Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 06-25-2013, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That's fine. However, in this case, we seem to know exactly what the preexisting fundamentals were. The important bit regarding the question posed by the OP are those preexisting fundamentals. Two of which were the availability of Jewish Scripture to the wider world made possible by their translation into Greek and the fairly well established syncretism of Rome.

Looked at from this perspective, Christianity seems almost inevitable, or so it seems to me.

Even if it's true that something like it was bound to happen one way or another (on which I won't venture an opinion), that doesn't tell us how it actually did happen, which is what I take to be the original question.

The question was what, not who, or even how... the what being things in the air at the time which I think we can identify...

Of course, you are correct in that if the question was actually who or how, as in "Who started Christianity?" or "How, exactly, did Christianity start?", then we may are probably up the proverbial river.

Davka · 06-25-2013, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The question is 'What started Christianity?' not 'What does the book say started Christianity?'

What absurdities you post!! What started Christianity is found in books of antiquity. It is what is written in books of antiquity that must FIRST be examined.

We NEED the documented evidence in the books of antiquity to reconstruct the past.

We NEED the data in the books of antiquity.

"Data"?

Mythical accounts are "data" in your mind????

Tell me, does the "data" in the story of Romulus and Remus answer the question "what started the Roman empire"? Are we to conclude, based on the "data," that Rome was started by twin brothers raised by wolves?

Your problem appears to be the assumption that ancient books necessarily contain "documented evidence." In the case of religious books, the opposite is quite often the case.

aa5874 · 06-25-2013, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

As a literary political weapon, the Gospels are primarily anti Rome, not anti Israel....

The Gospels are primarily and fundamentally anti-Jewish. In fact, Jesus wanted the Populace to remain in Sin and claimed the Jews were murderers of the Prophets in the Gospels.

Mark 3:6 KJV---And the Pharisees went forth , and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Mark 11:18 KJV---And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 23.27 KJV--- O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together , even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Luke 13:34 KJV---O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together , as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

John 8:44 KJV---Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

In the Gospels, the Jesus character singled out the scribes and Pharisees for damnation. The Romans were not damned for their atrocities against the Jews in the entire Canon.

Matthew 23:13 KJV---But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:14 KJV----Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:15 KJV--Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:23 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:25 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:27 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:29 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Luke 11:42 KJV---But woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:43 KJV---Woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:44 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Duvduv · 06-25-2013, 08:48 AM

Matthew 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

aa5874 · 06-25-2013, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... What started Christianity is found in books of antiquity. It is what is written in books of antiquity that must FIRST be examined.

We NEED the documented evidence in the books of antiquity to reconstruct the past.

We NEED the data in the books of antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

"Data"?

Mythical accounts are "data" in your mind????

Tell me, does the "data" in the story of Romulus and Remus answer the question "what started the Roman empire"? Are we to conclude, based on the "data," that Rome was started by twin brothers raised by wolves?

Your problem appears to be the assumption that ancient books necessarily contain "documented evidence." In the case of religious books, the opposite is quite often the case.

It is most astonishing that you have no idea of the significance of the DATA in Plutarch's Romulus. The Myth Fable of Romulus contain far more DATA then just "twin brothers raised by wolves".

Plutarch's Romulus makes us know what people of antiquity BELIEVED in the 1st century about who were the founders of Rome.

Plutarch's Romulus makes us know that Mythology was accepted as history in the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

Plutarch lived in the 1st-2nd century--a contemporary of the supposed disciples of Jesus and of the supposed Paul yet never once mentioned the Jesus story or that that Jews started a new cult of Christians who worshiped a man as a God.

In fact, part of the story of the Myth Romulus is compatible with the Mythology in the Jesus story in the Canon.

Both the supposed dead bodies of Jesus and Romulus vanished, there was DARKNESS over the land, both resurrected and ascended.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

1. Romulus disappeared suddenly, and no portion of his body or fragment of his clothing remained to be seen.

2. The light of the sun failed, and night came down upon them.

3. Romulus resurrected and was seen by Proculus.

4. Romulus ascended to heaven.

5. Romulus was regarded as a God.

See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Romulus*.html

Plutarch's Romulus 27-28[/u]

Quote:

Romulus disappeared suddenly, and no portion of his body or fragment of his clothing remained to be seen........ suddenly strange and unaccountable disorders with incredible changes filled the air; the light of the sun failed, and night came down upon them..........Romulus, since he had been caught up into heaven, and was to be a benevolent god for them instead of a good king.................................... Julius Proculus by name went into the forum and solemnly swore by the most sacred emblems before all the people that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him..........

Plutarch's Romulus provides essential DATA which does not support the assumption that the Jews started the Jesus cult of Christians.

Parts of the Jesus story is compatible with ancient Greek and Roman Myth fables of Romulus.

There is no known evidence that Jews at any time in antiquity worshiped a man as a God and after he was already.

It was the Roman and Greeks who WORSHIPED the DEAD Myths as Gods.

It is most likely that Non-Jews started to worship the DEAD Myth Jesus as a God based on the DATA in Plutarch's Romulus.

It was the Romans who made Jesus their New God--NOT the Jews.

The very same Romans who believed Romulus was a God after he was DEAD.

Clivedurdle · 06-25-2013, 10:26 AM

Rome wasn't monolithic either - the Rubicon hadn't been crossed that long before, the Greek part was arguably more important economically, technically and artistically. Seneca was brought up in Alexandria - the Greek part of the Empire.

Davka · 06-25-2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

As a literary political weapon, the Gospels are primarily anti Rome, not anti Israel....

The Gospels are primarily and fundamentally anti-Jewish. In fact, Jesus wanted the Populace to remain in Sin and claimed the Jews were murderers of the Prophets in the Gospels.

Mark 3:6 KJV---And the Pharisees went forth , and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Mark 11:18 KJV---And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 23.27 KJV--- O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together , even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Luke 13:34 KJV---O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together , as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

John 8:44 KJV---Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

In the Gospels, the Jesus character singled out the scribes and Pharisees for damnation. The Romans were not damned for their atrocities against the Jews in the entire Canon.

Matthew 23:13 KJV---But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:14 KJV----Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:15 KJV--Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:23 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:25 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:27 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:29 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Luke 11:42 KJV---But woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:43 KJV---Woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:44 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

One can find the exact same sentiments expressed in the prophetic writings of the OT. Does that make the OT "anti-jewish" as well?

Davka · 06-25-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was the Romans who made Jesus their New God--NOT the Jews.

The very same Romans who believed Romulus was a God after he was DEAD.

Hint: bolding your opinion does not give it any more weight.

Clivedurdle · 06-25-2013, 10:36 AM

The Romans were incredibly busy apart from Palestine!

Quote:

Imperial expansion (40 BC – 117 AD)[edit]

The Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan in 117 AD

Secure from interior enemies, Rome achieved great territorial gains in both the East and the West. In the West, following humiliating defeats at the hands of the Sugambri, Tencteri and Usipetes tribes in 16 BC,[243] Roman armies pushed north and east out of Gaul to subdue much of Germania. The Pannonian revolt in 6 AD[243] forced the Romans to cancel their plan to cement their conquest of Germania.[135][244][245] Despite the loss of a large army almost to the man of Varus' famous defeat at the hands of the Germanic leader Arminius in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD,[246][247][248] Rome recovered and continued its expansion up to and beyond the borders of the known world. Roman armies under Germanicus pursued several more campaigns against the Germanic tribes of the Marcomanni, Hermunduri, Chatti,[249] Cherusci,[250] Bructeri,[250] and Marsi.[251] Overcoming several mutinies in the armies along the Rhine,[252] Germanicus defeated the Germanic tribes of Arminius in a series of battles culminating in the Battle of the Weser River.[253]

After Caesar's preliminary low-scale invasions of Britain,[254][255] the Romans invaded in force in 43 AD,[256] forcing their way inland through several battles against British tribes, including the Battle of the Medway,[256] the Battle of the Thames, the Battle of Caer Caradoc and the Battle of Mona.[257] Following a general uprising[258][259] in which the Britons sacked Colchester,[260] St Albans[261] and London,[261][262] the Romans suppressed the rebellion in the Battle of Watling Street[263][264] and went on to push as far north as central Scotland in the Battle of Mons Graupius.[265][266] Tribes in modern-day Scotland and Northern England repeatedly rebelled against Roman rule and two military bases were established in Britannia to protect against rebellion and incursions from the north, from which Roman troops built and manned Hadrian's Wall.[267]

On the continent, the extension of the Empire's borders beyond the Rhine hung in the balance for some time, with the emperor Caligula apparently poised to invade Germania in 39 AD, and Cnaeus Domitius Corbulo crossing the Rhine in 47 AD and marching into the territory of the Frisii and Chauci.[268] Caligula's successor, Claudius, ordered the suspension of further attacks across the Rhine,[268] setting what was to become the permanent limit of the Empire's expansion in this direction.[2]

"Never was there slaughter more cruel than took place there in the marshes and woods, never were more intolerable insults inflicted by barbarians, especially those directed against the legal pleaders. They put out the eyes of some of them and cut off the hands of others; they sewed up the mouth of one of them after first cutting out his tongue, which one of the barbarians held in his hand, exclaiming At last, you viper, you have ceased to hiss!."
Florus on the loss of Varus' force[269]

Further east, Trajan turned his attention to Dacia, an area north of Macedon and Greece and east of the Danube that had been on the Roman agenda since before the days of Caesar[270][271] when they had beaten a Roman army at the Battle of Histria.[272] In 85 AD, the Dacians had swarmed over the Danube and pillaged Moesia[273][274] and initially defeated an army the Emperor Domitian sent against them,[275] but the Romans were victorious in the Battle of Tapae in AD 88 and a truce was drawn up.[275]

Emperor Trajan recommenced hostilities against Dacia and, following an uncertain number of battles,[276] defeated the Dacian general Decebalus in the Second Battle of Tapae in 101 AD.[277] With Trajan's troops pressing towards the Dacian capital Sarmizegethusa, Decebalus once more sought terms.[278] Decebalus rebuilt his power over the following years and attacked Roman garrisons again in 105 AD. In response Trajan again marched into Dacia,[279] besieging the Dacian capital in the Siege of Sarmizethusa, and razing it to the ground.[280] With Dacia quelled, Trajan subsequently invaded the Parthian empire to the east, his conquests taking the Roman Empire to its greatest extent. Rome's borders in the east were indirectly governed through a system of client states for some time, leading to less direct campaigning than in the west in this period.[281]

The Armenian Kingdom between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea became a focus of contention between Rome and the Parthian Empire, and control of the region was repeatedly gained and lost. The Parthians forced Armenia into submission from 37 AD[282] but in 47 AD the Romans retook control of the kingdom and offered it client kingdom status. Under Nero, the Romans fought a campaign between 55 and 63 AD against the Parthian Empire, which had again invaded Armenia. After gaining Armenia once more in 60 AD and subsequently losing it again in 62 AD, the Romans sent Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo in 63 AD into the territories of Vologases I of Parthia. Corbulo succeeded in returning Armenia to Roman client status, where it remained for the next century.

Year of the Four Emperors (69 AD)

In 69 AD, Marcus Salvius Otho governor of Lusitania, had the Emperor Galba murdered[283][284] and claimed the throne for himself.[285][286] However, Vitellius, governor of the province of Germania Inferior, had also claimed the throne[287][288] and marched on Rome with his troops.[285][286] Following an inconclusive battle near Antipolis,[289] Vitellius' troops attacked the city of Placentia in the Assault of Placentia, but were repulsed by the Othonian garrison.[288][290]

Otho left Rome on March 14, and marched north towards Placentia to meet his challenger. In the Battle of Locus Castrorum the Othonians had the better of the fighting,[291] and Vitellius' troops retreated to Cremona. The two armies met again on the Via Postunia, in the First Battle of Bedriacum,[292] after which the Othonian troops fled back to their camp in Bedriacum,[293] and the next day surrendered to the Vitellian forces. Otho decided to commit suicide rather than fight on.[294]

Meanwhile, the forces stationed in the Middle East provinces of Judaea and Syria had acclaimed Vespasian as emperor[292] and the Danubian armies of the provinces of Raetia and Moesia also acclaimed Vespasian as emperor. Vespasian's and Vitellius' armies met in the Second Battle of Bedriacum,[292][295] after which the Vitellian troops were driven back into their camp outside Cremona, which was taken.[296] Vespasian's troops then attacked Cremona itself,[297] which surrendered.

Under pretence of siding with Vespasian, Civilis of Batavia had taken up arms and induced the inhabitants of his native country to rebel.[292][298] The rebelling Batavians were immediately joined by several neighbouring German tribes including the Frisii. These forces drove out the Roman garrisons near the Rhine and defeated a Roman army at the Battle of Castra Vetera, after which many Roman troops along the Rhine and in Gaul defected to the Batavian cause. However, disputes soon broke out amongst the different tribes, rendering co-operation impossible; Vespasian, having successfully ended the civil war, called upon Civilis to lay down his arms, and on his refusal his legions met him in force, defeating him[274] in the Battle of Augusta Treverorum.

Jewish revolts (66–135 AD)[edit]

First Jewish-Roman War

The first Jewish-Roman War, sometimes called The Great Revolt, was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Judaea Province against the Roman Empire.[299] Judea was already a troubled region with bitter violence among several competing Jewish sects[299] and a long history of rebellion[300] The Jews' anger turned on Rome following robberies from their temples and Roman insensitivity – Tacitus says disgust and repulsion[301] – towards their religion. The Jews began to prepare for armed revolt. Early successes, including the repulse of the First Siege of Jerusalem[302] and the Battle of Beth-Horon,[302] only attracted greater attention from Rome and Emperor Nero appointed general Vespasian to crush the rebellion. Vespasian led his forces in a methodical clearance of the areas in revolt. By the year 68 AD, Jewish resistance in the North had been crushed. A few towns and cities held out for a few years before falling to the Romans, leading to the Siege of Masada in 73 AD[303][304] and the Second Siege of Jerusalem.[305]
In 115 AD, revolt broke out again in the province, leading to the second Jewish-Roman war known as the Kitos War, and again in 132 AD in what is known as Bar Kokhba's revolt. Both were brutally crushed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...0.93_117_AD.29

aa5874 · 06-25-2013, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

As a literary political weapon, the Gospels are primarily anti Rome, not anti Israel....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Gospels are primarily and fundamentally anti-Jewish. In fact, Jesus wanted the Populace to remain in Sin and claimed the Jews were murderers of the Prophets in the Gospels.

Mark 3:6 KJV---And the Pharisees went forth , and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Mark 11:18 KJV---And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 23.27 KJV--- O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together , even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Luke 13:34 KJV---O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together , as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

John 8:44 KJV---Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

In the Gospels, the Jesus character singled out the scribes and Pharisees for damnation. The Romans were not damned for their atrocities against the Jews in the entire Canon.

Matthew 23:13 KJV---But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:14 KJV----Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:15 KJV--Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:23 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:25 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:27 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Matthew 23:29 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Luke 11:42 KJV---But woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:43 KJV---Woe unto you, Pharisees!

Luke 11:44 KJV---Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

One can find the exact same sentiments expressed in the prophetic writings of the OT. Does that make the OT "anti-jewish" as well?

You seem to have very limited knowledge of the sentiments in the OT.

1. Please, show exactly where it is claimed in the OT that the Jews were of their Father the Devil who was a Murderer.

2. Please show exactly where Pharisees were DAMNED and referred to as hypocrites in the OT.

3. Please show exactly where it is claimed the Jews would Kill Jesus the Son of God.

There are no such sentiments in the OT.

You must realize that people here have the Bible in front of them as you "speak".

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

06-25-2013, 08:48 AM	#404
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

06-25-2013, 10:26 AM	#406
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Rome wasn't monolithic either - the Rubicon hadn't been crossed that long before, the Greek part was arguably more important economically, technically and artistically. Seneca was brought up in Alexandria - the Greek part of the Empire.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.