Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 09-14-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

ps- would be nice to have some knowledge on what was customarily sent from provincial officials to Rome.

Ah, you see, when you need this sort of information, you need to send out the Bat Signal:

SPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!

Like so.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

post tenebras lux · 09-14-2004, 12:14 PM

Apologies if someone has already raised this, but has Metacrock clarified the following part of one of his posts (number 36):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

yes there assumptions do matter. Because if no one every knew for certain that Jesus was not real, someone would have questioned it. Because the whole community knew he was a real guy no one ever questioned it and all the facts were set in stone that's why there's only one version of the story. so their assumptions do matter. Why they wrote the things matter. To the early Christians they were carrying out the teachings of a real flesh and blood master, that's why they died for it, why they kicked out those who said he didn't come in the flesh. And that understanding when back to the original community which actually saw him.

why is it that all the major people who suppossedly knew him were real historical people but he wasn't? that makes no sense at all.

you are wrong. learn something

Metacrock, would you mind explaining to me who the 'they' were, who kicked out 'those who said he didn't come in the flesh'? Also, who were 'those who said he didn't come in the flesh' and what were they saying (i.e. please clarify the meaning of 'didn't come in the flesh')?

And when you ask why major people who supposedly knew him were real, where you meaning historical people who we know said they knew him, or are you meaning in the sense of: as Richard Lionheart, King John and various Sheriffs of Nottingham are real historical figures - and they supposedly knew Robin Hood - then Robin Hood is a real historical figure?

Thanks in advance

Luxie

Jack the Bodiless · 09-15-2004, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I wanted to know what Jack the Bodiless meant. (Some people--not necessarily Jack, but people I've known in person and on the 'net--think that we have actual records of the proceedings of various trials and such from that era, like the reports that a prefect would send to Rome periodically, when we actually have scant references [relative to the number of trials that must have actually occured] from preserved classics, and also some Egyptian papyri that don't yield much [or anything] on the subject. And we've found one identifiably crucified skeleton.)

My apologies, real-life intervened...

Yes, I worded my post poorly. I was referring to mention of crucifixions (and other executions, such as stonings) by various historians who should have mentioned Jesus too, if he'd been a noteworthy historical figure. I realize that we don't have an "official ledger" of crucifixions.

spin · 09-15-2004, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

ps- would be nice to have some knowledge on what was customarily sent from provincial officials to Rome.

Ah, you see, when you need this sort of information, you need to send out the Bat Signal:

SPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!

Like so.

No, you need a much higher power. Ever thought of praying?

spin

spin · 09-15-2004, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

To the early Christians they were carrying out the teachings of a real flesh and blood master, that's why they died for it, why they kicked out those who said he didn't come in the flesh. And that understanding when back to the original community which actually saw him.

Metacrock, would you mind explaining to me who the 'they' were, who kicked out 'those who said he didn't come in the flesh'? Also, who were 'those who said he didn't come in the flesh' and what were they saying (i.e. please clarify the meaning of 'didn't come in the flesh')?

Though not Metacrock, let me explain:

Quote:

The early xians [saw themselves as] carrying out the teachings of a real flesh and blood master [Jesus], that's why they [the early xians] died for it, why they kicked out those ["heretics"] who said he [Jesus] didn't come in the flesh. And that understanding [went] back to the original community which actually saw him [Jesus].

One brand of Jesus people (Docetae) believed that Jesus, being God, was a semblance of a human being, not "come in the flesh". As the church developed a self-definition, it removed aspects which didn't fit that developing self-definition, one of which was the Docetae, along with their belief in a non physically human Jesus, and they were nominated "heretics", ie they were "kicked out", using Metacrock's terms.

spin

post tenebras lux · 09-15-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Though not Metacrock, let me explain:

One brand of Jesus people (Docetae) believed that Jesus, being God, was a semblance of a human being, not "come in the flesh". As the church developed a self-definition, it removed aspects which didn't fit that developing self-definition, one of which was the Docetae, along with their belief in a non physically human Jesus, and they were nominated "heretics", ie they were "kicked out", using Metacrock's terms.

spin

Hi Spin,
Well I had hoped to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, but if you could just clarify one point of your kind reply in Metacrock's absence.

Did the Docetae belief that this 'non physically human' Jesus had recently been wandering around the holy land physically inter-reacting (i.e. speaking, eating, and physically touching objects)?

On a slightly different point: is there general agreement on this thread that early Christians (as well as others, and as well as later ones) did indulge in book burning on occasion, especially of heretical works? Or is this point also being contested by Metacrock?

Luxie

spin · 09-15-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Did the Docetae belief that this 'non physically human' Jesus had recently been wandering around the holy land physically inter-reacting (i.e. speaking, eating, and physically touching objects)?

I suren hell ain't up with xian heretical tendencies. They don't say too much about the Docetae in ancient literature. But try this Catholic Encyclopaedia entry here, or a Google search using "docetae".

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

On a slightly different point: is there general agreement on this thread that early Christians (as well as others, and as well as later ones) did indulge in book burning on occasion, especially of heretical works?

I doubt that early xians burnt books. You have to wait until they had political clout.

spin

Toto · 09-15-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

. . .I doubt that early xians burnt books. You have to wait until they had political clout.

spin

The Book of Acts describes early Christians who were former practicioners of magic burning their own books. (Not that Acts is necessarily trustworthy history.) They had to wait to get political power to burn other people's books.

Quote:

Acts 19:18-20

Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.

From Book Burning

Toto · 09-15-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

. . .

Did the Docetae belief that this 'non physically human' Jesus had recently been wandering around the holy land physically inter-reacting (i.e. speaking, eating, and physically touching objects)?
. . .

This is a point of contention. Firm historicists believe that the Docetists thought that Jesus would have appeared to be human, but Freke and Gandy of the Jesus Mysteries claim that the Docetists were early mythicists. We have discussed it before and not resolved it.

NOGO · 09-15-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Ok, so how can you prove that theory? I mean, there are no examples of Jews inventing fictional narratives to fulfill the word of God in other respects. I also don't see how you get around the fact that Christianity was already going, with Jesus and the empty and the whole stroy as early as AD 50.

But there is.
For example, "today you are my son and I am your father" or something like that appears in Hebrews 1. The scene is the resurected Jesus arriving in heaven. Paul tells us this as well in Romans 1. There are other examples. Jesus riding two donkeys in Matthew is another.

How can you prove that the empty tomb story existed in 50 CE?

Quote:

Paul was crusading before the destructin of the temple there were Christians preaching the resurrection in Antioch before AD 70 and Koester dates the pre Markan redation to AD 50. Now that's a certainty and is based upon textual criticism not merely guess work. It's proven.

I just finished reading "Lost Christianities" and according to B. Ehrman the idea of the risen Christ did not originate in Palestine.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.