Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-05-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yeah, but many HJers are still trying real hard to fashion a HJ, by simply excluding any parts of the myth that don't jive with their personal HJ theories, be it the gentle rabbi, or the raging anti-Roman tax protester revolutionary.

Any attempt to strip Jesus would be like stripping a Ghost or Adam and Eve.

Chili · 05-05-2013, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yeah, but many HJers are still trying real hard to fashion a HJ, by simply excluding any parts of the myth that don't jive with their personal HJ theories, be it the gentle rabbi, or the raging anti-Roman tax protester revolutionary.

Any attempt to strip Jesus would be like stripping a Ghost or Adam and Eve.

Yes, but Adam and Eve are easy stripped, and if Jesus was the second Adam he goes with it, easy enough, and that would frost many balls on a hot summer day in America still.

Man was created and not Adam. Just read Gen.1 to see if the name Adam was there.

In Gen 2 woman was taken from man and is not called Eve there.

So Adam and Eve were not known until Gen 3 after the eyes of woman and her husband were opened so they could see for themselves. It is when they could see their own self that they felt shame that was not there in Gen 2:25 when they were still naked to wit.

Then God said "Adam where are you" now calling the Ego consciousness of man and that is how Adam was created by conjecture in the conscious mind only, there now with no existence of being on his own.

He then later took the serpent to be his wife while woman never was expelled from the garden herself.

So now we have Adam as the ego in the conscious mind of man there called the TOK that 'the woman' saw was good for gaining wisdom and the goodies of life, and 'the man' [as not her husband] called Adam took the lesser serpent to be his wife and he called her Eve so she could teach him to crawl when the going gets tough.

So Adam and Eve exist in the TOK of each and every human being now as the rational animal man, which is outside the TOL where woman is at in the same mind.

aa5874 · 05-06-2013, 12:09 AM

What we have before us is the manipulation of the meaning of "historical" by HJers.

An historical Jesus is not that Jesus existed as a Spirit or as a God but as a complete human being.

The mythicist argument is that Jesus was always BELIEVED to have existed but was not ever actually known to have existed.

In effect, there was never any actual historical records or actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was completely mythological and had no real existence. Jesus of Nazareth was believed to have existed as a Son of a God or some kind of divine creature born of the Holy Ghost and manifested himself as God Incarnate.

It is therefore of little value to claim that Gnostics believe Jesus existed because we know it was the same people of the Roman Empire who BELIEVED Romulus, and a multitudes of Gods existed that accepted Jesus as the Son of a Ghost.

Clivedurdle · 05-06-2013, 12:22 AM

The further reading from the programme looks fascinating.

Quote:

LINKS AND FURTHER READING
Dr Caroline Humfress at Birkbeck College, University of London

Dr Alastair Logan at the University of Exeter

The Nag Hammadi Library

History of Gnosticism - Wikipedia

Melvyn Bragg on Front Row's Cultural Exchange

READING LIST:

Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, The Gnostic Bible: Gnostic Texts of Mystical Wisdom from the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (New Seeds Books, 2003)

David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual and Diversity in Early Christianity (Harvard University Press, 2010)

Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (Blackwell, 1992)

Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road (HarperCollins, 1993)

Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions (Doubleday, 1987)

Alastair Logan, The Gnostics: Identifying an Early Christian Cult (T&T Clark, 2006)

Christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction (T&T Clark, 2003)

Marvin Meyer and James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts (HarperOne, 2009)

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (Phoenix, 2006)

Martin Palmer, The Jesus Sutras: Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity (Wellspring/Ballantine, 2001)

Birger A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature (Fortress Press, 2007)

James M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library (HarperOne, 1990)

Riemer Roukema, Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma (T&T Clark, 2010)

Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (HarperOne, 1987)

Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton University Press, 1999)

Clivedurdle · 05-06-2013, 12:35 AM

From wiki

Quote:

Gnosis (γνώσις) in ancient and modern Greek is the common feminine noun for "knowledge".

The word is a 19thC construction first made by Henry More, but is based on the use of the adjective "of knowledge", (Greek γνωστικός) by Irenaeus (c.185 AD) to describe the school of Valentinus[disambiguation needed]
However, itself refers to a very specialized form of knowledge,[improper synthesis?][citation needed]

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (April 2011)
deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy (see Plato's gnostikoi’ and gnostike episteme from Politicus (or Statesmen) 258e-267a). Gnosis also has a hermetic understanding.[citation needed] In the Hellenic world gnosis and hermetic understanding were exclusively pagan as one can see in the word being Koine Greek and deriving from Pagan Platonic philosophy. Platonic and Pythagorian modes of thinking spread Greek ideas and culture throughout the Hellenic world, introducing the mideastern peoples conquered by Alexander the Great to many of the concepts that were unique to Greek thinkers of the time (and vice versa). It should also be noted that Alexander made efforts to unite all conquered peoples under a common language and a common culture, which led to many cultures adopting Koine Greek as a language for common communication in commerce between different ethnic and cultural groups.
One of the most important events of this era was the translation of the many Hebrew texts of what is now known as the Old Testament into a single language (Koine Greek) in a single work (the Seventy or Septuagint). In addition, many of the Greek ideas of existence (hypostasis) and uniqueness or essence (ousia) and most importantly rational mind (nous) were introduced into Babylonian, Egyptian, Libyan, Roman, Hebrew, and other Mediterranean cultures, as was the concept that we exist within the mind of God, Noetic or Nous. This caused many of the educated and informed people of these cultures to incorporate these ideas and concepts into their own philosophical and religious belief systems. Gnosticism among those individuals who are called Gnostics, was one such example. Many of the first Gnostics may have been pagan and Hebrew (Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew), predating Christianity.

Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind.[citation needed] Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Gnosis refers to intimate personal knowledge and insight from experience. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine.

As Adam knew Eve, we can know God or we may exist within the mind of god.

These are very old thought patterns, repeated now in new age type thinking, arguments in quantum physics and mj hj discussions.

Meaning of life questions in which the role of a christ, a mediator between the gods and man, are further attempts to answer these questions.

Chili · 05-06-2013, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yeah, but many HJers are still trying real hard to fashion a HJ, by simply excluding any parts of the myth that don't jive with their personal HJ theories, be it the gentle rabbi, or the raging anti-Roman tax protester revolutionary.

Any attempt to strip Jesus would be like stripping a Ghost or Adam and Eve.

Yes, but Adam and Eve are easy stripped, and if Jesus was the second Adam he goes with it, easy enough, and that would frost many balls on a hot summer day in America still.

Man was created and not Adam. Just read Gen.1 to see if the name Adam was there.

In Gen 2 woman was taken from man and is not called Eve there.

So Adam and Eve were not known until Gen 3 after the eyes of woman and her husband were opened so they could see for themselves. It is when they could see their own self that they felt shame that was not there in Gen 2:25 when they were still naked to wit.

Then God said "Adam where are you" now calling the Ego consciousness of man and that is how Adam was created by conjecture in the conscious mind only, there now with no existence of being on his own.

He then later took the serpent to be his wife while woman never was expelled from the garden herself.

So now we have Adam as the ego in the conscious mind of man there called the TOK that 'the woman' saw was good for gaining wisdom and the goodies of life, and 'the man' [as not her husband] called Adam took the lesser serpent to be his wife and he called her Eve so she could teach him to crawl when the going gets tough.

So Adam and Eve exist in the TOK of each and every human being now as the rational animal man, which is outside the TOL where woman is at in the same mind.

And does not anybody see this argument here?

mountainman · 05-06-2013, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Can anyone here name a gnostic who didn't believe that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels appeared in Galilee and Judea in the first century (even if only as a phantom), that he didn't interact with fully flesh and blood disciples, and that "he" was not an "agent and actor" in human history?

Leucius Charinus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Did the Gnostics believe in an historical Jesus? Yes.

NO. I consider that Leucius Charinus satirized the idea of an historical Jesus.

For that matter I consider that Arius of Alexandria also satirized the idea of an historical Jesus.

In defence of this consideration I put forward the notion that the first heretics of the Nicaean centralised monotheistic state religious cult were deemed heretics on account of their blasphemy and satire against the fictional historical figurehead of Jesus.

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers".

How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

Most Biblical scholars are psychologically ill-equipped to perceive the signature of satire against the Jesus figure. The reason for this is that the Bible is a tremendously humourless tome of drivel, used by the serious minded Romans to be the holy writ of an utterly humourless religious cult.

As an analogy, consider what would have happened to the Monty Python team had they produced "Life of Brian" immediately following the Nicaean decision. Brian (not Judas) gets crucified in place of Big J.

Here is what the reaction would have been .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E

"We have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as "The Gospel of Brian", which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

Historia Ecclesiastica (Book 3, 25, 6-7)

And what would have been Constantine's reaction to the "Gospel of Brian"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E

Eusebius VC 65:
How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics,
Many of them return to the Catholic Church.

THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors [i.e. the Monty Python Team] of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind.

But let's look at the promise about "NAMING the GNOSTIC HERETICS" made by Eusebius in the opening paragraphs of his monumental "Church History" .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E

Eusebius H.E. Book One, Chapter 1: The Plan of the Work.

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

:hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse: :horsecrap: :hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse: :hobbyhorse:

It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

Eusebius states as his purpose to name names (i.e. of the gnostic heretics).

But did Eusebius name any names of any gnostic heretics?

We may read through all the books in the church history of Eusebius, but no names are mentioned as authors of any of the Gnostic Acts or Gospels.

Why did Eusebius say he was going to name names, but no names are to be found?

If Eusebius did name names these names may have been expunged from the account, possibly for political reasons.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 05-06-2013, 01:31 AM

"Leucius Charinus" was apparently a docetist. Jeffrey does not accept the idea that docetists were mythicists. You will have to be more persuasive.

The Monty Python crew believed in a historical Jesus. They thought he was a good guy.

mountainman · 05-06-2013, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Leucius Charinus" was apparently a docetist.

The heresiologists created their own categories of heretics and as I have demonstrated did not name any names. This is extremely important to remember. They have furnished modern scholarship with their own category names and associated commentaries, not historical figures.

We know the names which have been tendered in respect of the authorship of the canonical books, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul but we don't have any clue who these authors actually were. ( I know that there are members here who seem to know "Paul" as an historical figure.)

No names have been tendered for the authorship of the non canonical books of the gnostic heretics except for Leucius Charinus.

What does anyone here know about Leucius Charinus?

What does anyone here want to know about Leucius Charinus?

Quote:

Jeffrey does not accept the idea that docetists were mythicists. You will have to be more persuasive.

Perhaps we could say that the docetists were antichristian.

The holy writ of the centralised monotheistic state church was quite specific about the antichristian nature of those who refused to confess that Jesus had appeared in history (which is essentially the claim of (many categories of the mythicists). I see "appeared in the flesh" as equivalent to "appeared in history". The Docetists is a category defined by the heresiologists and we have no names. But they do tell us what they would not accept.

Quote:

antichrist" occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the NIV

1Jo 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1Jo 2:22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2Jo 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

We can see here how the new testament is also a political manifesto in which provision is already made for those who did not BELIEVE. The greatest enemy of the great nation of Christians was UNBELIEF.

Anyone who did not BELIEVE in the Jesus Story as history was by definition antichristian, or at least was the "harbinger of antichristian ways of thinking".

Quote:

The Monty Python crew believed in a historical Jesus. They thought he was a good guy

The Monty Python crew had access to Constantine's Bible for 1688 years along with the cultural conditioning of all the intervening generations in which great "Searches for the GOD Supernatural Historical Jesus" have been conducted and inspired the race of mortals.

I am open to the possibility that there may be a better analogy than Monty Python's "Gospel of Brian" in terms of a satire. Perhaps some other contributor could think of a political satire. We must remember that "Blasphemy Laws" were in force for the bulk of this 1688 years. Anyone found satirizing Jesus or the Church for most of these 1688 years would have been executed.

But my claim remains that when the Constantine Bible was first published far and wide as the holy writ of the pagan Roman Empire, it was satirized by the Alexandrians. I have provided Eusebius as evidence.

Just think about it for a moment.

Do you really think the pagans in Alexandria c.325 CE, upon reading the Greek Bible codices furnished for them hot from Constantine's scriptorium would have instantly believed that the Code Name Jesus in these texts was an historical figure of recent memory?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 05-06-2013, 04:34 AM

Gnostics said that the Redeemer was not a man and was not born: he was an unborn Aeon. (Aeon, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is unfolded the absoluteness of the Godhead.357)

Adolf Harnack in History of Dogma, volume one
Pg 197-202
Saturninus pg 199
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma1

Quote:

The following may be noted as the main points in the Gnostic conception of the several parts of the regula fide:

Finally, a third party, such as Saturninus, declared that the whole visible appearance of Christ was a phantom, and therefore denied the birth of Christ.358

358 The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not Docetism in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that is, the distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the Redeemer as Redeemer was not a man.

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

05-06-2013, 12:09 AM	#63
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	What we have before us is the manipulation of the meaning of "historical" by HJers. An historical Jesus is not that Jesus existed as a Spirit or as a God but as a complete human being. The mythicist argument is that Jesus was always BELIEVED to have existed but was not ever actually known to have existed. In effect, there was never any actual historical records or actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth was completely mythological and had no real existence. Jesus of Nazareth was believed to have existed as a Son of a God or some kind of divine creature born of the Holy Ghost and manifested himself as God Incarnate. It is therefore of little value to claim that Gnostics believe Jesus existed because we know it was the same people of the Roman Empire who BELIEVED Romulus, and a multitudes of Gods existed that accepted Jesus as the Son of a Ghost.

05-06-2013, 01:31 AM	#68
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	"Leucius Charinus" was apparently a docetist. Jeffrey does not accept the idea that docetists were mythicists. You will have to be more persuasive. The Monty Python crew believed in a historical Jesus. They thought he was a good guy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.