Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All it says in that sentence is that their NAME originated from the time of Augustus which was when their Jesus figure was believed to have been born.

Sorry, it says nothing about anyone being born in the time of Augustus. You are reading something into the text.

Duvduv · 02-14-2012, 06:08 AM

The time of Augustus is when it all started. But why doesn't he mention the name of Jesus Christ even once?

mountainman · 02-14-2012, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The JC story is ‘old news’. It goes way back, via the Toldoth Yeshu ....

Another wild card: Toledot Yeshu

Quote:

The literary origins of Toledot Yeshu cannot be traced with any certainty and are unlikely to be before the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus.

Quote:

...authentic remembrances of Jesus ...

Whoever wrote the Toledot Yeshu was a master heretic and parodist.

Quote:

Sefer Toledot Yeshu (or Toledoth Jeschu) (ספר תולדות ישו, The History of Jesus,[1] Generations of Jesus,[2] or The Life of Jesus[3]) is a medieval version of the story of Jesus from a Jewish perspective.[4] The book concerns Yeshu, son of Joseph and Mary, born in Bethlehem, but also makes this Yeshu a contemporary of Queen Salome Alexandra (139–67 BCE).

The work deliberately attacks and parodies the Christian Gospels and refers to Jesus as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, devoted to magic powers, a seducer, heretic and the victim of a shameful death.[5][6] It has been called the counter-gospel, anti-gospel, and anti-evangel and according to Van Voorst is popular polemic against Jesus "run wild".[4] The Toldoth Yeshu are not part of rabbinic literature and are considered neither canonical nor normative.

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The time of Augustus is when it all started. But why doesn't he mention the name of Jesus Christ even once?

History is one thing - the gospel JC pseudo-history something else. Always good to keep the two separate...

Keep in mind that the christian philosophy devised by 'Paul' centers around the death and resurrection of JC. For this philosophy to have arisen in the time of Augustus - then 'Paul's JC crucifixion story must be placed within the reign of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. It's not a birth story that is relevant here - it's the death story that facilitates the christian philosophy that is relevant.

Melito of Sardis (d.160 c.e.)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

Quote:

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus;

sotto voce · 02-14-2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.... he has a copyright contract on the history of Christian origins that has not yet expired.

Not among Protestants.

What do Protestants use for their source of chronological history?

They use what everyone else uses for ordinary purposes; but for the history of Christian origins they rely on the Bible, and on neutral background information discovered by current scholarship. Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius or any other 'Christian' source they view as unreliable, at best. Some Protestants regard all so-called 'Early Fathers' as actively and deliberately heretical in one way or another. They also point out that these teachers contradicted each other, and the Vatican, on various points, anyway.

Thanks for the comprehensive response sv.

My pleasure.

Quote:

Do they acknowledge the same Eusebius as the "Editor-In-Chief" of the earliest (Constantine) Bibles, possibly evidenced in the earliest Greek codices?

Not as an editor. Textual collator, perhaps; commentator, certainly.

Quote:

Despite the cosiness of ecumenical relations between the Vatican and some Protestantism (though these have cooled recently) the claims are in reality poles apart. They are as far removed from each other at is it possible to get, if truth be told.

Quote:

Do they not both explicitly rely on the canonical books of the new testament as being a 1st century historical truth, or will any century do?

Their agreement on the inspired nature of the NT no doubt gives ecumenism some ostensible justification, but the beauty is only skin deep, because there is disagreement as soon as one gets into any detail. They agree that the NT refers to actual 1st century events, though they have different views about when this history was committed to writing, as any scholars do. The RCC claims that it wrote the NT, as it must. The Protestant view, though, is that the NT was written long before the RCC came into existence, because it denies that papalism existed in the early days. And history and logic may be on their side, imv. Whenever they wrote, how is it that the creators of the NT did not even know what was the NT? How can divinely inspired authors not know that their words are divinely inspired?

Many Protestants see no reason to believe that the whole NT bar Revelation was not written by c. 65. Protestant scholars see the NT as self selecting, due to content, there being no other works deserving of serious consideration. So for them the whole NT must have been recognised as divine writ as soon as it was received by its original readers, and talk of various early NT canons is idle. The mystery comes in how the emperor's bishops were still arguing about it centuries later.

Quote:

Eusebius's history was listed with the books of the heretics in the Decretum Gelasianum. So perhaps at one time these writers were seen as heresy by contemporaries.

Yes, indeed. Catholicism is not quite the monolith that it is presented as.

Quote:

When was the ancient historical (military) precedent first set if it was not with "Pontifex Maximus Damasius"?

I don't think that this nomenclature was of itself effectual, but that 'action man' Theodosius is key. In 380 he made paganism illegal, the dogma of his Imperial Church the only legitimate religion; which gave Gelasius, a century or so later, the confidence to put the imperium itself apparently under the rule of papacy in matters spiritual (though in fact it was the other way round, of course). This supremacy was to go unquestioned by any who mattered, until a Parisian scholar of the Renaissance finally told the reigning successor to Gelasius that his rule was of his own imagination, that he was indeed a usurper of divine authority. There was a new 'imperium' in northern Europe that wanted freedom from stifling dogma and its attendant superstition; Protestants took it from there, and developed theology and polity models closer to the New Testament ones over the following centuries. Not, as we know, without necessary military commitment, ultimately the responsibility of Theodosius.

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The JC story is ‘old news’. It goes way back, via the Toldoth Yeshu ....

Another wild card: Toledot Yeshu

Quote:

The literary origins of Toledot Yeshu cannot be traced with any certainty and are unlikely to be before the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus.

Quote:

...authentic remembrances of Jesus ...

Whoever wrote the Toledot Yeshu was a master heretic and parodist.

Quote:

Sefer Toledot Yeshu (or Toledoth Jeschu) (ספר תולדות ישו, The History of Jesus,[1] Generations of Jesus,[2] or The Life of Jesus[3]) is a medieval version of the story of Jesus from a Jewish perspective.[4] The book concerns Yeshu, son of Joseph and Mary, born in Bethlehem, but also makes this Yeshu a contemporary of Queen Salome Alexandra (139–67 BCE).

The work deliberately attacks and parodies the Christian Gospels and refers to Jesus as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, devoted to magic powers, a seducer, heretic and the victim of a shameful death.[5][6] It has been called the counter-gospel, anti-gospel, and anti-evangel and according to Van Voorst is popular polemic against Jesus "run wild".[4] The Toldoth Yeshu are not part of rabbinic literature and are considered neither canonical nor normative.

Love wild cards - the spice of life and all of that. Never put money on an outsider that ends up winning the race against the odds? :devil1:

Duvduv · 02-14-2012, 06:35 AM

It arose then with the birth, but it is strange that Jesus himself gets no mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The time of Augustus is when it all started. But why doesn't he mention the name of Jesus Christ even once?

History is one thing - the gospel JC pseudo-history something else. Always good to keep the two separate...

Keep in mind that the christian philosophy devised by 'Paul' centers around the death and resurrection of JC. For this philosophy to have arisen in the time of Augustus - then 'Paul's JC crucifixion story must be placed within the reign of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. It's not a birth story that is relevant here - it's the death story that facilitates the christian philosophy that is relevant.

Melito of Sardis (d.160 c.e.)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

Quote:

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus;

maryhelena · 02-14-2012, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It arose then with the birth, but it is strange that Jesus himself gets no mention.

It's the christian philosophy that is placed within the rule of Augustus - 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. ie a philosophy based upon the death of a crucified figure. There is no reason to assume that 'Paul's' crucified figure was born, or based upon, a historical figure born during the rule of Augustus. Or that 'Paul's crucifixion story took place during the rule of Augustus. All that happened during the rule of Augustus is that the christian philosophy arose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The time of Augustus is when it all started. But why doesn't he mention the name of Jesus Christ even once?

History is one thing - the gospel JC pseudo-history something else. Always good to keep the two separate...

Keep in mind that the christian philosophy devised by 'Paul' centers around the death and resurrection of JC. For this philosophy to have arisen in the time of Augustus - then 'Paul's JC crucifixion story must be placed within the reign of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. It's not a birth story that is relevant here - it's the death story that facilitates the christian philosophy that is relevant.

Melito of Sardis (d.160 c.e.)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

Quote:

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus;

aa5874 · 02-14-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

History is one thing - the gospel JC pseudo-history something else. Always good to keep the two separate...

Keep in mind that the christian philosophy devised by 'Paul' centers around the death and resurrection of JC. For this philosophy to have arisen in the time of Augustus - then 'Paul's JC crucifixion story must be placed within the reign of Augustus, 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. It's not a birth story that is relevant here - it's the death story that facilitates the christian philosophy that is relevant.

Melito of Sardis (d.160 c.e.)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

Quote:

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus;

Well, you have contradicted yourself. If it is the "Death story" that is relevant then the RISE during Augustus is NOT significant, it MUST be the Fall during Pilate.

The same Melito will CLAIM Jesus was Nailed to a tree under PILATE.

Melito From the Discourse on the Cross.

Quote:

On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion, Or “wove—a body from our material.”—appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing Lit. “changing.” the likeness of His Father.

He sustained every character Lit. “He was everything.” belonging to Him in an immutable nature: He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things....

The death story is under PILATE not Augustus.

Duvduv · 02-14-2012, 06:57 AM

I know, I simply meant that Tertullian would be referring to the birth of the person who is the subject of the gospels who he thought actually existed from the time of Augustus, and is because of whom the Christians got their name.

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

02-14-2012, 06:08 AM	#52
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The time of Augustus is when it all started. But why doesn't he mention the name of Jesus Christ even once?

02-14-2012, 06:57 AM	#60
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I know, I simply meant that Tertullian would be referring to the birth of the person who is the subject of the gospels who he thought actually existed from the time of Augustus, and is because of whom the Christians got their name.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.