Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 11-16-2008, 02:51 PM

Shouldn't we include the reference in the Letters of Pliny ?

Quote:

Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 11-16-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David M. Payne

I can't remember his name

Dear David M. Payne,

Did it start with "E"?

Best wishes,

Pete

DCHindley · 11-16-2008, 04:12 PM

Well, that's six so far.

This one is probably legit, but it doesn't seem to address who this "Christ" is, only that hymns are sung to him "as to a god." He does not seem to be a founder of a cult, but the object of god-like reverence. That's not alays the same thing.

Perhaps we should subdivide them into those that speak of the figure of Christ, and those that speak of the followers of Christ.

Any more?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Shouldn't we include the reference in the Letters of Pliny ?

Quote:

Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham · 11-16-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Similarly and along these same lines, it is my speculation, one I'm quite persuaded of, is that the genesis of the NT story arose from messianic Jewish midrash that was inclusive of the Books of Maccabees, while under they were undergoing similar pressures and circumstances during the 1st century C.E....

A very interesting analysis in regard to Jesus = "Help of YHWH" = a shibboleth. Is it true that 'help of YHWH' is the same as 'salvation of YHWH'?

Sheshbazzar · 11-16-2008, 09:46 PM

The root word "ya'sha" (Strong's #H3467) "help", "save", and its extended form "y'shuah" (Strong's #H3444) are rendered as "salvation", "deliverance", "victory", and include such synonymous words such as "safety", "rescue", "triumph", "liberty" and -"conquest"- to overcome all obstacles.
The translation and interpretation being somewhat dependent upon the precise context, while in many instances the usage is indefinite with all ideas implied as applying.
Psalm 118:25-26 "SAVE now" ("ho'sheah-na") see Matt 21:15, Mk 11:9-10 where mangled into "Hosanna" sic (Greek, no "sh")
Yah'ho'shuah- Yah'shua- ("Jesus" sic) the "ho'shuah", "the Deliverer". "For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved". hence a particular Shibboleth.

The Nazarenes were intent upon the doing their thing, and the "Christians" were intent upon the doing their thing, but the things that they were doing were far different things, arising out of different concerns, different agendas, and with differing ends in mind.

Sheshbazzar · 11-18-2008, 06:44 AM

"In the beginning was the word".... and that -word- was the "watchword" employed by Judas Maccabeus in attaining "VICTORY" over Israel's enemies (2 Maccabees 8:23-24)

This "word" was the One that had legendarily "RESCUED" the people from out of bondage, had "DELIVERED" the nation of Israel from the wilderness, and had "TRIUMPHED" gloriously over the nations. That One Whom Moses himself had -named- to lead the people into that promised land, and under whose -name- and leadership (unity), they were able to "CONQUER", "OVERCOME", and acchieve "VICTORY" over all opposition, and under whom they had dwelt in "SAFETY" and "LIBERTY" in the kingdom promised.
An ever present "HELP" in time of need.

How natural then that this One and same "watchword" and "Name" should become that national figure which an oppressed and afflicted people should in hope, rally around in time of trouble, and war.
And even as was before, (and drawn from those same ancient and honorable sources), stories be told, and the LEGEND of the power of his name should grow and wax strong, striking unease, and fear into the hearts of all who would think to oppose.
Not "myth" or "mythical" and quaint, but LEGEND and LEGENDARY, employed in purposeful and powerful usage.

Yet the war being lost, the victors challenge and taunt, Who is your leader? Where is he? produce him that we may now deal with him.
Surely the defeated will reply, Whom? we do not at all know him of whom you are speaking, and never have we followed any such king or messiah.
Others, renegades they were, made up all of these fantastic stories.

What Roman historian first talked about "Jesus"??? one and all, who did not understand the words and idioms of the Hebrews, nor the ways of the Jews, and neither yet apprehended nor spake shibboleth.

Are you all yet Greeks? or Romans? why then do you limit yourselves to the mouthing of religious terms, words, and names as drawn from the polluted wells of Hellenism?
Ah, yes, they are the well known, the recognised, the popular, and "understood", and of course it is always so much easier when your words are "understood", right?
Much more important than them being right, true or accurate?

Roger Pearse · 11-18-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

"In the beginning was the word".

And the word was... Aardvark.

:-)

spin · 11-18-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

A very interesting analysis in regard to Jesus = "Help of YHWH" = a shibboleth. Is it true that 'help of YHWH' is the same as 'salvation of YHWH'?

It's not true. Azariah = "help of YHWH" -- Ezra is a short form. Jesus is based on a verb Y$( whose meaning is "to save" and in a few cases it gets interpreted in the KJV as "to help". Consider for example 1 Sam 11:9, "you shall have help", in the NRSV & JPS, "you shall have deliverance".

In a vast majority of cases Y$( is translated as "save". That's its primary sense. That dictates what the name means.

(Shibboleth could have been a nonsense word -- it seems to mean "ears" -- for its sense was not important. It was just a means to discern accent from the fact that some can't say "sh".)

spin

MrFungus420 · 11-18-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David M. Payne

That sounds about right, were there any other Romans that wrote posthumously about Jesus?

Sorry, but I have to razz you for this.

How would anybody write something after they die?

The Dagda · 11-18-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFungus420

Quote:

Originally Posted by David M. Payne

That sounds about right, were there any other Romans that wrote posthumously about Jesus?

Sorry, but I have to razz you for this.

How would anybody write something after they die?

It makes sense, there were loads of people who tried to rip off genuine texts and claim authorship of the dead post death, who were really written by dead Jews who weren't inconveniently called John, Matthew etc.

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

11-16-2008, 09:46 PM	#25
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The root word "ya'sha" (Strong's #H3467) "help", "save", and its extended form "y'shuah" (Strong's #H3444) are rendered as "salvation", "deliverance", "victory", and include such synonymous words such as "safety", "rescue", "triumph", "liberty" and -"conquest"- to overcome all obstacles. The translation and interpretation being somewhat dependent upon the precise context, while in many instances the usage is indefinite with all ideas implied as applying. Psalm 118:25-26 "SAVE now" ("ho'sheah-na") see Matt 21:15, Mk 11:9-10 where mangled into "Hosanna" sic (Greek, no "sh") Yah'ho'shuah- Yah'shua- ("Jesus" sic) the "ho'shuah", "the Deliverer". "For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby you must be saved". hence a particular Shibboleth. The Nazarenes were intent upon the doing their thing, and the "Christians" were intent upon the doing their thing, but the things that they were doing were far different things, arising out of different concerns, different agendas, and with differing ends in mind.

11-18-2008, 06:44 AM	#26
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	"In the beginning was the word".... and that -word- was the "watchword" employed by Judas Maccabeus in attaining "VICTORY" over Israel's enemies (2 Maccabees 8:23-24) This "word" was the One that had legendarily "RESCUED" the people from out of bondage, had "DELIVERED" the nation of Israel from the wilderness, and had "TRIUMPHED" gloriously over the nations. That One Whom Moses himself had -named- to lead the people into that promised land, and under whose -name- and leadership (unity), they were able to "CONQUER", "OVERCOME", and acchieve "VICTORY" over all opposition, and under whom they had dwelt in "SAFETY" and "LIBERTY" in the kingdom promised. An ever present "HELP" in time of need. How natural then that this One and same "watchword" and "Name" should become that national figure which an oppressed and afflicted people should in hope, rally around in time of trouble, and war. And even as was before, (and drawn from those same ancient and honorable sources), stories be told, and the LEGEND of the power of his name should grow and wax strong, striking unease, and fear into the hearts of all who would think to oppose. Not "myth" or "mythical" and quaint, but LEGEND and LEGENDARY, employed in purposeful and powerful usage. Yet the war being lost, the victors challenge and taunt, Who is your leader? Where is he? produce him that we may now deal with him. Surely the defeated will reply, Whom? we do not at all know him of whom you are speaking, and never have we followed any such king or messiah. Others, renegades they were, made up all of these fantastic stories. What Roman historian first talked about "Jesus"??? one and all, who did not understand the words and idioms of the Hebrews, nor the ways of the Jews, and neither yet apprehended nor spake shibboleth. Are you all yet Greeks? or Romans? why then do you limit yourselves to the mouthing of religious terms, words, and names as drawn from the polluted wells of Hellenism? Ah, yes, they are the well known, the recognised, the popular, and "understood", and of course it is always so much easier when your words are "understood", right? Much more important than them being right, true or accurate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.