There has to be a reason why the veneration started so long after 100 CE, and whatever the reason is, as it is after a HJ has been established, it has to be irrelevent to the MJ position.

So I think the question is, "why no veneration of places in the 200 or so years between the general acceptance of a HJ in the 2nd C CE and Constantine?"

GakuseiDon · 12-14-2003, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
Perhaps the expectation of the return of Jesus to "this generation" was so high during the first few centuries that there was no motivation for veneration. As the event and the early followers pass into history, the later followers would be more interested in finding something to "connect" them more closely to the object of their faith.

Just a thought.

-Mike...

I suspect the truth is simplier: there just wasn't that tradition of veneration in that part of the world at that time, and it didn't really come into being until the time of Constantine.

(Editted to add) I started looking through the works of Origen for references to pilgrimage, and came across an interesting webpage from a 1911 Encylopedia: http://31.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PI/PILGRIMAGE.htm

In short, it says that there ARE references to pilgrimages made between 1st C CE and 4th C CE. Origen "mentions that in Bethlehem the cave was shown where Christ was born, and in it the manger in which Mary made the bed of her child. The site must have been much visited long before this, since Origen remarks that it was common knowledge, even among the infidels, that there was the birthplace of that Jesus whom the Christians worshipped (Contr. Cels. ~. 51)."

Even more interesting, the article says (note: bad spelling in the original!):

Quote:

In the passages cited above, Bethlehem and the Mount of Olives figure as the main goal of the pilgrim: aiid on the Mount of The East. Olives the mind must naturally turn to the Garden of Gethsemane and the scene of the Ascension. It may seem surprising that there is no mention of Golgotha and the Sepulchre. But the visitation of these sites was rendered impossible to the Christians by the destruction of Jerusalem and the erection of the town of Aelia Capitolina. They had not forgotten them; but the grave was concealed under a mound of earth and stones a profanation probably dating from the siege of the city and Tituss attack on the second wail. On the summit of this mound there stood, in the days of Eusebius, a sanctuary of Venus (Eus. Vit. Const. ~ 26, 30). The Sepulchre and the Hill of the Crucifixion were lost to the Christian pilgrim; and, consequently, before the era of Constantine, the one holy site in the town of Jerusalem was the so-called Coenaculum, which received its name in later years. It lay south of the city, near the outer wall, and, if Epiphanius is to be believed, was already in existence when Hadrian (130131) visited Jerusalem (De mens. 14). It was regarded as the house, in which according to the Acts of the Apostles (xii. 12 sqq.)Mary, the mother of John Mark, lived; and the belief was that there the Lord held the Last Supper, and that there the eleven assembled after the Ascension. It was there, also, that the scene of the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit was laid (ci. Cyrill. Ilierus. Cal. Xvi. 4).

The pilgrimage to Palestine received a powerful impetus from the erection of the memorial churches on the holy sites, under Constantine the Great, as described by Eusebius in his biography of the emperor (iii. 25 sqq.). At the order of Constantine, the shrine of Venus above mentioned was destroyed, and the accumulated rubbish removed, till the ancient rockfoundation was reached. There the cave ,was discovered in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid the body of Jesus; and above this cave and the Hill of the Crucifixion the imposing church of the Holy Sepulchre was built (AD. 326336).

So the absence of places of veneration could be that they were inaccessible between 70 CE and the time of Constantine. Only places outside Jerusalem were available, and, according to Origen, we see indeed that there were pilgrimages to Bethlehem before the time of Constantine. Very interesting.

GakuseiDon · 12-14-2003, 04:44 AM

More on the history of Jerusalem:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm

Quote:

It was during the episcopate of Judas Quiriacus that the second great calamity, the revolt of Bar-Kochba and final destruction of the city, took place. Goaded by the tyranny of the Romans, by the re-erection of Jerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, the Jews broke out into a hopeless rebellion under the famous false Messias Bar-Kochba about the year 132. During his rebellion he persecuted the Jewish Christians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eus., "Chron.", for the seventeenth year of Hadrian). The Emperor Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year, in 135. As a result of this last war the whole neighbourhood of the city became a desert. On the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city was built, called �lia Capitolina (�lia was Hadrian's family nomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount Moria. No Jew (therefore no Jewish Christian) was allowed under pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete change in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem. The old Jewish Christian community came to an end. In its place a Church of Gentile Christians, with Gentile bishops, was formed, who depended much less on the sacred memories of the city. Hence the Church of Jerusalem did not for some centuries take the place in the hierarchy of sees that we should expect. �lia was a town of no importance in the empire; the governor of the province resided at Caesarea in Palestine. The use of the name �lia among Christians of this time marks the insignificance of the little Gentile church, as the restoration of the old name Jerusalem later marks the revival of its dignity

Even as late as 325 (Nicaea I, can. vii) the city is still called only �lia. The name lasted on among the Arabs in the form Iliya till late in the Middle Ages. As the rank of the various sees among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions of the empire, Caesarea became the metropolitan see; the Bishop of �lia was merely one of its suffragans.

So, in the early years of Christianity, there simply was no holy sites to go to in Jerusalem, even if they travelled there. It wasn't until the time of Constantine that the places in the NT were (probably conveniently) "rediscovered", and the pilgrims had definite sites to go to, at least where Jerusalem was concerned. But from Origen we can see that there seemed to be a tradition of going to at least one non-Jerusalem site.

rlogan · 12-14-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
I suspect the truth is simplier: there just wasn't that tradition of veneration in that part of the world at that time, and it didn't really come into being until the time of Constantine.

Oh? How about at least fifty examples of this at the time of Christ:

" In Judaism at the time of Christ, the veneration of righteous ancestors and martyrs was widespread�nearly fifty Jewish sanctuaries commemorating ancestral prophets, patriarchs, kings, and martyrs have been found in the Holy Land. The most famous of these is the Tomb of the Patriarchs (especially Abraham), in Hebron, which is still a site of pilgrimage for Jews, Christians and Muslims, making it one of the oldest continually operating pilgrimage tombs in the world. The belief that the righteous dead can intervene or intercede on behalf of the living is based on an interpretation of a number of passages in scripture."

The Blessed Dead

You are wrong about veneration at the time of Christ. OK?

now, I see you've posted so I'll read before I finish this...

rlogan · 12-14-2003, 06:19 AM

That is a strange source, gakuseidon, and it goes against what the prevailing line has been here. I do not defend any particular "line", and am open to scholarship - but again an unnamed 1911 encylopedia is to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Let me summarize though: 1) Veneration was common at the time of Christ. Veneration of tombs in particular. 2) No veneration of anything whatsoever associated with Jesus on into the second century. After that is the dubious business post-second century in the unnamed 1911 encyclopedia.

Now, Gakusidon please show that you can listen, for this is the third time I have stated this. Coming up with the "tomb of Jesus" is an immense fraud if he never existed. Try announcing that Elvis Presley was buried in your family's graveyard. Or president Nixon. You will get nowhere. Now try the son of God.

How can you pull this sort of thing off? You need a lot of time to have passed so that you can claim it was forgotten in the "sands of time". Better still, you uncover it while razing something else that kept it hidden all that time for generations upon generations.

Forget about whether there was turmoil in the second century. Even if it had been peaceful you need a lot of time to have passed.

Now, I want to show you I have listened to you repeat yourself to me. You think it was a problem for the mythicist position that there was no veneration between say 100 A.D. and Constantine. See how I have shown you I see your position?

Now would you please do the same damned courtesy to me and demonstrate that I'm trying to impress upon you what I would expect. No veneration for a VERY VERY LONG TIME. Long after Jesus is supposedly viewed as real. I EXPECT THAT. In fact no veneration ever developing for the rest of eternity is also consistent with the mythicist position. It is possible that no successful fraud can be pulled off. IT IS FRAUD.

It is no small feat to just invent the tomb of the son of God out of the clear blue sky. People are going to ask why suddenly today is this place the tomb of God when yesterday it was not. An event described like the razing of a building and the "discovery" of the ancinet, forgotten tomb is a great mechanism for covering that fraud.

You are exactly WRONG about the mythicist position needing veneration of something that DIDN'T EXIST. It is IMPERITIVE that enough time elapse so that the excuse can be offered that the tomb was "forgotten in the sands of time".

now, do you think you can demonstrate that you have listened? You don't have to agree, but i would like you to stop pretending that I did not answer this three times.

GakuseiDon · 12-14-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
You are wrong about veneration at the time of Christ. OK?

now, I see you've posted so I'll read before I finish this...

Yes, you can see that I moved on from there being "no veneration". There certainly was - where a holy site had been established. I think that is the key element, for the lack of such sites for both HJ and MJ proponents.

Do you agree that there was no veneration for the sites where Paul had his vision? Or for the sites where Jesus appeared to the Twelve? Or to the 500? Or for the tombs of Paul, or James the Just? Or for the tombs of ANY Christians in the 1st C CE?

Quote:

Now, Gakusidon please show that you can listen, for this is the third time I have stated this. Coming up with the "tomb of Jesus" is an immense fraud if he never existed. Try announcing that Elvis Presley was buried in your family's graveyard. Or president Nixon. You will get nowhere. Now try the son of God.

How can you pull this sort of thing off? You need a lot of time to have passed so that you can claim it was forgotten in the "sands of time". Better still, you uncover it while razing something else that kept it hidden all that time for generations upon generations.

I agree that I don't understand your point. Jerusalem WAS razed, and the original sites were covered over and basically were lost from 130 CE, until "rediscovered" after Christianity became the dominant religion. What is wrong with this explanation? The only question would be "why no veneration from 40 CE to 130 CE?" But this is just as big a problem for mythicists as for the HJers.

Quote:

Now, I want to show you I have listened to you repeat yourself to me. You think it was a problem for the mythicist position that there was no veneration between say 100 A.D. and Constantine. See how I have shown you I see your position?

Yes. I agree you've listened to my position (though I would say that the time-frame is from the time of Paul to Constantine, since Paul doesn't show any veneration for any of the sites where Jesus appeared in visions).

Quote:

Now would you please do the same damned courtesy to me and demonstrate that I'm trying to impress upon you what I would expect. No veneration for a VERY VERY LONG TIME. Long after Jesus is supposedly viewed as real. I EXPECT THAT. In fact no veneration ever developing for the rest of eternity is also consistent with the mythicist position.

WHY is it consistent with the mythicist position? That is what you don't explain. Please complete this sentence: "The reasons 1st century Christians showed no veneration for the places where visions occured or for the tombs of famous Christians of that era are ___________________________________"

Quote:

You are exactly WRONG about the mythicist position needing veneration of something that DIDN'T EXIST. It is IMPERITIVE that enough time elapse so that the excuse can be offered that the tomb was "forgotten in the sands of time".

now, do you think you can demonstrate that you have listened? You don't have to agree, but i would like you to stop pretending that I did not answer this three times.

It's probably my fault for not being clear with my questions. But I hope this post has cleared things up. "Veneration of something that didn't exist" is not quite accurate, is it? Clearly, there were places and people who had visions of Jesus. Clearly, there were 1st Century Christians. These existed. You've shown that the Jews of that era practiced veneration. Why was there no veneration shown for those things? That is the thing that you've failed to answer, three times.

Toto · 12-14-2003, 11:38 AM

[mod mode on]Gentlemen - once again, please cool the rhetoric. Courtesy should not be "damned."

Perhaps I revealed my true feelings when I titled this thread a "spat" when I split it off.

There are previous threads on early Christian veneration and relics that I will be able to find when the index is rebuilt, which I think will add a little light to this topic, or at least prevent rehashing old ground.

I may split this thread again, since it has taken a new tack.

GakuseiDon · 12-14-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
[mod mode on]Gentlemen - once again, please cool the rhetoric. Courtesy should not be "damned."

I've had worse.

Quote:

Perhaps I revealed my true feelings when I titled this thread a "spat" when I split it off.

There are previous threads on early Christian veneration and relics that I will be able to find when the index is rebuilt, which I think will add a little light to this topic, or at least prevent rehashing old ground.

I may split this thread again, since it has taken a new tack.

Thanks Toto, that would be interesting, and I'll look forward to it. But my (sincere!) question is "why wasn't there veneration for early mythicists' Christian sites?" Would it be possible to adjust the title slightly to show that focus? That is the question that I believe mythicists refuse to address.

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

12-14-2003, 12:29 AM	#11
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	yeah, I get the point of the argument, Gak & Vin. It is to shift the burden or proof. First, don't take me to be Doherty - I can't answer for him. But again I want to emphasize that it is not necessary to explain the lack of tradition for the myth position. The entire position is that there is no place or things to venerate. There's no primary source verification of the Teacher of righteousness. So myth there too - nothing to venerate. Now, please fellas - I insist it is not my duty to explain how long it would take for veneration of a mythical site to take place. There are some tremendous difficulties with this. If you invent the tomb, for example - this would have been private property and simple enough to go through the chain of title asking the family about their tradition of letting Jesus hang out there for a few days on his way to heaven. Fraud exposed. There's a Joseph mentioned as a tomb owner in Mathew 27. How original. Joe's tomb. Hey - anybody remember old Joe from 70 yeas ago? Does Constantine trace chain of title to old Joe? I doubt it. In the myth position it has to be long, long after the gospels to come up with the tomb if a fraud is going to do it. It is not an embarassment to the myth position. It is entirely consistent with it. Anyway, stop fabricating straw man myth positions. You guys are fabricating the idea that "according to the myth position there should have been veneration by 100 A.D." Absolutely not. Far too easy to expose a fraud at such an early date.

12-14-2003, 06:19 AM	#17
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	That is a strange source, gakuseidon, and it goes against what the prevailing line has been here. I do not defend any particular "line", and am open to scholarship - but again an unnamed 1911 encylopedia is to be taken with a big grain of salt. Let me summarize though: 1) Veneration was common at the time of Christ. Veneration of tombs in particular. 2) No veneration of anything whatsoever associated with Jesus on into the second century. After that is the dubious business post-second century in the unnamed 1911 encyclopedia. Now, Gakusidon please show that you can listen, for this is the third time I have stated this. Coming up with the "tomb of Jesus" is an immense fraud if he never existed. Try announcing that Elvis Presley was buried in your family's graveyard. Or president Nixon. You will get nowhere. Now try the son of God. How can you pull this sort of thing off? You need a lot of time to have passed so that you can claim it was forgotten in the "sands of time". Better still, you uncover it while razing something else that kept it hidden all that time for generations upon generations. Forget about whether there was turmoil in the second century. Even if it had been peaceful you need a lot of time to have passed. Now, I want to show you I have listened to you repeat yourself to me. You think it was a problem for the mythicist position that there was no veneration between say 100 A.D. and Constantine. See how I have shown you I see your position? Now would you please do the same damned courtesy to me and demonstrate that I'm trying to impress upon you what I would expect. No veneration for a VERY VERY LONG TIME. Long after Jesus is supposedly viewed as real. I EXPECT THAT. In fact no veneration ever developing for the rest of eternity is also consistent with the mythicist position. It is possible that no successful fraud can be pulled off. IT IS FRAUD. It is no small feat to just invent the tomb of the son of God out of the clear blue sky. People are going to ask why suddenly today is this place the tomb of God when yesterday it was not. An event described like the razing of a building and the "discovery" of the ancinet, forgotten tomb is a great mechanism for covering that fraud. You are exactly WRONG about the mythicist position needing veneration of something that DIDN'T EXIST. It is IMPERITIVE that enough time elapse so that the excuse can be offered that the tomb was "forgotten in the sands of time". now, do you think you can demonstrate that you have listened? You don't have to agree, but i would like you to stop pretending that I did not answer this three times.

12-14-2003, 11:38 AM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[mod mode on]Gentlemen - once again, please cool the rhetoric. Courtesy should not be "damned." Perhaps I revealed my true feelings when I titled this thread a "spat" when I split it off. There are previous threads on early Christian veneration and relics that I will be able to find when the index is rebuilt, which I think will add a little light to this topic, or at least prevent rehashing old ground. I may split this thread again, since it has taken a new tack.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.