Alternative Messiahs

[Delscottio]

Evening folks, my first post in this forum so go easy!

First off apologies if this question has been asked before, I've done a quick search but nothing turned up.

Anyway after watching Pythons "Life of Brian" for the umpteenth time the famous John Cleese line " I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few" got me thinking, are there any other recorded "Messiahs" in ancient texts?

If there is what happened to them? If not what was so different about Jesus?

(I am assuming Jesus did exist - although not as a supernatural being i.e just a normal bloke)

I suppose I've always assumed there was nigh on a messiah a week that people followed, mainly from that one line, which to be honest is shameful so i would like to find out more.

Thanks in advance.

[RandFan]

I just can't believe that you are asking such a dumb question. Sheesh.

Nah, welcome to the forum. I'm by no means an expert but I highly recommend The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.thegodmovie.com/) and Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170). Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo) of a lecture by the author.

If there is what happened to them? If not what was so different about Jesus?Great question. To understand the answer I think it helpful to understand a bit about memes and their evolution. If we compare the idea or concept of Jesus as messiah to a biological entity then we could ask, why did any number of extinct biological species become extinct? The answer of course is, because of changes in the environment. If ideas or concpets are in fact like biological entities then can we expect ideas to change, evolve and or become extinct because of changes in environement? The answer to that question is yes.

There were a number of messianic figures (see above links). And it is worthy to note that Christianity as a theology almost didn't get off the ground. Prior to Paul it had dwindled to a few handfuls of people. But Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and others fanned the flames of belief until the religion grew to compete with other dominant beliefs. In comes Constantine who consolidates his kingdom (The Holly Roman Empire) and the beliefs therein and voilà, Christianity (with a mix of Jewish and Pagan beliefs) was the chosen approved religion. Now throw in Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) theory that Europeans were, by the luck of the draw, endowed with ability to conquer much of the rest of the world and Christianity was spread and all other messianic figures became footnotes.

It's overly simplistic and perhaps even wrong in some ways but I believe that is the general idea.

Good luck.

[shadron]

There is an excellent pair of videos out called "From Jesus to Christ" from the PBS Frontline program. They describe the archaeology that is available that sheds light on the first three hundred years of he christian church: the first program is on Christ himself, the second is on the church and the gospels.

It treats the actuality of Christ somewhat softball, but it does point out a lot of things that I didn't know; for instance, Nazareth (if it existed at all around the Roman times; some say not) was only 6 miles from a major Roman regional city, Sepphoris. If Jesus was plying a trade there before becoming a preacher, then to stay in business he would have had to have been fairly sophisticated for the time, no simple country bumpkin.

The video and lots of written matter is at FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/)

[RandFan]

There is an excellent pair of videos out called "From Jesus to Christ" from the PBS Frontline program. They describe the archaeology that is available that sheds light on the first three hundred years of he christian church: the first program is on Christ himself, the second is on the church and the gospels.

It treats the actuality of Christ somewhat softball, but it does point out a lot of things that I didn't know; for instance, Nazareth (if it existed at all around the Roman times; some say not) was only 6 miles from a major Roman regional city, Sepphoris. If Jesus was plying a trade there before becoming a preacher, then to stay in business he would have had to have been fairly sophisticated for the time, no simple country bumpkin.

The video and lots of written matter is at FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/):)

Thank you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There is an excellent pair of videos out called "From Jesus to Christ" from the PBS Frontline program. They describe the archaeology that is available that sheds light on the first three hundred years of he christian church: the first program is on Christ himself, the second is on the church and the gospels.

It treats the actuality of Christ somewhat softball, but it does point out a lot of things that I didn't know; for instance, Nazareth (if it existed at all around the Roman times; some say not) was only 6 miles from a major Roman regional city, Sepphoris. If Jesus was plying a trade there before becoming a preacher, then to stay in business he would have had to have been fairly sophisticated for the time, no simple country bumpkin.

The video and lots of written matter is at FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/)

Did they pursue the "Nazareth may or may not have existed" factoid at all. Whether it did exist in Roman times or not, it was not then and is not now the "City of Nazareth". :rolleyes:

[gtc]

I believe John the Baptist was a candidate for messiah. This is possibly why Luke has him pointing to Jesus.

IIRC there is a religion based on John the Baptist in Iraq.

[Foster Zygote]

Evening folks, my first post in this forum so go easy!

First off apologies if this question has been asked before, I've done a quick search but nothing turned up.

Anyway after watching Pythons "Life of Brian" for the umpteenth time the famous John Cleese line " I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few" got me thinking, are there any other recorded "Messiahs" in ancient texts?

If there is what happened to them? If not what was so different about Jesus?

(I am assuming Jesus did exist - although not as a supernatural being i.e just a normal bloke)

I suppose I've always assumed there was nigh on a messiah a week that people followed, mainly from that one line, which to be honest is shameful so i would like to find out more.

Thanks in advance.

This is actually a very interesting first post. Shame on you for lurking for over a year before bringing it up.;)

From what I've read of history, the environment in which Jesus arose (and, like you, I think there probably was a real man upon whom the fictional Jesus of the gospels was loosely based) was similar to rural parts of India today. They call them "God-men" in India, and they are essentially conjurers and illusionists who pray on the ignorance of the uneducated by passing off sleight of hand and illusion as genuine miracles. We know that there were quite a number of "holy men" roaming about the Middle East two thousand years ago, and I suspect that the gospel Jesus contains elements of at least some of them.

[Delscottio]

This is actually a very interesting first post. Shame on you for lurking for over a year before bringing it up.;)

From what I've read of history, the environment in which Jesus arose (and, like you, I think there probably was a real man upon whom the fictional Jesus of the gospels was loosely based) was similar to rural parts of India today. They call them "God-men" in India, and they are essentially conjurers and illusionists who pray on the ignorance of the uneducated by passing off sleight of hand and illusion as genuine miracles. We know that there were quite a number of "holy men" roaming about the Middle East two thousand years ago, and I suspect that the gospel Jesus contains elements of at least some of them.

I didn't realise I had been a member for so long until you pointed it out, suppose in a way I felt I had little to offer - most bases seem to be covered!

Thanks for that, but the question(s) still stands - why Jesus? What happened to the others were they "found out" or just disappeared and the faithful found a new "Lord"?

I just don't get why all the others failed yet Jesus for some reason managed to spaw the following we find today.

Appreciate to replies I've only had 5 mins so logged on and answered the last post so apologies if my questions have been answered.

[geni]

I didn't realise I had been a member for so long until you pointed it out, suppose in a way I felt I had little to offer - most bases seem to be covered!

Thanks for that, but the question(s) still stands - why Jesus? What happened to the others were they "found out" or just disappeared and the faithful found a new "Lord"?

I just don't get why all the others failed yet Jesus for some reason managed to spaw the following we find today.

Appreciate to replies I've only had 5 mins so logged on and answered the last post so apologies if my questions have been answered.


The roman/greek polytheistic system was breaking down so people were looking for a replacement. Paul picked up on the limited remains of jesus's following presented it as a kind of judaism lite and it appealed to people.

As for the Messiahs well they never really got out of isreal.

[quarky]

It may have to do with who first got ahold of the printing press, and their affiliations.

Buddists have many christ-like heroes; some even the same entity, supposedly.

Perhaps some of it is luck of the draw. Why has Elvis hung in there so long? Surely there were other crooners who coud shake their hips. Why is Britiny such a media obsession, when Judy Brozwalski can sing better, and is even cuter?

[Cavemonster]

What's interesting about the Jesus story is that he didn't fulfill the Jewish notion of Messiah, he transformed it.

By Jewish reckoning, the Messiah comes and within a fairly short period of time a whole bunch of weird crap happens and the we get heaven on earth for all time.

No matter how popular any other Messiah became, if a few decades (which was basically a lifetime back then) passed, he would be essentially disproven by definition.

The Jesus legend revised the prophesied claim. This messiah dies, which is usually the end of the following. But some of his buddies came up with the story that his death, far from disproving him, is essential to his status and role, the central idea of this new faith.
It was this revision of scriptural idea that allowed Jesus-ism to stick around for a while after his death.

Why did it get so huge? There are a lot of theories about a lot of factors. For one thing it was by it's nature evangelical, which neither Judaism nor Greco-Roman religion were. For another, it appealed to the poor. In other belief systems, god(s) liked rich people, that's why he made them rich. Early Christianity stands this on it's head and gives poor people a veiw of the world in which they are blessed by the world. It's a compelling sales pitch.

[cj.23]

I just can't believe that you are asking such a dumb question. Sheesh.

Nah, welcome to the forum. I'm by no means an expert but I highly recommend The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.thegodmovie.com/) and Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170). Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo) of a lecture by the author.

Bart Ehrmann is sound enough, but I would not look tot he God Who Wasn't There for any kind of information. :) Too many errors!



There were a number of messianic figures (see above links). And it is worthy to note that Christianity as a theology almost didn't get off the ground. Prior to Paul it had dwindled to a few handfuls of people.


Who told you this? I think it is extraordinarily unlikely, given the evidence we have? Paul's conversion is within a couple of years of the Crucifixion, and in fact the community appears to have been growing steadily in that period -- we have evidence from the Pauline Epistles and Acts here. The fact that there were enough believers for Paul having a tough time establishing his theological line, and for non-Pauline traditions to thrive and develope suggests a very sizable early community, which we know consisted of the Hellenists (under Stephen), the Jamesian Church still attending the Temple and of course the community in Damascus which ismentioned by Paul. All evidence suggests that the community remained strong apart from possibly for the forty days after the Crucifixion when it is initially in utter disarray, and even then there are still a goodly number of adherents - the 72 and 12 at least one assumes?


But Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and others fanned the flames of belief until the religion grew to compete with other dominant beliefs. In comes Constantine who consolidates his kingdom (The Holly Roman Empire) and the beliefs therein and voilà, Christianity (with a mix of Jewish and Pagan beliefs) was the chosen approved religion.

It would take a long time to explain what was wrong with this, but basically
i) Paul's version of Christianity does not ever attain total dominance, but becomes of the voices which determines orthodoxy - but only one.
ii) Constantine completely failed if consolidating the Empire was his idea - and here you really mean the Eastern Roman Empire - because 85% remain pagan until far, far later. Toleration actually predates him by a decade as I recall at least, and while he calls the Council of Nicea a huge amount of nonsense has been written on the events there.
iii) Christianity is really very hard to categortise as a "mix of Jewish and Pagan beliefs". I think you would find it almost impossible to defend that positions - it was a very Jewish set of beliefs, in a pagan cultural miullieu, but there is no evidence of doctrinal borrowing from paganism?
iv) Christianity does not become the official religion of the Empire for another fifty odd years, until Theodosius in 380? Even at that time paganism is still tolerated and probably the majority belief?

cj x

[cj.23]

Right, Messianic claimants. Sort of -- less clear than it once was. The idea of the Messiahs is a human king of the line of David and a human priest, two messiahs, of certain lineage, who will perform certain duties in the end times (end of the age, not end of the world note) in restoring the reign of God then die normal deaths. These figures are not divine - they are human servants of God, not in nay way God. This seems to have been perhaps the mainstream Messianic belief, but belief in the Messiah varied over different periods, and different sectarian and theological positions in Second Temple Judaism. I can explain in some detail if you are interested.

Christianity was an EXTREMELY radical interpretation of the Messiah - King and Priest in one, and Divine. This was not the expectation of the Messiah - but it could be argued that Jesus fulfilled all the roles, and therefore this forms the basis of the apologetic to the Jews we see in the New Testament.

Another radical interpretation was that of the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote his histories to argue the destroyer of Jerusalem the Roman Emperor Vespasian was the Messiah. (He wasn't. He was a very naughty boy.)

You could be a Messiah (a liberator) rather than the Messiah - as Simon bar Kokhbah was hailed, leading to the disaster of the Second Jewish Revolt in the Second Century. If this puzzles think of antichrist, or Lucifer - both titles which can be applied to many individuals. If you are interested in Messianic beliefs at the time of Jesus I'd recommend the works of the Jewish Scholar Geza Vermes, who I believe is the worlds leading authority on 1st Century Judaism, and EP Sanders.


Here is Wikipedia on Messianic Claimants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_Messiah_claimants

Hope helps!
cj x

[Foster Zygote]

I didn't realise I had been a member for so long until you pointed it out, suppose in a way I felt I had little to offer - most bases seem to be covered!

Thanks for that, but the question(s) still stands - why Jesus? What happened to the others were they "found out" or just disappeared and the faithful found a new "Lord"?

I just don't get why all the others failed yet Jesus for some reason managed to spaw the following we find today.

Appreciate to replies I've only had 5 mins so logged on and answered the last post so apologies if my questions have been answered.

I've seen this question explored in more detail by historians in the recent past, but I can't remember the source. From my memory, it came down to the fact that the Jesus story had appeal to a greater number of people, namely the poor, slaves etc. I remember that one of the other contemporary holy men mentioned had held appeal among the educated elite, but there were relatively few of them and they had it pretty good already. Jesus (the fictional one, not the real rabbinical Jesus), on the other hand, offered hope of salvation in the next life to those who were least satisfied with their lives on Earth. not that there weren't wealthy, educated Christians during the first couple of centuries of Christianity, but the movement's appeal to the poor and powerless gave it a lot of momentum because there were a hell of a lot of poor and powerless people in the Roman Empire.

[I Ratant]

I've seen this question explored in more detail by historians in the recent past, but I can't remember the source. From my memory, it came down to the fact that the Jesus story had appeal to a greater number of people, namely the poor, slaves etc. I remember that one of the other contemporary holy men mentioned had held appeal among the educated elite, but there were relatively few of them and they had it pretty good already. Jesus (the fictional one, not the real rabbinical Jesus), on the other hand, offered hope of salvation in the next life to those who were least satisfied with their lives on Earth. not that there weren't wealthy, educated Christians during the first couple of centuries of Christianity, but the movement's appeal to the poor and powerless gave it a lot of momentum because there were a hell of a lot of poor and powerless people in the Roman Empire.
.
I've read that in the early days of the persecutions in Rome, getting subjects for the torture deaths in the arenas wasn't much of a problem, with volunteers lining up!
The promised afterlife was so much better than their lot on earth, it probably got to the point where the donations to the various churches were declining, so the priests equated self-martyrdom to suicide.

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't believe in Alternative Messiahs. Once they have been excepted by modern religion, they just become Messiahs. :)

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't believe in Alternative Messiahs. Once they have been excepted by modern religion, they just become Messiahs. :)

Er, accepted...

[RandFan]

Bart Ehrmann is sound enough, but I would not look tot he God Who Wasn't There for any kind of information. :) Too many errors!Errors yes. Too many? Nah.

Who told you this? I think it is extraordinarily unlikely, given the evidence we have? I said, "It's overly simplistic and perhaps even wrong in some ways but I believe that is the general idea." Christianity did dwindle and had almost gone extinct after the sack of Rome and the fall of Masada.

It would take a long time to explain what was wrong with this, but basicallyI often speak authoritatively when I have no right so I live in a glass house but I don't think you exhibit any grand expertise.

i) Paul's version of Christianity does not ever attain total dominance, but becomes of the voices which determines orthodoxy - but only one.Never said it did but I was wrong about a continuation of Christianity. It dwindled for awhile after the revolt failed and Jerusalem was destroyed and the fall of Masada (to the extent the historic record is correct).

ii) Constantine completely failed if consolidating the Empire was his idea - No. this is not true.

...and here you really mean the Eastern Roman Empire - because 85% remain pagan until far, far later. Toleration actually predates him by a decade as I recall at least, and while he calls the Council of Nicea a huge amount of nonsense has been written on the events there. Popular revisionism but it's not true. I'll concede that I'm just disagreeing and that I was first to make a claim but I was just stating my opinion and I'll stand by that opinion. You certainly have done nothing to substantiate a rebuttal.

iii) Christianity is really very hard to categortise as a "mix of Jewish and Pagan beliefs". I think you would find it almost impossible to defend that positions - it was a very Jewish set of beliefs, in a pagan cultural miullieu, but there is no evidence of doctrinal borrowing from paganism?It's a mix of tradition, iconography, ritual, etc..

Where do you think the Christmas tree, Yule log, Easter Egg, Bunny, etc.,, etc. come from? Why do we celebrate the birth of Christ during a Pagan festival when no one believed that Christ was born anywhere near the winter solistice?

I really resent your rhetoric of "find it almost impossible to defend that positions" when in fact it is easily demonstrable. Christianity is replete with pagan and Jewish imagery and belief. To say that is not at all controversial to bible scholars. Many of the aspects of Christianity can be found throughout Jewish and Pagan religions.

iv) Christianity does not become the official religion of the Empire for another fifty odd years, until Theodosius in 380? Even at that time paganism is still tolerated and probably the majority belief? Constantine didn't force everyone to practice Christianity but by becoming a Christian (he was baptized) and putting the resources into Christianity he created the atmosphere that would lead to Christianity becoming the dominant religion.

[cj.23]

I said, "It's overly simplistic and perhaps even wrong in some ways but I believe that is the general idea." Christianity did dwindle and had almost gone extinct after the sack of Rome and the fall of Masada.

Did you? I appreciate you said you were not an authority in thsi area, and what you wrote was not that far off in some ways, but this claim is VERY suspect. The sack of Jerusalem you mean I am sure - that was 70. Paul was dead by 65 probably, and the pre-Pauline phase you referenced before was c.33-35. The fall of Masada was 72. Both postdate Paul - hence my confusion, as you stated


Prior to Paul it had dwindled to a few handfuls of people. But Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and others fanned the flames of belief until the religion grew to compete with other dominant beliefs.

the dwindling you are asserting occurred post-Paul - five to seven years after the most probable date for his death, and in the period when most scholars place the writing of the Christian gospels, that is in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. However the notion that the Christians were almost wiped out in this period remains deeply suspect, indeed almost certainly wrong. Christianity had by this time spread as far as Rome, Bithynia, possibly Pompeii, throughout Greece, Cilicia, Damascus, and probably to Alexandria. It was probably well established in the diaspora. Now what of the Church of James in Jerusalem? Stephen and James are both dead, but Hegesippus is cited by Eusebius as saying that the Christians fled the city - and the family of Jesus went to Pella, in the Decapolis. So in short the Christians got out, and went to gentile districts - and hence probably survived very well indeed, compared with the devastation wrought on the Jewish communities. In fact I suspect this was actually a period of explosive growth, only ending as the first phase converts from gentile-sympathizers who attended synagogues are either converted or fall away as Judaism loses status as a religion in Roman eyes with the Revolt. The picture we have from the seven authentic Pauline Epistles (c.52-64) is of rapid growth - and the next hard evidence i can think of is from Clement, writing about 90, by which time the Church is doing very well indeed. Acts seems to support this contention.


I often speak authoritatively when I have no right so I live in a glass house but I don't think you exhibit any grand expertise.

We all do, its quite normal and acceptable, and I did not mean to jump on you like one of my old undergrads and apologize if I did. I'm sure you will correct me on many things. I may not display great expertise, but i do have the advantage of having spent a good few years being paid to research & lecture in this stuff. :) By no means makes me right, especially given the fragmented nature of our sources for the period, but I know the secondary literature and primary sources better than the average ghosthunter i think. :)



Never said it did but I was wrong about a continuation of Christianity. It dwindled for awhile after the revolt failed and Jerusalem was destroyed and the fall of Masada (to the extent the historic record is correct).

Right, I think what you are thinking of is what is called Palestinian Christianity, or Jewish Christianity, and may have been the Jamesian Church, that is the one headed by Jesus brother and then possibly Peter, or possibly other family members. Eusebius cites a first century Palestinian writer called Hegesippus to the effect as i mentioned above that this community fled in to exile - and the early community which embraced the "Jewish Christian" theology vanishes. Now this is a really a very complex issue, because Christianity is a form of Judaism pre-70 anyway, and the differences between the "Jewish" theological tendency and the "Pauline" one are us reading back in to something which may not have been clear at the time. Groups like the Ebionites have been identified with "the poor" of the Jewish Christian community, but it is very difficult and highly speculative - best books on these issues are

http://www.amazon.com/Partings-Ways-Christianity-Significance-Character/dp/1563380226/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229383599&sr=1-16

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Jerusalem-Christianity-Making-vol/dp/0802839320/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229383555&sr=1-6

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Palestinian-Judaism-Comparison-Patterns/dp/0800618998/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229383630&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Judaism-E-P-Sanders/dp/0800620615/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229383630&sr=1-3

and anything else by those two worth considering - Unity & Diversity by Dunn a particular classic. Also check out the great Jewish scholar Geza Vermes stuff.



ii) Constantine completely failed if consolidating the Empire was his idea -
...and here you really mean the Eastern Roman Empire - because 85% remain pagan until far, far later. Toleration actually predates him by a decade as I recall at least, and while he calls the Council of Nicea a huge amount of nonsense has been written on the events there.

No. this is not true.
Popular revisionism but it's not true. I'll concede that I'm just disagreeing and that I was first to make a claim but I was just stating my opinion and I'll stand by that opinion. You certainly have done nothing to substantiate a rebuttal.

OK, religious toleration of Christianity predates Constantine. Galerius issues an edict in 311 as I recall - Constantine's Edict of Milan is 313, but toleration has been practiced in many parts of the empire for a century or more. The figure i give of 15% Christian is that accepted by historians - Robin Lane Fox Pagans and Christians is a good start on siome of the utter bilge written about Nicea and Constantine. Revisionism my foot - I have spent a good year with the fine athiest schoalr Tim O Neil over on Dawkins place correcting the utter nonsense people spout about Nicea - and here in case you are interested is Pearse's fine site doing the same, with links to all sources from the Council - http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
In fact more rubbish is pouted about Constantine and Christianity than almost any other area of pseudohistory of Christianity one sees. I know you have not made any such claim, but if you think this is revisionism I refer you to Henry Chadwick's The Early Church, which dates back to the 60's, or any actual historian writing in the 20th century.


It's a mix of tradition, iconography, ritual, etc..

Where do you think the Christmas tree, Yule log, Easter Egg, Bunny, etc.,, etc. come from?


i) The Christmas Tree is a German custom dating from the first half of the sixteenth century, and popularized widely in the 18th onwards. Decorating churches with evergreens had been a feature of Christmas and Easter worship since the 14th century. No historian has ever found any evidence of a pagan origin thereof - Hutton, himself a pagan decries the notion.
ii) Yule log First recorded by Robert Herrick, c.1630, in England and popularized in the 19th century. See Hutton, Stations of the Sun, Oxford University Press 1996, p34 and following?.
iii) Easter Egg- I am aware of no pre-13th century account of this practice. Maybe you can surprise me with a primary source? The classic study is Newell's 1971 book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-Folklore-Study/dp/071006845X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229384936&sr=8-1
iv) the Easter bunny - originate sin Central Europe in the early modern era, taken to America by German immigrants and by the end of the 19th century appears in Britain from the USA.

None of the above constitute authentic pagan survivals - and if they were pre-Christian survivals, you are going to have to find any proof of their practice in the 1,200 years before they appear in the Historical record. And before you mention Eostre - she never existed, outside of Bede's imagination as far as we can tell. (though I must admit you are unlucky ot meet someone whose interests combine Early Christianity and Folklore studies - but you have and it's all nonsense according to any repuutable academic - sorry.)


Why do we celebrate the birth of Christ during a Pagan festival when no one believed that Christ was born anywhere near the winter solstice?

Simply because a) there was no pre-Christian pagan festival on December 25th, and very little evidence that even the Solstices were celebrated in pagan antiquity - its one of those things everybody knows, but an idea that arose in the 19th century and that is almost completely devoid of merit - and b) March 25th was associated in some ancient Jewish thought with the creation of Adam, so Jesus according to Paul being a "Second Adam", many early Christians appear to have accepted that as his birthday, and the date of his Crucifixion. However then it was decided this was the date of his conception - so add nine months and you get December 25th for his birthday! Other suggested dates were 20 May, 28 March, and 6 January - the early church had no agreement (and still doesn't - Christmas is January 6th in the Eastern Orthodox areas?)

Around 400CE St. Augustine wrote in On The Trinity


For he is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.

So it seems highly probable this is why the date was chosen! :)


I really resent your rhetoric of "find it almost impossible to defend that positions" when in fact it is easily demonstrable. Christianity is replete with pagan and Jewish imagery and belief. To say that is not at all controversial to bible scholars. Many of the aspects of Christianity can be found throughout Jewish and Pagan religions.

You can resent it all you like, but I I think supposed to be an authority on this - at least I have a publication coming up on it. It's complete nonsense, this pagan parallels stuff. For about two years I have had a standing challenge on the Richard Dawkins forum to anyone who wants a formal debate on the purported pagan origins of Christmas, and so far no one has taken the bait - 1097 views, no takers. And you know why? You can't argue it from the evidence.

Many element of Christianity are derived wholesale from Judaism - I have never ever denied this. It's completely true and obvious, and Christians have always said as much. :) If you can find me a specific pagan belief that entered Christianity, feel free to suggest it. If you are going to mention Mithras though, I really suggest you did not waste your time - well maybe you should, I'm always up for a quick debate on that. Iconography - yes. Doctrine. Nope.


Constantine didn't force everyone to practice Christianity but by becoming a Christian (he was baptized) and putting the resources into Christianity he created the atmosphere that would lead to Christianity becoming the dominant religion.

He was baptized on his death bed. not all historians are actually convinced he converted before that! I suspect you are not familiar with the history of the religious beliefs of the 4th century Roman Emperors?

Constantine - (Nicene) Christian
Constantius II Aryan Christian, persecutes Nicene Christians
Julian - Pagan, persecutes Christians both Aryan and Nicene
Jovian - restores toleration, Nicene Christian
Valens - Aryan Christian
Theodosius - Nicene Christian
Honorius - Nicene Christian, Sack of Rome.

Does it really look that inevitable now? The Church that Constantine backed was actually persecuted by his successor, then his successor tried to reinstitute Paganism and persecuted both Christian factions, and then the Aryan-Nicene divide continues until Theodosius, and State religion. It was far from inevitable that Christianity would become dominant, and even in the time of Theodosius paganism was still strong.

Anyway I guess i should do some work. Hope my answer clarifies these points. Always interesting to discuss these things...

cj x

[quarky]

crud.

(this is going to be a very polite debate)


there was a messiah in the Jim Kweskin Jug Band, as I recall, through a purple haze.

[Silentknight]

There is one messiah figure that comes to mind.

He came from humble beginnings and was raised in poverty.
He is known for his kindness and will help his friends without question.
He has been killed and resurrected (numerous times).
He is often willing to sacrifice his life for the greater good.
He saved the world from the forces of Hell on two separate occasions.

Yeah, all right, it's Kenny McCormick from South Park. :kenny:

[RandFan]

Both postdate Paul - hence my confusion, as you stated I've allready agreed that I was wrong about that.

OK, religious toleration of Christianity predates Constantine.
Never said otherwise.

You can resent it all you like, but I I think supposed to be an authority on this - at least I have a publication coming up on it. It's complete nonsense, this pagan parallels stuff.So you say but the experts in the field don't agree with you.

For about two years I have had a standing challenge on the Richard Dawkins forum to anyone who wants a formal debate on the purported pagan origins of Christmas, and so far no one has taken the bait - 1097 views, no takers. And you know why? You can't argue it from the evidence. Fallacy. There's a guy with the same challenge about a geocentric model. Whatever reason no one wants to debate him doesn't make geocentricm right.

He was baptized on his death bed. not all historians are actually convinced he converted before that! I suspect you are not familiar with the history of the religious beliefs of the 4th century Roman Emperors?
His conversion wasn't necassary. It was the symbolism that was significant.

Does it really look that inevitable now? The Church that Constantine backed was actually persecuted by his successor, then his successor tried to reinstitute Paganism and persecuted both Christian factions, and then the Aryan-Nicene divide continues until Theodosius, and State religion.Inevitable? No. Very likely? Yes.

Anyway I guess i should do some work. Hope my answer clarifies these points. Always interesting to discuss these things...I'm quite busy myself and I've tried to limit my discussions to the weekends. I would like to address more of your points at a later date. I've seen these types of posts on 9/11 truther sites and JFK sites etc. And BTW, I have had many eroneous ideas corrected by people who were genearly wrong. I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be. However I am familiar with the material to the degree that I am with 9/11 and the JFK assasination. Just because someone with a lot of details and purports to be an expert and has published books and produced movies doesn't make that person correct and 9/11 an American conspiracy.

Yeah, I'd love to discuss the issues with you. Simply stating that something is nonsense and posting a lot of links and information doesn't make you correct.

But I will thank you for your response.

Thanks,

RandFan

[MattusMaximus]

Delscottio, welcome to the Forum!

And if you're looking for an example of an alternative messiah, you should check out Apollonius of Tyana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana) - he was like Jesus' twin, including miracles and ascension into heaven upon his death...

... Little can be derived from sources other than Philostratus. Hence if we dismiss Philostratus’ colorful stories as fiction, the figure of the historical Apollonius appears to be rather shadowy. As James Francis put it, "the most that can be said … is that Apollonius appears to have been a wandering ascetic/philosopher/wonderworker of a type common to the eastern part of the early empire."[10] What we can safely assume is that he was indeed a Pythagorean and as such, in conformity with the Pythagorean tradition, opposed animal sacrifice, and lived on a frugal, strictly vegetarian diet.[11] He seems to have spent his entire life in the cities of his native Asia Minor and of northern Syria, in particular his home town of Tyana, Ephesus, Aegae, and Antioch.[12] As for his philosophical convictions, we have an interesting, probably authentic fragment of one of his writings (On sacrifices) where he expresses his view that God, who is the most beautiful being, cannot be influenced by prayers or sacrifices and has no wish to be worshipped by humans, but can be reached by a spiritual procedure involving nous, because he himself is pure nous and nous is also the greatest faculty of mankind.[13] The life of Jesus of Nazareth is often compared to that of Apollonius of Tyana. ...

[RandFan]

Many element of Christianity are derived wholesale from Judaism - I have never ever denied this. It's completely true and obvious, and Christians have always said as much. If you can find me a specific pagan belief that entered Christianity, feel free to suggest it. If you are going to mention Mithras though, I really suggest you did not waste your time - well maybe you should, I'm always up for a quick debate on that. Iconography - yes. Doctrine. Nope. I would very much like to have a discussion (debate). I'd like to keep it more to a discussion but debate is fine. I'm really busy so I'd like time to brush up on the material and I think we need to start a new thread.

And I hate to keep repeating myself but I'm not claiming pagan beliefs so much as ritual, imagery and symbolism. And I'm happy to talk about Mithras.

Some requests. Please skip the bald assertions and claims. I don't mind rhetoric but simply making claims is a waste of our time. No appeals to authority. I congratulate you on your pamphlet but that isn't a basis to accept your arguments. Let's keep the points and data to a minimum. I don't have the time to wade through pages and pages of information. Summarize your information and cite your references. Let's start with pagan influence on Christianity. We can then move to Constantine's contributions and influence on Christianity. You can start the thread or let me. I'm fine with either choice.

Let's wait until Friday evening.

Finally, I think Mithras would be quite appropriate. Hey, if you're right then I think that should be vetted. :)

I appreciate the tone of your posts and I expect a good discussion.

Thanks,

RandFan

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Color Codes.

In general, red represents Hell, Blue represents Earth, and White represents Heaven.

This brings a question into the air. Was there a competition concerning who becomes accepted as being the messiah. Ive have seen paintings which have Jesus dressed in Red and Blue clothing, and a few others showning him dressed in White. If the messiah sets foot on earth, one would think that this would be represented by white and blue clothing, yet I have seen this nowhere. Just a thought.

[Foster Zygote]

Color Codes.

In general, red represents Hell, Blue represents Earth, and White represents Heaven.

This brings a question into the air. Was there a competition concerning who becomes accepted as being the messiah. Ive have seen paintings which have Jesus dressed in Red and Blue clothing, and a few others showning him dressed in White. If the messiah sets foot on earth, one would think that this would be represented by white and blue clothing, yet I have seen this nowhere. Just a thought.

I've seen paintings of Jesus looking very northern European, with piercing blue eyes and strawberry-blond hair.

[Akhenaten]

Color Codes.

In general, red represents Hell, Blue represents Earth, and White represents Heaven.

This brings a question into the air. Was there a competition concerning who becomes accepted as being the messiah. Ive have seen paintings which have Jesus dressed in Red and Blue clothing, and a few others showning him dressed in White. If the messiah sets foot on earth, one would think that this would be represented by white and blue clothing, yet I have seen this nowhere. Just a thought.

That because he wasn't the messiah, he was just a very naughty boy.

[cj.23]

So you say but the experts in the field don't agree with you.


Like who? Acharya S? :) I tried to get her to debate me on Dawkins forum, but no luck. Truthbeknown and Mriana turned down the chance as well. :( Who actually believes this now? I can't think of a single classicist or New Testament schoalr or historian with any time for the ideas. If you know of any, I'll cheerfully write to them and try to get a debate somewhere. :) I like the topic and am pretty well versed in it. As far as i know my opinions are prett much mainstream in those who have studied the issue?


Fallacy. There's a guy with the same challenge about a geocentric model. Whatever reason no one wants to debate him doesn't make geocentricm right.

Agreed it - could just be noone has the time. I'm Jerome over there - feel free to check out what I have written on the topic over the years.



I'm quite busy myself and I've tried to limit my discussions to the weekends. I would like to address more of your points at a later date. I've seen these types of posts on 9/11 truther sites and JFK sites etc. And BTW, I have had many eroneous ideas corrected by people who were genearly wrong. I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be. However I am familiar with the material to the degree that I am with 9/11 and the JFK assasination. Just because someone with a lot of details and purports to be an expert and has published books and produced movies doesn't make that person correct and 9/11 an American conspiracy.

Agreed. However it will be astonishingly easy to disprove my claims - just provide contrary evidence. I have waited two years so far, and no one has. :)


Yeah, I'd love to discuss the issues with you. Simply stating that something is nonsense and posting a lot of links and information doesn't make you correct.

Yes, but you might notice that I was actually posting links ot books published by the likes of Oxford University Press by the worlds leading authorities on the questions. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to the contrary I will cheerfully change my opinions - I'm all up for full and honest discussion of these issues. :)

And cheers, its always a pleasure to discuss stuff with you, and I will be delighted to continue the discussion when you have time.

cj x

[Cainkane1]

Evening folks, my first post in this forum so go easy!

First off apologies if this question has been asked before, I've done a quick search but nothing turned up.

Anyway after watching Pythons "Life of Brian" for the umpteenth time the famous John Cleese line " I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few" got me thinking, are there any other recorded "Messiahs" in ancient texts?

If there is what happened to them? If not what was so different about Jesus?

(I am assuming Jesus did exist - although not as a supernatural being i.e just a normal bloke)

I suppose I've always assumed there was nigh on a messiah a week that people followed, mainly from that one line, which to be honest is shameful so i would like to find out more.

Thanks in advance.
Welcome Aggy.

[Cainkane1]

There is one messiah figure that comes to mind.

He came from humble beginnings and was raised in poverty.
He is known for his kindness and will help his friends without question.
He has been killed and resurrected (numerous times).
He is often willing to sacrifice his life for the greater good.
He saved the world from the forces of Hell on two separate occasions.

Yeah, all right, it's Kenny McCormick from South Park. :kenny:
Here's a few more mythical saviors...Jesus was the last out of all of these...lol
Name: Aggy
Date Posted: Dec 15, 08 - 12:12 PM
Message: Adad of Assyria

Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece

Alcides of Thebes

Attis of Phrygia

Baal of Phoenicia

Bali of Afghanistan

Beddru of Japan

Buddha of India

Crite of Chaldea

Deva Tat of Siam

Hesus of the Druids

Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ

Indra of Tibet/India

Jao of Nepal

Krishna of India

Mikado of the Sintoos

Mithra of Persia

Odin of the Scandinavians

Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece

Quetzalcoatl of Mexico

Salivahana of Bermuda

Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical myth making move, later turned into the disciple Thomas)

Thor of the Gauls

Universal Monarch of the Sibyls

Wittoba of the Bilingonese

Xamolxis of Thrace

Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia

Zoar of the Bonzes

*So, here's 33 more saviors we can add to the mythical legends.

[cj.23]

I would very much like to have a discussion (debate). I'd like to keep it more to a discussion but debate is fine. I'm really busy so I'd like time to brush up on the material and I think we need to start a new thread.

And I hate to keep repeating myself but I'm not claiming pagan beliefs so much as ritual, imagery and symbolism. And I'm happy to talk about Mithras.

Sure - but I don't dispute that iconography was adopted from Mithraism etc in artistic depictions. Cumont (1904) observed as much, and from this a whole raft of mistaken claims have come, but sure - Early Christianity was in no way isolated from the culture of the Graeco-Roman world. What does not exist is the supposed parallels of doctrine and belief one sees claimed all over the internet.

So for example looking at Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras as the best current scholarship on the issue what do we find?


"Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults and can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." Clauss, p. 168.

The similarities Clauss finds are:

1. Water plays a significant part in the two religions.
2. Mithras the god is born from a rock. In the eastern Church, Mary, the theotokos, the mother of God, was seen allegorically as the rock from which Christ was born. (The latter appears to be the origin of the completely misstated and erroneous views of the birth of Jesus and the birth of Mithras, simplified and distorted beyond recognition. One of the Church fathers also noted that there was a belief in his day that Christ was born in a cave, and the Mithraic rites were celebrated in caves, or temples constructed to resemble them. Compare this with the usual claims about Christ and Mithras birth.)
3. To their followers Christ and Mithras were divinities of light and the sun. Christ is the Sun of Righteousness, Mithras the Victorious, or the Unconquered Sun. This was according to Clauss the Christians distancing themselves from the Pagan ideal.
4. Clauss accuses Christians of taking over Sunday and December 25th from Mithraism, note, however, the argument of many other scholars that December 25th was a Christian festival co-opted by the cult of Sol Invictis/ Mithras. Sunday had been observed by Christians since the 1st century, and there is no early evidence of a similar Mithraic festival. Clauss notes "that due to its lack of internal organization the cult of Mithras had barely any means of defending itself against attacks by Christians and the abominations of the age. It was scattered in numerous small congregations which not recognizably connected with one another. There was no hierarchy to bind several congregations together." p.171
5. There was a ritual meal in Mithraism. Justin Martyr expresses surprise at the similarity. He was writing about 150 AD and claimed it was a diabolic imitation. It was the Christians who raised the question of the similarity, and Tertullian was to continue the theme. Clauss notes "the offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual and the appropriation of spiritual qualities."

Now the Christian eucharist clearly and explicitly derives from the Jewish Passover meal, celebrated since antiquity. The blessing of the consecrated elements the bread and wine in the eucharist is based on the baruch ha-matzoh, the Jewish meal time grace. It clearly does not derive from Mithraism

As an aside reading Clauss reminds one more than anything of the incredible symbolic and mythological distance between the Gospel narratives and the activities of Mithras, which are far, far stronger and more obvious than the supposed similarities.

My source here was Manfred Claus The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries, translated by Richard Gordon, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 2000)

I also checked Michael P. Speidel Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God (Leiden, E.J. Brill 1980), whose fascinating work on the astrological significance of Mithras and the links with the Greek hero cult of Orion have emphasized the absolute dissimilarity and lack of continuity between the Roman and the older Persian versions of Mithras, and in doing so have done much to invalidate Cumont' hypothesis.

Anyway, to cite one version of the parallel claims, from a well known source, which we keep seeing...

# Mithra was born on December 25th.

Nope, no evidence for this at all. So in fact, there are no early references at all to Mithras having been celebrated on December 25th. The Cult of Sol Invictus was indeed celebrated on this day, but scholars make a distinction between the two these days - and that celebration was actually instituted in the reign of Elagabulus (218-222AD). It is generally considered to be part of the post-Christian reaction: December 25th was being popularised as the date of Christ's birthday then, most popularly by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221AD book. The earliest reference to a Sol Invictus celebration on that date is from the Chronography of 354, 130+ years later. The Festival of Sol Invictus was of cours ein late summer, with gamnes held every four years in October.

No association was made between the Sol Invictus festival and a birth that I have found so far. And just to be pedantic, the differences between Mithra (Persian) and Mithras as worshipped in Roman culture were huge.

# He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
# He had 12 companions or disciples.

Not found these yet, but there is no mention anywhere of this. He is surrounded by the torchbearers in iconography, is this where that came from? Usually there are 2, 7 or 9 torchbearers.

# He performed miracles.

Yep, who didn't?

# He was buried in a tomb.
# After three days he rose again.
# His resurrection was celebrated every year.
# Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."

No he wasn't. The two torchbearers who lift him from the rock had been likened to shepherds - Clauss (p.69) specifically denies that they are shepherds in any way or form, and refutes this nonsense. The version here is a garbled version of the claim.

# He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
# He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.

He is associated with the serpent and the raven. Maybe in bad light, or they were wearing fancy dress? Er, no. Well not that I have found so far. If I find it I'll tell you straight away. He was associated with firing arrows in to a rock to create springs, and above all else killing a bull, creating life by doing so. Does that help? He did have sex with a rock that gave birth to his son, later killed in a duel with Aries and turned in to a mountain. Oddly enough you rarely hear that bit. He was born himself by springing naked from a rock, holding a torch and dagger and wearing a phyrgian cap.

# His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

Any proof of this? Like any at all? Hulllooo down there? Earth calling evidence???! I can't find any. The Sunday celebration of the Eucharist long predates the claimed source!


# Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.

Really? :) Er, so how come I can find not one word on this anywhere, apart loony from loony websites derived from each other? As Easter's date quite clearly derives from the ancient Jewish Passover festival's date, as ity si says in the Bible, why the heck would anybody in their right mind believe the date derived from some mythical Mithraic ceremony know one has ever actually seen any evidence for???

# His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."52
Well it had a meal as part of the religious rites. My money however, and i think any sane pundits, is on the theory the Christian Eucharist derives exactly from where it says it does - the Jewish Passover meal.

I can,a nd will go on. I'm interested in primary sources, if anyone can find any that substantiates the claimed parallels I will look at them. I have looked through I think most of the known Mithriac material though.


Some requests. Please skip the bald assertions and claims. I don't mind rhetoric but simply making claims is a waste of our time. No appeals to authority. I congratulate you on your pamphlet but that isn't a basis to accept your arguments. Let's keep the points and data to a minimum. I don't have the time to wade through pages and pages of information. Summarize your information and cite your references. Let's start with pagan influence on Christianity. We can then move to Constantine's contributions and influence on Christianity. You can start the thread or let me. I'm fine with either choice.

I have made a few points above. I'll wait till Friday now. :) I'm really quite open to any claim of pagan influence, providing it is backed by some hard evidence. Unfortunately so much complete rot is written and recycled all over the web on this subject that citing websites is pointless - but any decent primary evidence is welcome. Note I think Clauss, an expert on the Roman Cult of mithras is wring on December 25th - and i'll cheerfully show why... I don't think I make bald assertions - in fact I usually argue with extensive reference to facts on these issues?

cj x

[cj.23]

Here's a few more mythical saviors...Jesus was the last out of all of these...lol
Name: Aggy
Date Posted: Dec 15, 08 - 12:12 PM
Message: Adad of Assyria

Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece

(SNIP LIST)



Zoar of the Bonzes

*So, here's 33 more saviors we can add to the mythical legends.

How many of those constitute Savious You really want to try to claim Esus (mistakenly referred to here as Hesus) was a saviour? http://www.geocities.com/chronarchy/mjournal/patrons/aboutesus.html
Beddru? Beddru never even existed. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FlemmingAdmitsMistake.mp3 There you go Brian Fleming freely admits it -- Brian used Kersey Graves list we see here, and yes it's rubbish. Zeus??? Zeus was a saviour?

Hey, you want me to go through the whole list? :)

cj x

[Delscottio]

What's interesting about the Jesus story is that he didn't fulfill the Jewish notion of Messiah, he transformed it.

By Jewish reckoning, the Messiah comes and within a fairly short period of time a whole bunch of weird crap happens and the we get heaven on earth for all time.

No matter how popular any other Messiah became, if a few decades (which was basically a lifetime back then) passed, he would be essentially disproven by definition.

The Jesus legend revised the prophesied claim. This messiah dies, which is usually the end of the following. But some of his buddies came up with the story that his death, far from disproving him, is essential to his status and role, the central idea of this new faith.
It was this revision of scriptural idea that allowed Jesus-ism to stick around for a while after his death.

Why did it get so huge? There are a lot of theories about a lot of factors. For one thing it was by it's nature evangelical, which neither Judaism nor Greco-Roman religion were. For another, it appealed to the poor. In other belief systems, god(s) liked rich people, that's why he made them rich. Early Christianity stands this on it's head and gives poor people a veiw of the world in which they are blessed by the world. It's a compelling sales pitch.

So would it be fair to say his believers changed the rules? Very interesting idea, I wonder if previous experience had anything to do with this, also how sincere the belief was that he was the "Lord".

Bust reading the posts from CJ et al, will take some time I think!

[schlitt]

Hey CJ, I am curious, what Bart Ehrmann books have you read?

Have you read any of Hector Avalos' work?

[cj.23]

Hey CJ, I am curious, what Bart Ehrmann books have you read?

Have you read any of Hector Avalos' work?

I read Avalos The End of Biblical Studies (2007) after a friend lent it to me, after we were both amused by the reviews. Do a google search for them: the Christian apologetics website Tektonics has a pretty devastating critique as I recall. Shame because some of his ideas on healing and medicine in the period which comprise his early work were extremely good and interesting?

Of Ehrman I have only read Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, (2003). Neither seemed remarkable in any way - both are pretty sound. I think I have seen a few of his papers in the journal literature? I did critique a lecture of his on YouTube in detail, but that was to a lay audience, and generally sound? Why, am I missing something?

[Autolite]

Anyway after watching Pythons "Life of Brian" for the umpteenth time the famous John Cleese line " I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few" got me thinking, are there any other recorded "Messiahs" in ancient texts?

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title in the forum index was "Life Of Brian". The downside is that now I can't get the phrase "Wewease Bwian" to stop ringing in my head...:o

[schlitt]

I read Avalos The End of Biblical Studies (2007) after a friend lent it to me, after we were both amused by the reviews. Do a google search for them: the Christian apologetics website Tektonics has a pretty devastating critique as I recall. Shame because some of his ideas on healing and medicine in the period which comprise his early work were extremely good and interesting?

Of Ehrman I have only read Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, (2003). Neither seemed remarkable in any way - both are pretty sound. I think I have seen a few of his papers in the journal literature? I did critique a lecture of his on YouTube in detail, but that was to a lay audience, and generally sound? Why, am I missing something?


No, you are not missing something I am just curious as to how educated you are on the matter of biblical history.

You can refute the points made by Hector Avalos with evidence, or you know he is wrong because it conflicts with what you believe?

EDIT: Just read the tektonics critique and it is hardly "devasting". It very poorly written and lacking in any convincing substance.

[cj.23]

I have not read the Tektoniks response for a while, and Avalos is certainly a decent academic - so I will have a look through his book and see where I agree and where I disagree. Part of my problem with it was it was so broad, losing the focus of some of his more interesting ideas. Still, I certainly respect Avalos as worth reading. Ehrmann is apparently very good -- but I can't really make a judgement on his work.

cj x

[schlitt]

I have not read the Tektoniks response for a while, and Avalos is certainly a decent academic - so I will have a look through his book and see where I agree and where I disagree. Part of my problem with it was it was so broad, losing the focus of some of his more interesting ideas. Still, I certainly respect Avalos as worth reading. Ehrmann is apparently very good -- but I can't really make a judgement on his work.

cj x



Thanks for your honest response. :)

Can I ask you a serious question?

Knowing the dubious history of the bible as you do, what do you see as evidence that externally validates the premises contained with the bible?

[cj.23]

Thanks for your honest response. :)

Can I ask you a serious question?

Knowing the dubious history of the bible as you do, what do you see as evidence that externally validates the premises contained with the bible?

Depends on the premise in question. I recall why I disagree with Avalos on one matter - he is a strong minimalist, and whereas I am certainly not a maximalist, I do not go anywhere near as far as Finkelstein for instance, and actually doubt the archaeological realia can answer the kind of questions demanded of it, even in theory. Still I am quite happy to accept there was a Davidic kingdom, and that the Biblical accounst there tell us something about it. I accept most of Chrionicles and Kings as being historical accounts, albeit like the Sumerian king lists embroidered with theological spin and written some time after the events.

Still I'm guessing you mena something beyond Biblical archaeology. What premises in particular? I'll try to answer.

cj x

[RandFan]

Note I think Clauss, an expert on the Roman Cult of mithras is wring on December 25th - and i'll cheerfully show why... I don't think I make bald assertions - in fact I usually argue with extensive reference to facts on these issues?Thanks cj.

I confess I wanted a "discussion" so it's hard for me to complain about your post. It's true that there are many claims out on the internet and I suppose there is some value in bringing up those claims and discussing them. However I was hopping that I could make some positive claims about pagan influence on Christianity including what I think are valid points about Mithra and other messianic or hero figures rather than you presupposing what I do and don't accept regarding claims about Mithra.

Thanks. :)

[RandFan]

And cheers, its always a pleasure to discuss stuff with you, and I will be delighted to continue the discussion when you have time. Thanks, likewise. :)

[schlitt]

Depends on the premise in question. I recall why I disagree with Avalos on one matter - he is a strong minimalist, and whereas I am certainly not a maximalist, I do not go anywhere near as far as Finkelstein for instance, and actually doubt the archaeological realia can answer the kind of questions demanded of it, even in theory. Still I am quite happy to accept there was a Davidic kingdom, and that the Biblical accounst there tell us something about it. I accept most of Chrionicles and Kings as being historical accounts, albeit like the Sumerian king lists embroidered with theological spin and written some time after the events.

Still I'm guessing you mena something beyond Biblical archaeology. What premises in particular? I'll try to answer.

cj x


You seem to have a well balanced view on the matter from what I can gather. I am no expert on the mater however. :)

What I was getting at though with "premises contained within the bible", was more on the theological side of things, rather than historical.

To give you an idea of what I am getting at; a lot of Christians consider the bible itself to be evidence for god, because they believe it is a book from god. (Circular reasoning)

However for someone such as yourself who is a christian, but is aware there is no way to prove the bible was divinely inspired, logic would stand in the way of you being able to make this circular reasoning. So for you to assume the bible is telling the truth about God, Satan, Demons etc, you must take your reasoning from elsewhere than the bible itself, because the bible alone is not proof of the claims it makes.

[cj.23]

Ah I see you point. Yes, I sort of addressed my position on this issue in the last couple of days on another thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4261284#post4261284

I actually wonder where the Bible makes the claim, and discuss it with Six 7's. Generally my thinking on Biblical inspiration can be categorized as Neo-orthodox


The Neo-orthodox doctrine

The Neo-orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxy) doctrine of inspiration is summarized by saying that the Bible is "the word of God" but not "the words of God". It is only when one reads the text that it becomes the word of God to him or her. This view is a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which, Neo-orthodox proponents argue, eroded the value and significance of the Christian faith, and simultaneously a rejection of the idea of textual inerrancy. Karl Barth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) and Emil Brunner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Brunner) were primary advocates of this approach.


from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#The_Neo-orthodox_doctrine

It is worth having a quick look through the other thread though if only for the discussion of 2 Timothy, Reginald Perrin and Discordianism. :)

cj x

[cj.23]

Thanks cj.

I confess I wanted a "discussion" so it's hard for me to complain about your post. It's true that there are many claims out on the internet and I suppose there is some value in bringing up those claims and discussing them. However I was hopping that I could make some positive claims about pagan influence on Christianity including what I think are valid points about Mithra and other messianic or hero figures rather than you presupposing what I do and don't accept regarding claims about Mithra.

Thanks. :)

AH yes. I note you never made any of those claims, and should make that absolutely clear. My post was in fact not really in response to anything other than the fact I like talking about current mithraic scholarship! What you have very sensibly done done, and quite rightly so, is point to iconography as an example - and as i have said, there you are completely correct. Pagan iconography informs and forms an important part of the Early Christian tradition, in that iconography was freely adopted and adapted. We don't disagree at all on this, but it is still worth discussing. I'll also explain the Christmas thing a little better than I have.

I'm sure you can find some syncretism later - certainly Christianity adopts the academics of the age, and one can find aristotleian and neo-platonism informing many Christian thinkers, despite Tertullians lament - but so far I have found no evidence of actual syncretsim of doctrine. I have spent a lot of time on this because i had been writing a (non-academic) book on the Mystery Cults when I saw some utter rot on the subject on QI and was annoyed by the poor research of the elves - I know it happens, but this was simple enough to check - and when the arguments against were dismissed as "Christian Apologetics" and Acharya S's position was depicted as mainstream I was rather shocked. Fortunately Dr A and Scepoticwiki were well ahead of me. :)

cj x

[schlitt]

Ah I see you point. Yes, I sort of addressed my position on this issue in the last couple of days on another thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4261284#post4261284

I actually wonder where the Bible makes the claim, and discuss it with Six 7's. Generally my thinking on Biblical inspiration can be categorized as Neo-orthodox




from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#The_Neo-orthodox_doctrine

It is worth having a quick look through the other thread though if only for the discussion of 2 Timothy, Reginald Perrin and Discordianism. :)

cj x

It seems to me that neo-orthodoxy deals nicely with some of the more glaring contradictions close scrutiny and modern knowledge have brought about, but the burden of proof still remains if you want to assert divine inspiration for the texts.

Surely you agree there is a possibility the writings that comprise the bible were written by genuine believers, but believers in something false. Just as you regard every other religions sacred text to be, and such was the way throughout human history.

At this current point in time, there is no verifiable way to show that a God had any hand in writing the bible. So it must be taken on faith. But the problem with this is; you must already accept the premise of a god as a presupposition, and only then you are able to buy into what he supposedly said in his divine texts.
Taking a purely evidence based view why would I believe in Yahweh and subsequently the bible, over any other God premise and text?

[cj.23]

It seems to me that neo-orthodoxy deals nicely with some of the more glaring contradictions close scrutiny and modern knowledge have brought about, but the burden of proof still remains if you want to assert divine inspiration for the texts.

Yes. However when analyzing them historically I don't assert that - see discussion with Six 7's - I read them the same way I would any other text, and apply the same methods I do to say Josephus, Philo or Tacitus.


Surely you agree there is a possibility the writings that comprise the bible were written by genuine believers, but believers in something false. Just as you regard every other religions sacred text to be, and such was the way throughout human history.

Yes of course - I don't disregard however the possibility that other religions scriptures and history and also testify to the divine reality. I privilege the Hebrew & Christian Scriptures as forming the best model I have of the deity, but that does not mean we can not find expressions of divine truth in say Norse or Greek mythology or the Babylonian epics. After all, Genesis is written as a theological response to the Babylonian/Sumerian flood story in the first place! (It depicts relationship between humans and divine in a radical new way.)


At this current point in time, there is no verifiable way to show that a God had any hand in writing the bible. So it must be taken on faith. But the problem with this is; you must already accept the premise of a god as a presupposition, and only then you are able to buy into what he supposedly said in his divine texts.

Agreed. Note however that if a divine entity or reality existed, we can still have a progressive human understanding of that revelation, and a fractured understanding. The laws of physics, biology and chemistry have always existed, yet human understandings of them improve and change through time.


Taking a purely evidence based view why would I believe in Yahweh and subsequently the bible, over any other God premise and text?

You shouldn't - you should test the theological model against your own understanding of reality, and see if it holds up and makes sense. Only then can you decide if a given religious tradition may contain truth. Or you can reject the God(s) hypothesis altogether - but it would be better to find other reasons to do so external to the claims of scriptures, which may of course as culturally mediated documents be less than perfect representations of said divine reality, just as my description of my cat is not my cat. Unless you are a Muslim that is, when you believe the Qu'ran is the eternally preexistent Word of God as i understand it - though I could be wrong!

cj x

[schlitt]

Thanks for your answers CJ. :)

You have a much more logical position than most other Christians I have met. It is still one that requires faith however, and unfortunately I don't see a way to differentiate anything to be taken on faith from another.

This life has a purpose? Why must it?
There is an intelligent creator? Why must there be?

It seems to me that people are desperate for their existence to have an ultimate purpose, so they assume there must be one. But why?

[RandFan]

CJ,

I haven't forgoten you. I'm on my 2nd viewing of my third video and I don't know how many websites and sources. It's true that when it comes to this issue there unfortunatly is a lot of apocrapha out there. And it is also true that many sources simply use other web sites as sources.

However I do have a somewhat expert who is weaving me through the mindfields. I'm not certain when I'll post but I sincerly intend to. That's assuming I don't get bored and dump the whole thing. :)

[cj.23]

Hey no problem -- I had actually forgotten. :( If you find something good though do post it, I'm really up for a discussion, but don't feel you have to or let it be work. Grenme has some great stuff on all this in the Zeitgeist threads, and scepticwiki is very sound too. It's one of my pet hobbyhorses, so I can drone on about it. Anyway, plenty of other threads for us to be arguing on! :)

And if I don't "see" you before, have a great Winter Solsitce and Festivus!
cj x

[Meadmaker]

I believe John the Baptist was a candidate for messiah. This is possibly why Luke has him pointing to Jesus.

IIRC there is a religion based on John the Baptist in Iraq.

Mandaeans. Unfortunately, there aren't many left. They did badly under Sadaam, and worse under the Shiites who took over after the invasion. There weren't that many to begin with, but they had a community that went back 2000 years. I suppose it wouldn't have been so bad if they had suddenly realized as a group that reverence for angels and also-ran messiahs was a bad idea, but to be persecuted out of existence by a different, more numerous, cult of crazies seems unfortunate.


On the subject of the OP, one of the best sources for the historical Jesus is Josephus, and if I recall correctly, Jesus is mentioned as one of several would be messiahs who appeared at the time. I don't know if any others are described in any detail.

[RandFan]

Hey no problem -- I had actually forgotten. :( If you find something good though do post it, I'm really up for a discussion, but don't feel you have to or let it be work. Grenme has some great stuff on all this in the Zeitgeist threads, and scepticwiki is very sound too. It's one of my pet hobbyhorses, so I can drone on about it. Anyway, plenty of other threads for us to be arguing on! :)

And if I don't "see" you before, have a great Winter Solsitce and Festivus!
cj xThanks, BTW, my source excoriates Zeitgeist. :)

[Dunstan]

However I do have a somewhat expert who is weaving me through the mindfields.

"Mindfields" really ought to be a word.

[RandFan]

"Mindfields" really ought to be a word.:D It oughta.

[This Guy]

Very interesting and informative thread!

The only input I have is in regards to Professor Bart D. Ehrman, whom has been mentioned several times in the thread. My intent is to explain who he is, and give my opinion of his worth as a source for knowledge of the New Testament.

I have not read any of his books. I do intend to get the book referenced in an earlier post, that he co-wrote with Metzger. As I understand it the book (Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration) is in it's 4th or so edition, and the listed one is the first that Ehrman was a part of.

I understand that Ehrman was a student of Metzger. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Received his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary. Has won several teaching awards and written or edited at least 12 books. Has a Web site here (http://bartdehrman.com/).

He is considered to be among the top of those conducting research into the origins and sources for the New Testament, and it's "Textual Criticism"

My opinion of him:

I personally have no doubt that he has a very wide and deep understanding of how we obtained our current New Testament, along with it's weaknesses and strong points. Even Christians that disagree with his ideas praise his knowledge in the area ("Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known" Found here (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000)).

Some of you may be aware of a company called "The Teaching Company". They advertise in many science related magazines (Discovery, Scientific America, Astronomy and possibly others). They offer a slew of courses on about any general subject you can think of. Some sound very interesting (to me at least). They are non-credit courses, offered as FYI. They claim to use some of the top Professors in the field of the subjects covered.

I decided to give them a try. I started with a small/cheap course on the Universe called My Favorite Universe, conducted by Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whom you may have seen on PBS in Nova. I really enjoyed it!

I next decided to try a course on The New Testament, conducted by Professor Ehrman. I also enjoyed it! I learned about a couple of conflicts I was not aware of, and at least a fair understanding of what "Textual Criticism" is.

I think to make my opinion understandable, I should explain "Textual Criticism" as taught by Professor Ehrman.

Briefly, he breaks it into 3 parts:

1. Independent Attestation. Having multiple witnesses who independently agree in their accounts is stronger than having one witness. "It is also important to emphasize that independently attested traditions are not automatically authentic - they are more LIKELY to be authentic." His emphases.

2. Dissimilarity. "Traditions ascribed to Jesus that do not seem to advance the vested interests of the Christians who were telling them are also to be valued as historically accurate." "the criterion can be used only to establish traditions that are more PROBABLE." Again, his emphases.

3. Contextual Credibility. Traditions ascribed to Jesus cannot be accepted as historically accurate if they cannot be situated credibly into the context of Judaism in first-century Palestine. "Unlike the other criteria, this one is used to argue AGAINST certain traditions as historically implausible." Again, his emphases.

Ehrman's assessment of Jesus, based on the above criterion, is that Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet who foretold of someone else, known as the Son of Man, who would come to earth and do all the things that are normally ascribed to the second coming of Jesus.

He does state that "due to time limitations" he can't go into details about how the criterion shows this, and points to one or more of his books for the details. My problem is that he gives no details to back up the claim. At best, IMHO, he provided a motivation to by his books, not a true course, and at worse, he drew conclusions that violate the rules of his own criterion. I'm still debating my review of the course, which I intend to send to the teaching company.

When Ehrman first made this claim in the course (DVD version, with him "teaching" as if to a class), I stopped the DVD, and went back over the relevant lessons leading up to the conclusion, to see if I had missed something. I could find nothing in his presentation that backed up his conclusion, and obeyed the guidelines of his own criterion.

After I drew that conclusion, I did some Goggling, and found the review linked above, along with some others, and found that others appear to have a similar opinions of his conclusions in his books (at least Misquoting Jesus).

I have no credentials to dispute Professor Ehrman. His course is the only course I have taken that would in any way allow me to critique his work. I am simply giving my opinion, based on my very limited knowledge. That opinion is that he appears to draw conclusions based on limited support, and tends to be anti-Christian. As an Atheist, I would like to say I agree with him, and use his conclusions to hit Christians over the head with. However, I find this hard to do. I may buy the recommended book(s) to find his justification for his claims. I'm still debating the potential value of doing so. I have no doubt that I would learn a lot about the New Testament, and it's history. I question the amount of unbiased facts I will encounter.

Hopefully this will give some seeds for thought and further knowledge to someone.

Opinions of others would be valued. Either here, or in a separate thread.

Quotes of Ehrman are from the booklet that came with the course - The Great Courses, Religion, The New Testament (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=656), The Teaching Company, 2000

[RandFan]

Opinions of others would be valued. Either here, or in a separate thread.First, thanks for the review. Given that you are an atheist it is difficult to simply dismiss your opinion due to confirmation bias (though such would be wrong in any event). I've not read "miquoting jesus" or anything else he has written but it is on my list. High on the list. I have watched Ehrman in debate and I have to say that I was quite impressed with his style and the substance he offered. I found his arguments quite devastating. However I have to confess to my own bias and I'm more than willing to look at his arguments with a critical eye.

To be frank, I find it kinda odd that any serious scholarly attention should be given a supernatural claim that Jesus Christ was resurrected especially given the evidence. There are people today who have seen resurrections and healing. There is lots of eyewitness testimony and lots of video evidence. Millions of people attest to the divinity of various individuals. Yet scholars don't take that stuff seriously and for good reason. Why we should then even begin to think that thousand year old recycled oral tradition that was then written down in a dialect that we don't even have is evidence of anything metaphysical is beyond me. IMO, it really shouldn't be taken seriously by any scholars beyond simply trying to aduce the historicity of the non-supernatural events.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people today will testify to psychics and miracles and I understand why Christianity has the ability to convince otherwise intelligent and educated people that there is anything divine or miraculous in the world but it is an oddity of human nature.

Sorry, I'm off topic. However, much of Ehrman's arguments are along this line. I don't think he makes many controversial claims.

The NT is the result of copies of copies of stories and letters.
No copy of the original text exists.
The first written copy came into existence some time after Christ's death.
When read horizontaly the NT reveals a number of inconsistencies and contradictions and reveal the bias and intent of the authors.
The transcript of his debate with William L. Craig is here (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm). I had a link to the video. I'll post it when I find it again. I thought I had bookmarked it.

[Nogbad]

Mandaeans. Unfortunately, there aren't many left. They did badly under Sadaam, and worse under the Shiites who took over after the invasion. There weren't that many to begin with, but they had a community that went back 2000 years. I suppose it wouldn't have been so bad if they had suddenly realized as a group that reverence for angels and also-ran messiahs was a bad idea, but to be persecuted out of existence by a different, more numerous, cult of crazies seems unfortunate.


On the subject of the OP, one of the best sources for the historical Jesus is Josephus, and if I recall correctly, Jesus is mentioned as one of several would be messiahs who appeared at the time. I don't know if any others are described in any detail.

There were a considerable number of fairly popular religions in the Roman Empire. Christianity got a leg up when Constantine allowed religious tolerance in 313 and a subsequent Emperor outlawed all other religions apart from Christianity. Up until that point Christianity was one of many religions. Indeed, even after the outlawing of Pagan religions by Theodosius in 391 many continued to worship the old Gods. Once in power the Christians employed the same sort of persecution and killing of heretics and unbelievers as had been meted out to them when they were the outsiders. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[cj.23]

Not the Craig debate but worth watching and generally sound, I'll post my pedantic commentary if anyone interested...


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN8NI7JNPHc
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlWZyXgwSg
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883JT1X_S80
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha9GPbZqMs0
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Kb2o8WNXs
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opLn4s-S47g
Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4S8VU9oqbI
Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_OF8VA0PdY
Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_22O93RlVzM
Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipgAVSg8_6s


cj x

[RandFan]

One thing I find interesting is to listen to non-Christian theological scholars such as Rabbi Wolpe (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3304,Hitchens-Debates-Rabbi-Wolpe-on-God,NY-Times) and other Rabbinical and Islamic scholars. I have a great deal of respect for Wolpe and I've watched some great debates that included some very talented and smart Islamic scholars.

These individuals are quite open to historical Judaism. Jewish scholars are open to the idea of a messiah and Islamic scholars accept that Christ was a prophet.

My point: The arguments by Christians such as Craig carry no weight among Jewish and Islamic scholars. The arguments do not have the power to create a consensus among those who don't already accept that Christ was divine.

Over time, compelling argument tends to be accepted by subsequent generations and lead to a consensus. This is not true of religious philosophy. It would seem that religion is a theological subject and though one can make compelling argument to justify, post hoc, one's beliefs those arguments are not going to significantly change any beliefs. Theistic belief is, demonstrably, a function of a combination geography, peer groups and familial ties. On the contrary, religious beliefs often fragment far more often than the lead to any consensus.

[RandFan]

Not the Craig debate but worth watching and generally sound, I'll post my pedantic commentary if anyone interested...


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN8NI7JNPHc
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlWZyXgwSg
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883JT1X_S80
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha9GPbZqMs0
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Kb2o8WNXs
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opLn4s-S47g
Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4S8VU9oqbI
Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_OF8VA0PdY
Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_22O93RlVzM
Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipgAVSg8_6s


cj x Thanks very much however when I click a link I get: This video is private.

[This Guy]

SNIP -

Sorry, I'm off topic. However, much of Ehrman's arguments are along this line. I don't think he makes many controversial claims.

The NT is the result of copies of copies of stories and letters.
No copy of the original text exists.
The first written copy came into existence some time after Christ's death.
When read horizontaly the NT reveals a number of inconsistencies and contradictions and reveal the bias and intent of the authors.
The transcript of his debate with William L. Craig is here (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm). I had a link to the video. I'll post it when I find it again. I thought I had bookmarked it.

I agree with pretty much all that I snipped from your post :)

I also agree with you and Ehrman's views in the above list. As I tried to express, I have no doubt that Ehrman's assessment of the history, and reliability of the New Testament is spot on. It is the interpretations derived from his knowledge that I question. Those that result in his claim that Jesus was a prophet foretelling the coming of another, the Son of Man, who would do those things normally expected of a 2nd coming of Jesus. And I admit that the evidence may be out there to support this view! If I read Misquoting Jesus, I may change my opinion.

Again, it's not his understanding of the history of the New Testament that I question, it's the interpretations he derives from that knowledge, in regards to what Jesus actually said, that I question.

Thanks for the link to the debate! I will be checking that out soon!

[cj.23]

Oops! Apologies, try this one - the other parts are all there too -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&feature=PlayList&p=80294485C9139857&index=0

cj x

[RandFan]

Oops! Apologies, try this one - the other parts are all there too -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&feature=PlayList&p=80294485C9139857&index=0

cj xThanks cj.

[RandFan]

I agree with pretty much all that I snipped from your post :)

I also agree with you and Ehrman's views in the above list. As I tried to express, I have no doubt that Ehrman's assessment of the history, and reliability of the New Testament is spot on. It is the interpretations derived from his knowledge that I question. Those that result in his claim that Jesus was a prophet foretelling the coming of another, the Son of Man, who would do those things normally expected of a 2nd coming of Jesus. And I admit that the evidence may be out there to support this view! If I read Misquoting Jesus, I may change my opinion.

Again, it's not his understanding of the history of the New Testament that I question, it's the interpretations he derives from that knowledge, in regards to what Jesus actually said, that I question. And that is completly fair. I'm interested in the truth. I think I come off as a cheerleader from time to time and perhaps I am. Being human I'm not imune from such but in the end I really do care about the truth. I think that is what is so valuable to have someone like cj on this forum. His ability to reason and his avoidance of polemics (as he seems to me to do) is very benificial to vetting the facts and avoiding spurious ideas. I think the pagan christian thing a great example of how atheists can jump on a bandwagon and accept as true myths that flatter our world view.

So, with that I thank both of you and I would very much hope more and more comes out in the days or perhaps weeks or months ahead. I'm hoping to contribute more. The problem with the internet as a resource is that spurious claims can replicate at an amazing speed. Finding the good from the bad can be quite daunting.

So, with that, on we go. :)