Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-29-2003, 10:16 PM

Quote:

"The earliest reference to Jesus as any kind of a teacher comes in 1 Clement, just before Ignatius, who himself seems curiously unaware of any of Jesus' teachings.

It's statements (by Doherty) like this which require way more faith than it takes to believe in a historical Jesus.

It's just nonsense anyway, as it turns out. It took me about five minutes to find Ignatius saying "as he himself says in a certain place 'I do always those things that please him.'" (Inatius' Epistle to Ephesians ch 3)

(Hebrews uses this phrase "in a certain place" doubtless they did not have Chaper/verse designations then)

There are other direct quotes of Jesus in Ch 4 and 5 as well, at least in the longer version of his letter. In the shorter (more accepted) version there are references to the historical Jesus but I only found one direct quote. I quit looking after ten minutes, so I'm sure there are more. Doherty is target practice for anybody who is truly skeptical of such assertions. (Ignatius only lived to 110, BTW)

However I'm sure there is a twenty page essay out, read by at least 50 people so far, to explain how all these refs got into Ignatius' letter. Or maybe Doherty just made up this myth altogether, like so many of his other groundless assertions.

Rad

Fiach · 03-30-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Ahh, Fiach, you already know Mary the Mother of God, you just know her by another name.

Her name was given to much older goddesses.

In Ireland (sorry I studied Irish mythology and not Scottish) we had a Goddess named Brig and later Brigit. She was a triune Goddess having three aspects The Nymph, The Virgin (Mother) and The Crone (wise woman) It was her snakes that Patrick drove out of Ireland.

Of course our mythology is shared but varied in parts of Ireland as well as Scotland where Pictish mythology merged with Irish. We have a Badb Cathba (Battle Raven, sometime Cailleach the hag, and sometimes the sexy temptress) who was one of a trio of warrior goddesses (Badb, Morrigan, and Macha). The three were a trinity known as the Morrigna. Brigid (Brig, Brigit) was a mother goddess, fertility goddess, and goddess of healing for which she had numerous sacred springs in Ireland, Pictland, and Britannia. She also had three phases (Earth Mother, Fertility goddess, and Healer goddess). Have you been to the Mountain of the Three Goddesses at Drumeague, Co. Cavan, Ireland? It is called, "Sliab na dTr� nD�" or Highland of the Gods.

She is the Goddess of inspiration, the one who brings the creative fire to the mind of the poet.

She is the goddess of poets and wisdom, overseeing the three artisans Goibniu the smith, Luchta the wright, and Credne Cerd the metal worker. As a group they were called the "na Tr� Dee Danann."

In the Far West she was Brig, but she was a pan-Celtic Goddess, worshiped by all the Celts, though by a different name with each group.
The Celts who lived farthest to the East were the Galatians (who lived in what is modern day Turkey and not people of a very similar name who lived in what is now Spain) and they called her Mary.

I didn't know that. I thought the Mary came after Christianisation. Of interest in her antiquity is that Brigid is also Bragi in Old Norse, and further back as Brhaspati in Sanskrit.

The Goddess Mary had temples as far away from Galatia as Alexandria by 50 BCE. With one of the largest temples to her being found in Tarsus.

I didn't know about that.

She appears in the NT in all her aspects. All three together attend the crucifixion. The virgin mother, The Nymph (Magdalene) and the Crone (Mary Sister of Lazarus)

Interesting. Did that enter Christianity through Gospel writers that were raised in a partly Celtic culture (Gaul or Galatia?)

Fiach

Tercel · 03-30-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregg
I have to take issue with your term "standard generalized false statements." This sounds like a pretty way of saying "lies."

Well "lies" isn't a very nice way of putting it, is it? "Lies" also assumes that Doherty is aware his statements are incorrect, which ignores the possibilities that he is ignorant/misguided/biased etc.

Quote:

Doherty probably should have left the absolute word "ever" out of his sentence.

So you agree that his generalisation is false: Yes / No?

Quote:

But the point is, Doherty does not ignore the passages you list above...on the contrary, he addresses many of them in depth elsewhere on his site.

Yes. But it is the way in which he presents his yet-to-be proven hypothesis as if it was proven fact using these generalisations which concerns me. By using these generalisations in the introduction he is effectively declaring as established fact (that the Epistles do not present an earthly Jesus) something he later attempts to prove.

Quote:

So what you are doing with your list is a bit dishonest--picking on isolated statements of Doherty's and suggesting that this somehow discredits his entire argument.

My list is not a refutation of Doherty's arguments. It is merely a useful list I can link to whenever someone says "The NT epistles make no mention of an earthly Jesus".

Quote:

By the way, I looked at some of these quotes, and I found Ephesians 2:17 interesting: "And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near." Have you really read this carefully?

Yup, in a few translations too to make sure the meaning wasn't translation dependent.

Quote:

Jesus literally came and preached to these Ephesians, these Gentiles? Where in the gospels does it say Jesus went to Ephesus and preached to the gentiles there? Wasn't that worth recording?

I would say that what the writer is "obviously" meaning is that Jesus' message of peace applies both to gentiles (who "were far" away from God) and to the Jews (who "were near" to God). But each to his own: If you really think the writer means Jesus made an unrecorded journey to Ephesus you're welcome to believe that.

Radorth · 03-30-2003, 09:08 PM

Funny how some ficticious characters like Mary and Jesus got so much attention from unbelieving historians of the first and second century, while those of Brig's time never thought of her as anything but a myth. One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth.

Rad

Fiach · 03-30-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Funny how some ficticious characters like Mary and Jesus got so much attention from unbelieving historians of the first and second century, while those of Brig's time never thought of her as anything but a myth. One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth.

Rad

Many of my people, isolated communities to be sure, who have maintained the ancient beliefs. In isolated areas up in Caithness the Northern Highlands, are people who may be residual Picts and never really absorbed the "religion of the dead god." I suspect that it also occurs in Ireland. In the history of Ireland's greatest King Brian MacKennedy (Boru) attest to the persistence of ancient celtic beliefs and goddesses in wooded regions where they escaped Christian persecuton. But it is also evident that many Celtic Christians still worship the Ancient Gods just naming them with the alien semitic names of nastier, more violent gods imposed on them. Brigit, Badb Cathba, Cailleach, and Macha among other still are worshipped. People go to Lourdes and Irish and Scottish sacred springs once to be healed by Brigid now attributed to Mary.

Although not a believer in gods, I am a member of the Celtic Revival Society, and would like to see the religious people to go back to our native cultural gods and toss out the desert gods who have led to so many terrrible wars. The Desert makes gods into mass killers.

Fiach

Radorth · 03-30-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Doherty probably should have left the absolute word "ever" out of his sentence.

Ding, ding, ding! You win "Understatement of the Week" award, man.

But of course Doherty must use the absolute because one single clear reference to an earthy Jesus pretty much wipes out his theory. HE will never edit it out, I assure you, because he is either deluded himself or makes such statements knowing he will get a sizable audience itching to here the latest, most audacious and simplistic assertion. Who wants to read anybody saying "the NT epistles rarely mention and earthly Jesus or the crucifixion"? For Doherty, that would be like admitting his theory is tenuous. IMO Doherty's fans are those looking for simplistic explanations, who tire of making the distinctions and ingenuous trade-offs required of rational and honest students.

Rad

Radorth · 03-30-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

People go to Lourdes and Irish and Scottish sacred springs once to be healed by Brigid now attributed to Mary.

It is true people prone to "believe" for the wrong reasons aren't really picky about the origins or prototypes of their goddesses But as I read the above, Mary was being presented as ahistorical.

Rad

lpetrich · 03-30-2003, 11:38 PM

Radorth:
Which of thirty JM hypotheses were you talking about BTW?

I'd have to see them listed before I can make a statement with any confidence.

Sorry, only Durant's hypothesis really irritates me.

???

lpetrich · 03-30-2003, 11:49 PM

Radorth:
Funny how some ficticious characters like Mary and Jesus got so much attention from unbelieving historians of the first and second century,

They were trying to put down early Xian beliefs by suggesting that JC was someone disreputable.

Thus, the story about how his father had been a Roman soldier named Panthera (sounds like the Greek word for virgin parthenos).

Also, the early Xian apologists tended to accept the existence of the pagan deities -- they considered those deities to be wicked devils.

So is Radorth going to make offerings to the Olympian deities?

while those of Brig's time never thought of her as anything but a myth.

How was that supposed to have happened?

One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth.

No, they were reacting to others' beliefs.

Fiach · 03-31-2003, 12:46 AM

One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth

That is the wackiest thing I have heard in a long while. You are saying that if the majority of a people go out of their way to deny something for which there is no evidence, like Big Foot, then the myths must be true. That makes no damn sense.

I thing the fact that the Jews and the Roman governers office who were there at the alleged time failed to notice Jesus, Mary the virgin, Mary the prostitute, or Mary the crone. It is only a bunch of superstitious Roman pagans who bought all of this Jesus bollocks. And they weren't there. Doesn't that make you suspicious?

Fiach

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

03-30-2003, 09:08 PM	#64
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Funny how some ficticious characters like Mary and Jesus got so much attention from unbelieving historians of the first and second century, while those of Brig's time never thought of her as anything but a myth. One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth. Rad

03-30-2003, 11:38 PM	#68
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Radorth: Which of thirty JM hypotheses were you talking about BTW? I'd have to see them listed before I can make a statement with any confidence. Sorry, only Durant's hypothesis really irritates me. ???

03-30-2003, 11:49 PM	#69
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Radorth: Funny how some ficticious characters like Mary and Jesus got so much attention from unbelieving historians of the first and second century, They were trying to put down early Xian beliefs by suggesting that JC was someone disreputable. Thus, the story about how his father had been a Roman soldier named Panthera (sounds like the Greek word for virgin parthenos). Also, the early Xian apologists tended to accept the existence of the pagan deities -- they considered those deities to be wicked devils. So is Radorth going to make offerings to the Olympian deities? while those of Brig's time never thought of her as anything but a myth. How was that supposed to have happened? One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth. No, they were reacting to others' beliefs.

03-31-2003, 12:46 AM	#70
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	One would think Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have been real folks for the Jews to put om much energy into discounting the virgin birth That is the wackiest thing I have heard in a long while. You are saying that if the majority of a people go out of their way to deny something for which there is no evidence, like Big Foot, then the myths must be true. That makes no damn sense. I thing the fact that the Jews and the Roman governers office who were there at the alleged time failed to notice Jesus, Mary the virgin, Mary the prostitute, or Mary the crone. It is only a bunch of superstitious Roman pagans who bought all of this Jesus bollocks. And they weren't there. Doesn't that make you suspicious? Fiach

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.