Early Christianity

[eccles]

It seems there may have been contacts between Ptolemiac Alexandria and India.
http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xclillie.html
[Megasthenes, Clement of Alexandria]
[102] We now come to a valuable piece of testimony, that of a Greek visiting India. Seleucus Nicator sent an ambassador, named Megasthenes, to King Chandragupta (B.C. 302-298). He visited that monarch at his capital, Palibothra, or Patna. His account of the India of that day is unfortunately lost; but through Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Arrian, and Clement of Alexandria, some valuable fragments have come down to us. Patna, it must be remembered, was in the very heart of the Buddhist Holy Land. Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from Megasthenes, on Indian Affairs. On the same page he thus describes the Indian "philosophers":

"Of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanae, and others Brahmins. And those of the Sarmanae who are called Hylobii neither inhabit cities nor have roofs over them, but are clothed in the bark of trees, feed on nuts, and drink water in their hands. Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha, whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours."

The importance of this passage is this, that from Strabo we get the description given by Megasthenes of the Indian philosophers, and it is made certain that the earlier part of this passage is from the same source.

[103] Strabo describes the Brahmins and the" Germanes," also called, he says, "Hylobii." He gives the same details as Clement of Alexandria about their feeding on wild fruits and wearing the bark of trees. He, too, draws a distinction between the Germanes and the Brahmins on the subject of continency, the Brahmins being polygamists.

From this it seems certain that Clement of Alexandria was writing the original work of Megasthenes before him. We may therefore, conclude that this passage about Buddha, sandwiched as it is between two genuine citations, was also in Megasthenes. [Not necessarily; Pantaenus had been to India and met Buddhists there himself. But Lillie didn’t know this] Strabo had handed down to us another statement of Megasthenes about the Hylobii :

"By their means the kings serve and worship the Deity."

There can be no doubt that the Sarmanes (Sramanae) and Brahmins of Megasthenes were the Brahmins and the Buddhists. To the first, according to Megasthenes, were confided sacrifices and ceremonies, for the dead as well as for the living. They were a caste apart, and none outside this caste could perform their duties. The gods would not accept the sacrifice of such an interloper. Their ideas on life and death were very similar to those of Plato and the Greeks. The Brahmins ate flesh and had many wives. Every new year there was a great synod of them.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[GreNME]

There can be no doubt that the Sarmanes (Sramanae) and Brahmins of Megasthenes were the Brahmins and the Buddhists. To the first, according to Megasthenes, were confided sacrifices and ceremonies, for the dead as well as for the living. They were a caste apart, and none outside this caste could perform their duties. The gods would not accept the sacrifice of such an interloper. Their ideas on life and death were very similar to those of Plato and the Greeks. The Brahmins ate flesh and had many wives. Every new year there was a great synod of them.

You're making several large leaps to get from Greek (well, Greeks of Alexander's time) contacts with kings in India to a supposed connection to Christianity. Alexander the Great held lands stretching from the Mediterranean to the Indian Seas, and he built several 'Alexandrias' along the way. After his death the empire may have split into different regencies, but the rule was still Greek and that meant commerce of goods and people. What you've linked to was an early-20th-century interpretation of rumors that were interpreted, likely from a Latin (Roman) source intermediately, from the Greek perspective-- all of which along the chain of interpretations were notoriously ethnocentric and skewed toward associating things relative to their own culture.

Furthermore, you're basically quoting Arthur Lillie, a notable late-19th and early-20th century Theosophist-- who were all very heavy on the "Everything Out of India" mentality. Lillie, Blavatsky, and the other member of the Theosophist Society were notoriously dishonest in their presentations of claims that all religions have roots in India or Buddhism (or sometimes Hinduism). It was from these folks that the hoax claims of documentation that supposedly verified a young Jesus visiting some Hindu or Buddhist monks (I believe somewhere in the remote Kush region) was born, caused some people to take notice until the glaring lack of evidence led to interest waning, at which point the belief slowly worked its way into fringe "freethinker" societies as "proof" that Christianity was a Buddhist construct.

[eccles]

This is exactly why I asked you. There have been so many claims about what Jesus did in his missing years. Some claim he went to Alexandria, or even Thebes where he learned the Magic of the Temple Priests. Then there are claims he went to India.

It is like politicians: Whose lies do you believe?

I must admit that at the moment I have a slight feeling Jesus might have gone back to Egypt, but I am open minded on that.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[Simon39759]

I am not sure I understand your point.
It is already known the Budhism started around 400 BCE in Northern India, the area in contact with the Seleucid empire.

But that does not mean that Jesus was inspired by Budhism, the two philosophies seem quite a bit different.
Really, Jesus' purported message seems to me much closer to the Jewish tradition than to Budhism.

[eccles]

I am not sure I understand your point.
It is already known the Budhism started around 400 BCE in Northern India, the area in contact with the Seleucid empire.

But that does not mean that Jesus was inspired by Budhism, the two philosophies seem quite a bit different.
Really, Jesus' purported message seems to me much closer to the Jewish tradition than to Budhism.

I agree with you Simon. There have been so many claims about Jeshua bar Josef aka. Jesus Christ, it is hard to know where to start --- unless you are Roman Catholic, then you MUST believe all their BS. And never question. (Personal experience)



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[Hokulele]

Jesus, especially as described in the gospel of John, seems to be closer to Greek-influenced Jewish philosophy such as that promoted by Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo).

[GreNME]

Jesus, especially as described in the gospel of John, seems to be closer to Greek-influenced Jewish philosophy such as that promoted by Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo).

It should also be pointed out that the Christian ecumenical view of "who Jesus was" evolved to be one that focused on the John Gospel's description of the divine son of their god, as opposed to earlier, more vague, and sometimes varied descriptions of his character. This is why pointing out the similarity to the John depiction is meaningful regarding the commentary on what people describe of Jesus as known to people in today's culture.

Otherwise, the likelihood that this Jesus character was just some apocalyptic preacher like others of his time who happened to fall into notoriety and fame seems to be about the only reasonable description (aside from the alternate arguments of a composite of many apocalyptic preachers or made up from whole cloth).

[Wolfman]

What I don't quite understand is the need to go to such lengths to claim outside religious influences on Christianity. The Jews at the time of Christ were surrounded by many different religions, many different belief systems. There's no need to hypothesize a theoretical journey to India. And have to agree with others, the supposed links between Christianity and Buddism are extremely tenuous at best. Jewish theology and philosophy at the time of Christ makes a much better fit with Jesus' theology than does Buddhism.

[Hokulele]

It should also be pointed out that the Christian ecumenical view of "who Jesus was" evolved to be one that focused on the John Gospel's description of the divine son of their god, as opposed to earlier, more vague, and sometimes varied descriptions of his character. This is why pointing out the similarity to the John depiction is meaningful regarding the commentary on what people describe of Jesus as known to people in today's culture.


Agreed.

Otherwise, the likelihood that this Jesus character was just some apocalyptic preacher like others of his time who happened to fall into notoriety and fame seems to be about the only reasonable description (aside from the alternate arguments of a composite of many apocalyptic preachers or made up from whole cloth).


Also agreed. One theory I have seen before that makes quite a bit of sense to me had Jesus as a student/disciple of John the Baptist.

[eccles]

Jesus, especially as described in the gospel of John, seems to be closer to Greek-influenced Jewish philosophy such as that promoted by Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo).

The Gospel according to John seems to have been written for the Greek population. Where and when are difficult to establish:

Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[hamelekim]

This is exactly why I asked you. There have been so many claims about what Jesus did in his missing years. Some claim he went to Alexandria, or even Thebes where he learned the Magic of the Temple Priests. Then there are claims he went to India.

It is like politicians: Whose lies do you believe?

I must admit that at the moment I have a slight feeling Jesus might have gone back to Egypt, but I am open minded on that.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

I think you should clarify who believes he went and learned magic. It certainly isn't Orthodox Christianity.

Jesus is God, he doesn't need to learn magic, he has all the power he could ever need or want by his very nature.

As for travelling during his "missing" years. There is no evidence that he traveled anywhere else. He was there to preach to the Jews, why would he go to Egypt or India?

[Hokulele]

I think you should clarify who believes he went and learned magic. It certainly isn't Orthodox Christianity.


Try reading the thread, particularly the link in the OP.

[eccles]

I think you should clarify who believes he went and learned magic. It certainly isn't Orthodox Christianity.

Jesus is God, he doesn't need to learn magic, he has all the power he could ever need or want by his very nature.

As for travelling during his "missing" years. There is no evidence that he traveled anywhere else. He was there to preach to the Jews, why would he go to Egypt or India?

Hamelekim,
Jesus is not "god". There is no "god". Jesus is not "is". Jesus died about 2000 years ago at the age of about 65 possibly in Gaul.

Now I gather you believe the BS the bible says. You have been brainwashed into Christianity. That means you cannot see this with an open mind. Therefore you are not qualified to make unbiased decisions in regard to this topic.
I used to be a Roman Catholic. I freed myself from that and can now learn about the BS of it all with no restraints.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[HansMustermann]

Jesus, especially as described in the gospel of John, seems to be closer to Greek-influenced Jewish philosophy such as that promoted by Philo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo).

Or it can just be that John was heavily influenced by the greek philosophy.

Also, let's not forget that what we inherited as gospel was decided at the Council of Nicaea. The Greek kind of philosophy was pretty much the standard thinking for the Roman Empire for a long time. So I would expect that any texts and interpretations that fit that world view got more chances of being included, and any sources that conflicted that world view had much more chances of being discarded.

So briefly: yes, since we inherited a view of Christ filtered through glasses tinted by greek/roman thinking, I find it entirely unsurprising that the image would also be tinted that way. I would however also find it unsurprising if the historical Jesus -- if there actually was one -- actually was a lot less like that before that filtering happened.

Pretty much it's like looking at someone through blue glasses and going, "hey, she looks like Smurfette!" ;)

[amb]

The Gospel according to John seems to have been written for the Greek population. Where and when are difficult to establish:

Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

The consensus among most scholars seems to be that the gospel of John was written no earlier than 80-90AD. Mark the first gospel, around 65-70AD. More than likely the latter date as he mentions the destruction of the temple.

[Belz...]

Hamelekim,
Jesus is not "god". There is no "god". Jesus is not "is". Jesus died about 2000 years ago at the age of about 65 possibly in Gaul.

And here I thought we didn't even have any evidence that he existed at all.

[eccles]

And here I thought we didn't even have any evidence that he existed at all.

We don't.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[amb]

Was there a Samson and Delilah? An Adam and Eve? The christ fable has about as much credibility.

[eccles]

Was there a Samson and Delilah? An Adam and Eve? The christ fable has about as much credibility.

An Adam and Eve? Definately NO.
Samson and Delilah? NO. I say that because I consider the Old Testament complete BS fables. New Testament? not much better.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) ROBERT

[Damien Evans]

The Gospel according to John seems to have been written for the Greek population. Where and when are difficult to establish:

Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

The province of Asia referred to there is Asia Minor, which is now Western Turkey. Nowhere near India.

[sleepy_lioness]

Eccles, just because you dislike the interpretation of the Bible given by the Catholic Church (and I can empathize with you there to an extent), doesn't mean that you have to believe any old made-up, evidence-free manure about it instead.

This was my problem with The Da Vinci Code (well, along with the terrible writing and much else besides): there's no point criticising orthodox Christianity for its egregious misogyny and other wrongs by inventing an even more ludicrous pseudo-history in its place.

[eccles]

Eccles, just because you dislike the interpretation of the Bible given by the Catholic Church (and I can empathize with you there to an extent), doesn't mean that you have to believe any old made-up, evidence-free manure about it instead.
This was my problem with The Da Vinci Code (well, along with the terrible writing and much else besides): there's no point criticising orthodox Christianity for its egregious misogyny and other wrongs by inventing an even more ludicrous pseudo-history in its place.

Fair enough coment. But I am not trying to invent any pseudo-history. ALL religions have done that, plus quacks like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. At the moment I am reading ALL sides of the aurgument while believing in nothing except reason and logic which tells me as a scientist (amateur) that there has never been a creator/god. There is no supernatural. The Laws of Nature as defined by Scientists are believable facts and not airy-fairy Faith.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[sleepy_lioness]

All sounds good. But why then make unequivocal statements like:

"Jesus died about 2000 years ago at the age of about 65 possibly in Gaul."?

[eccles]

All sounds good. But why then make unequivocal statements like:

"Jesus died about 2000 years ago at the age of about 65 possibly in Gaul."?

WIth respect, please don't start a nit-picking session over this. I am just quoting from opinions as in books like the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which pose the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross. Like the bible those opinions can never be proved, but neither can the Gospel accounts that were not written by eyewitnesses.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Simon39759]

I agree with Lioness, and sympathize with the sleepiness to a point only made possible on by the fact it is Monday morning.


There are quite a few crazy conspiracy theories centering around JC that are not more credible than the Christian myths, except in reverse.

[HansMustermann]

Here's my vote for the sleepy one too. Replacing one woo with an equally baseless woo is hardly an improvement.

[sleepy_lioness]

WIth respect, please don't start a nit-picking session over this. I am just quoting from opinions as in books like the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which pose the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross. Like the bible those opinions can never be proved, but neither can the Gospel accounts that were not written by eyewitnesses.



But why bother with crazy conspiracy theories like that? Why not read what some real historians, including atheists and others with no church agenda to push, actually think? Bart Ehrman is one place to start (perhaps Misquoting Jesus or Lost Christianities). He's an atheist and a well-respected historian of the period. The cure for illogical and ill-reasoned Christian pseudohistory isn't illogical and ill-reasoned anti-Christian pseudohistory, it's real history done by properly educated historians.

[eccles]

Here's my vote for the sleepy one too. Replacing one woo with an equally baseless woo is hardly an improvement.

Well I'm going to bed now. I have a NASA Space Shuttle Mission tomorrow.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[HansMustermann]

Alternately, one can at least pick a better woo to oppose Christianity with. I still think the cult of Bast had some good ideas, for example. Well, ok, it had cats :p

[sleepy_lioness]

Also ... hearing all sides of the argument sounds good, but in practice it can be taken too far. If the chocolate cake in my fridge has gone missing I might well consider the arguments that that a) my sister ate it when I wasn't looking (she's visiting at the moment), b) I ate it accidentally in an amnesiac moment, or c) I misremembered and it's actually in the freezer; but I'm unlikely seriously to consider the possibility that d) there's a chocoholic leprechaun living in my kitchen and he stole it, no matter how open-minded I am.

Mainstream history has all sorts of disagreements; there certainly isn't one narrative about the beginnings of Christianity to which all or even most historians sign up. There are lots of interesting fights, if that's your thing. But nobody takes seriously the sort of craziness found in the out-of-Egypt or holy-bloodline conspiracy theories, because there simply isn't any evidence for them and they don't fit with anything we know about the history.

[Hokulele]

But why bother with crazy conspiracy theories like that? Why not read what some real historians, including atheists and others with no church agenda to push, actually think? Bart Ehrman is one place to start (perhaps Misquoting Jesus or Lost Christianities). He's an atheist and a well-respected historian of the period. The cure for illogical and ill-reasoned Christian pseudohistory isn't illogical and ill-reasoned anti-Christian pseudohistory, it's real history done by properly educated historians.


Minor nitpick, Ehrman describes himself as an agnostic, rather than an atheist. But I agree, his books are definitely worth a look.

@HansMustermann

Although I have seen a great deal of similarity between the gospel of John and Philo (as well as similar themes in a few of the epistles), I agree that it is part of the culture of the time in which these texts were written, which means John didn't have to read Philo. However, Philo is the best known surviving example of the Greek-Jewish synthesis in philosophy, and is the best place to start when looking for examples outside of the bible around the time Jesus was said to have lived.

[GreNME]

Minor nitpick, Ehrman describes himself as an agnostic, rather than an atheist. But I agree, his books are definitely worth a look.

It's also notable that Ehrman is of the opinion that there was a historical Jesus, though not the supernatural being that he's been described as in the Gospels. He and others (like Elaine Pagels) offer quite a bit of information for why they believe that in their books.

[HansMustermann]

Well, as I keep saying, that one guy called Jesus existed in Judaea and got nailed by the Romans, is a bit like saying that a guy called Ivan existed in the USSR in WW2 and was killed by the Germans. Jesus was a very common name. So if you strip him of the divine claim, there's really not much more than a guy with a common name.

[TheAnachronism]

Well, as I keep saying, that one guy called Jesus existed in Judaea and got nailed by the Romans, is a bit like saying that a guy called Ivan existed in the USSR in WW2 and was killed by the Germans. Jesus was a very common name. So if you strip him of the divine claim, there's really not much more than a guy with a common name.

I understand this sentiment to a degree. After all, when talking about historical figures (or even contemporaries), what makes them them? Surely it must be their thoughts and actions. Thus, supposing the gospels are not accurate accounts (and I am certainly of that opinion), is it fair to call the man on which the accounts were based Jesus?

It is an interesting thought, but I think most scholars use "Jesus" in reference to both the character presented in the gospels and the historical person on whom the gospels were based. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that there was an historical Jesus, however different his own views might have been from those presented.

[sleepy_lioness]

I understand this sentiment to a degree. After all, when talking about historical figures (or even contemporaries), what makes them them? Surely it must be their thoughts and actions. Thus, supposing the gospels are not accurate accounts (and I am certainly of that opinion), is it fair to call the man on which the accounts were based Jesus?

It is an interesting thought, but I think most scholars use "Jesus" in reference to both the character presented in the gospels and the historical person on whom the gospels were based. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that there was an historical Jesus, however different his own views might have been from those presented.

There's been endless (and often very tiresome) debates on this for the last century and a half or so. Many modern scholars make a distinction between 'the historical Jesus', defined as the figure (allegedly) recoverable by historical-critical study, and 'the Jesus of history', who was the (alleged) man who actually lived. Then there's the 'Christ of faith', who is the figure invented by early Christians in the latter part of the New Testament and the creeds and worshipped down the ages. Arguing about the relationship between the three kept theologians off the breadline for decades.

[GreNME]

Well, as I keep saying, that one guy called Jesus existed in Judaea and got nailed by the Romans, is a bit like saying that a guy called Ivan existed in the USSR in WW2 and was killed by the Germans. Jesus was a very common name. So if you strip him of the divine claim, there's really not much more than a guy with a common name.

With the only distinction that a bunch of people based their breakaway religion off him, I'd be inclined to agree.

After all, while no one suspects that Rasputin had any magical powers like the rumors about him posited, he was an average (though obviously disturbed) fellow who earned his way into history as well (and is regularly portrayed in popular culture barely resembling the actual historical figure). While I wouldn't call his stature in life "average" during his own time (he was allegedly born to a king), Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) is another example of someone who rarely (if ever) resembles in depictions what he most likely was in reality. Heck, most of what we know of Socrates is based on the writings of Plato and the plays of Aristophanes, yet we consider him one of the cornerstones of Western-style philosophy.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying anything more than the fact that his name or his station was common doesn't negate the obvious demonstrable impact his (possible) existence had. It just happens to be more a testament to the ways and flows of social constructs than it does to the supposed divinity or magical mystery behind any individual. I see no problem with that because the movements of social constructs within and throughout history are far more fascinating to me than the life of some man for whom I can find little to no evidence and don't believe the god-stories anyhow.

[HansMustermann]

I understand this sentiment to a degree. After all, when talking about historical figures (or even contemporaries), what makes them them? Surely it must be their thoughts and actions. Thus, supposing the gospels are not accurate accounts (and I am certainly of that opinion), is it fair to call the man on which the accounts were based Jesus?

Well, it's very fair to call him Jesus if that was his first name. My point was more like that he wasn't Christ.

It is an interesting thought, but I think most scholars use "Jesus" in reference to both the character presented in the gospels and the historical person on whom the gospels were based. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that there was an historical Jesus, however different his own views might have been from those presented.

There were a _lot_ of guys called Jesus running around at the time. Sorta like Romans called Caius or Russians called Ivan.

Really, I think the important part isn't the "Jesus" part (Jesuses were a dime a dozen), but the "Christ" part. Without that "Christ" part, he's just another nobody.

[HansMustermann]

With the only distinction that a bunch of people based their breakaway religion off him, I'd be inclined to agree.

After all, while no one suspects that Rasputin had any magical powers like the rumors about him posited, he was an average (though obviously disturbed) fellow who earned his way into history as well (and is regularly portrayed in popular culture barely resembling the actual historical figure). While I wouldn't call his stature in life "average" during his own time (he was allegedly born to a king), Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) is another example of someone who rarely (if ever) resembles in depictions what he most likely was in reality. Heck, most of what we know of Socrates is based on the writings of Plato and the plays of Aristophanes, yet we consider him one of the cornerstones of Western-style philosophy.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying anything more than the fact that his name or his station was common doesn't negate the obvious demonstrable impact his (possible) existence had. It just happens to be more a testament to the ways and flows of social constructs than it does to the supposed divinity or magical mystery behind any individual. I see no problem with that because the movements of social constructs within and throughout history are far more fascinating to me than the life of some man for whom I can find little to no evidence and don't believe the god-stories anyhow.

Well, my distinction on the name is really to illustrate the two IMHO different concepts.

_The_ Jesus Christ is a unique entity with properties X, Y, and Z.

_A_ guy named Jesus, is just another nobody with a common name.

IMHO he's not really the "historical Jesus Christ" if he's more the latter than the former.

Sort of like if you discovered that Gautama actually had nothing in common with the historical Buddha, in a sense, he wouldn't _be_ the historical Buddha.

Actually, that example of yours provides the perfect illustration in that there are two names for the same person. One is his given name, and one is the Buddha. It illustrates just what I'm saying: you could theoretically discover a different guy named Siddhartha Gautama, but who is not the Buddha.

That's sorta the same distinction I'm making between _a_ Jesus and _the_ Christ.

[GreNME]

Actually, that example of yours provides the perfect illustration in that there are two names for the same person. One is his given name, and one is the Buddha. It illustrates just what I'm saying: you could theoretically discover a different guy named Siddhartha Gautama, but who is not the Buddha.

That's sorta the same distinction I'm making between _a_ Jesus and _the_ Christ.

Yeah, that reflects my thinking on the subject as well, for the most part.

[eccles]

Let's clear up the little matter of "Christ'. For those who may not know "Christ" is not a name. To quote (because I can't type Greek):

Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed",[1] which as a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ,), carries much of its original Jewish meaning of "Messiah"—"one [who is] anointed" or appointed by God with a unique and special purpose (mission) on Earth.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

SO, bretheren it is a TITLE. And I certainly assume that most Christians, especially Roman Catholics do not know that. Why? Because they swallow everything they are told by their Churches and never think. Roman Catholics are forbidden to think.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Minarvia]

I was once a Roman Catholic and WAS encouraged to think. So were all the others I knew. It may be a regional thing or a preference of a given priest, but that broad brush certainly does not cover all (and probably not nearly all) Roman Catholics.

I just had to say that point. It seems that much of what I read on this forum about what Catholics are told to do or think or not to do or think, in my experience, is incorrect. And I'm not terribly young. Even my grandparents were Catholics and were most definately encouraged to read their bibles and talk to their priest if they had any questions. I really don't know where this "forbidden to think" idea comes from. It certainly does not apply to the entire population of Roman Catholics. Besides, we all (those I knew) quite well that "Christ" was a title. (shrugs)

[GreNME]

SO, bretheren it is a TITLE. And I certainly assume that most Christians, especially Roman Catholics do not know that. Why? Because they swallow everything they are told by their Churches and never think. Roman Catholics are forbidden to think.

No offense meant, eccles, but you're letting your feelings on the issue affect your assumptions on this mark. As far as I'm aware there are several doctrines in Catholic and Protestant circles that refer to Jesus as "the Christ" and not as if "Christ" were his last name. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that most everyone here is aware of the distinction as well.

As a side note, that Christian interpretation of what constitutes the Moschiach (the Jewish Messiah) is a bit skewed, to say the least.

[eccles]

I was once a Roman Catholic and WAS encouraged to think. So were all the others I knew. It may be a regional thing or a preference of a given priest, but that broad brush certainly does not cover all (and probably not nearly all) Roman Catholics.

I just had to say that point. It seems that much of what I read on this forum about what Catholics are told to do or think or not to do or think, in my experience, is incorrect. And I'm not terribly young. Even my grandparents were Catholics and were most definately encouraged to read their bibles and talk to their priest if they had any questions. I really don't know where this "forbidden to think" idea comes from. It certainly does not apply to the entire population of Roman Catholics. Besides, we all (those I knew) quite well that "Christ" was a title. (shrugs)

I went to a Jesuit College in Melbourne, Australia in the 1950's. Most priests there were Irish and carried leather straps to beat "Christ" into you.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[eccles]

Launch at 1:36 a.m. EDT.
On NASA TV http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

I am watching the crew enter the Shuttle now. I shall be busy for a while.

"Live long & Prosper"

[Simon39759]

I dunno, I am pretty sure that it was told to me in my (Roman Catholic) school.

[eccles]

I dunno, I am pretty sure that it was told to me in my (Roman Catholic) school.

Where was that, Simon. Country will do.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[sleepy_lioness]

It's a staple of Christmas sermons too. Not to minimise your horrific experiences, eccles, which I understand were shared widely (I presume most of us have read the recent Ryan report into abuse in Irish schools), but you can't entirely generalise to a billion-member church from it. I have many highly intelligent Catholic friends who certainly don't feel that they can't think for themselves. And the birth rate in Catholic-majority countries seems to show the seriousness with which lay Catholics take the Pope's assertions ...

Also, much of the most interesting work in academic Christology, the branch of theology which deals with the person of Christ, has been done by Catholics over the past half century or so, notably Karl Rahner and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

BTW, if it is true that most ordinary Catholics don't know that 'Christ' means 'Messiah', what does that imply, in your mind? How would it change their faith if they knew that 'Christ' wasn't Jesus's surname, but his title?

ETA: here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on 'Jesus Christ' - you'll see they explain it fully

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374x.htm

[HansMustermann]

Bingo. Hence the distinction I'm making. If he's not Christ, it doesn't matter if he's Jesus.

[sleepy_lioness]

Yeah. I think that's the root of my difficulties with the Jesus Seminar - the 'Christ of faith' is not an inessential add-on or even, necessarily, a later accretion to the Jesus story - it *is* the Jesus story. I don't see how it makes sense to try and separate out a 'Jesus of history' from what later Christians said about him.

[Belz...]

We don't.

And yet "Jesus died about 2000 years ago at the age of about 65 possibly in Gaul", according to you.

[eccles]

It's a staple of Christmas sermons too. Not to minimise your horrific experiences, eccles, which I understand were shared widely (I presume most of us have read the recent Ryan report into abuse in Irish schools), but you can't entirely generalise to a billion-member church from it. I have many highly intelligent Catholic friends who certainly don't feel that they can't think for themselves. And the birth rate in Catholic-majority countries seems to show the seriousness with which lay Catholics take the Pope's assertions ...

Also, much of the most interesting work in academic Christology, the branch of theology which deals with the person of Christ, has been done by Catholics over the past half century or so, notably Karl Rahner and Wolfhart Pannenberg.
BTW, if it is true that most ordinary Catholics don't know that 'Christ' means 'Messiah', what does that imply, in your mind? How would it change their faith if they knew that 'Christ' wasn't Jesus's surname, but his title?

ETA: here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on 'Jesus Christ' - you'll see they explain it fully

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374x.htm

Ok. Let's examine this. First are you attacking me on a personal level: Ad Hominem for my remarks about the "Untouchable" Christianity?

Next: SERMONS. How many times have I heard priests bellow forth the words: "YOU MUST OBEY THE POPE"

Next: Billion member Church. 8 % of Catholics in Australia attend Mass. Could be the same in the UK and even worse in Europe. In my area: 4 Parishes served by 2 priests.

Next: Karl Rahner and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Apologists for Christianity. Pannenberg was not Catholic.

Next: Catholic Encyclopaedia: Apologist for Roman Catholicism. Actually I refer to it often. You might as well refer to Mein Kampf for a no-biased history of the Thrird Reich.

At the Vatican is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences) One of the members is Prof. Sephen Hawking, an Agnostic. In 1986 John Paul II held a conference about the Origin of the Universe with many eminent Astronomers including Hawking who had just written "A Brief History of Time". At the end of the conference John Paul stated quite strongly that science must NOT examine beyond the Big Bang. That left a nasty tate in the mouths of all non committed Christians there.

I gather you are Roman Catholic. I won't hold that against you, but have you ever read any material that is not biased towards Christianity? I doubt if many strongly faithfull Roman Catholics would.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[sleepy_lioness]

I'm not Roman Catholic. I agree with you that there are many things wrong with the RC church. I'm sure you've had terrible experiences there. I also agree with you that many or most nominal Catholics worldwide probably don't attend church.

I was merely responding to your statement that ordinary Catholics wouldn't be told that 'Christ' was a title of Jesus, not part of his name. I showed that the Catholic encyclopedia and Catholic theologians (apologists if you will) all mention it (thanks for the correction re Pannenberg, I must have mixed him up with someone else).

I was also expressing my opinion, one which other posters have also put, that your experiences with Roman Catholicism, while terrible, do not support some of the claims you make, such as Catholics never being allowed to think for themselves. I have met many Catholics more fortunate than you, who do not feel constrained in thinking for themselves at all.

I am sorry if you feel that I am attacking you or indulging in ad hominem forms of argumentation. I am not intending to do so - I am trying politely to disagree with you - and if I am expressing myself clumsily then I apologise.

[sleepy_lioness]

I gather you are Roman Catholic. I won't hold that against you, but have you ever read any material that is not biased towards Christianity? I doubt if many strongly faithfull Roman Catholics would.
/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg][/url]


Just on this point - again I'm not Catholic. I have read widely on lots of topics. If you mean history, theology and bible scholarship, then most of my reading has been of Protestant authors, since I am myself a Protestant (and my graduate work was in a subject that needed lots of reading of early Lutheran theology). I have also read writings by atheist, agnostic and, yes, Roman Catholic scholars. And I have a small side interest in Buddhism.

Oh, and I certainly don't consider Christianity "untouchable" - see many of my other posts for details.

[HansMustermann]

My word, eccles... there's just missing the point, and then there's not even being on the same hemisphere as the point.

I think it was pretty darned obvious that what she says there is that Catholics make no secret of the "Christ" part and what it means. It doesn't require reading between the lines or anything.

Instead of addressing that in any form or shape, you highlight some random bits out of context and go into fully irrelevant rants like "You might as well refer to Mein Kampf for a no-biased history of the Thrird Reich" or "At the end of the conference John Paul stated quite strongly that science must NOT examine beyond the Big Bang."

[eccles]

Sleepy Lioness,
One thing the Lutheran Curch has going for it is it's music. Do you attend a Lutheran Church that has a good Pipe Organ and Choir?

The greatest composer ever was a Lutheran, J.S. Bach. I am an organist but not in a church. I don't like working for nothing in a place where you are not appreciated. My organ teacher in Melbourne Australia was Cathedral Organist in St. Patrick's Cathedral. Melbourne, Australia. He got paid an insluting pittance. I did occassionally play for 11:00 am Mass when the Choir was on holidays, but that was the only time I was allowed to play that organ.

About Bach, there were some RC Churches that forbade the performance of Bach's music.

I had the great honour of playing an organ in Hamburg, Germany that had been played by J.S. Bach. It was built in 1693. Large instrument 4 keyboards, pedals. It had two restorations, one after the War and one recently to improve the action which was heavy when I played it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_338944a93dd68a1610.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17402)

[sleepy_lioness]

I'm not a Lutheran either but I do attend a church with a good organ and good music - that's a bit of a deal-breaker for me :)

Bach is my favourite composer.

[Minarvia]

I went to a Jesuit College in Melbourne, Australia in the 1950's. Most priests there were Irish and carried leather straps to beat "Christ" into you.


I am truly sorry about that. I was just making the point that many, many other Roman Catholics do not have such experiences. I'm in the USA and my grandparents were taught in 1914 or so. I do not know what their German/Polish/Austrian ancestors experienced, however.

[Simon39759]

I dunno, I am pretty sure that it was told to me in my (Roman Catholic) school.


France in the 80ies, 90ies.

It was after Vatican II and, I am pretty sure, most children would have been taken out of these schools at the first hint of violence by the teaching personal.
Different place, different time, different culture and while there is no denying that you personal experiences were horrible, I don't think that they are (any longer) universal to the Roman Catholic institutions.

[eccles]

I wish to clear up the matter of some misconceptions some of you have about me.

Yes, I hate the Roman Catholic Church for many reasons. If you have read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" you would know how he is highly critical of people how people say their children were born Roman Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, etc. Children are born knowing nothing until they are brainwashed into the religion of their parents before they know anything about science. In the USA many children go through life in that state because, especially in the Bible Belt states teaching of science is shunned, or if it is taught, creationism is taught as an alternative under the name of "Intelligent Design". Many court cases have taken place over that starting with the Scopes Trial and recently the Dover Trial. By the time kids get into science classes, they have been so brainwasged that they do not accept the truthfull facts of science over the stupidity of "Intelligent Design".

In my case I always had an enquiring mind and read a lot. My parents never put any restraints on that for religious reasons. They were proud of me for my interest. As soon as I started to find out about science, especially astronomy, that became my main interest. In Catholic school we did just the usual General Science, except for Biology (wonder why?). Then in the last two years it was Physics and Chemistry as non-compulsory subjects. I loved those subjects and did very well in Chemistry.

I have lived "at home" all my life and, after I left school I continued going to Mass with my parents. The Cathedral was not bad because of the Choir and organ. However I hated the ordinary Parish Masses. In the meantime I continued my study of Astronomy and came to the conclusion that the Big Bang Theory is the answer and Genesis is BS and only fiction. At about 30 years of age I'd had it with Religion and told Dad and then Mum that I was giving it up, that I do not believe in God. They accepted it. Later in his life Dad gave it up. Mum was too far gone in religion and never had the brains to work it out for herself so still kept up her Roman Catholicism.

Since getting the Internet i have now got access to all the information I want. I could never get the books I needed in Australia and even if I could they were too expensive. I have spent the last few years in intensive investigations about the history of the foundation of Judea/Christianity and have concluded that the fables about one Jesus of Nazareth were copied from the myths of many of the then existing religions of that area.

So it was the Logic of the principles of Science that led me to the conclusion that there is no Creator/God, that Religion preaches lies and deception. To me it does not matter if 1 billion people are Roman Catholics. In the Dark Ages people believed the Earth was the centre of our Solar System, not the Sun and the Holy Mother Church punished anyone who said otherwise e.g. Galilleo. The Vatican just "pardoned" him. That is not declaring him innocent of Heresy.

I hope this clears up the matter. I will always defend myself and my beliefs. As you can see these beliefs were not arrived at in an instant like the fable of Saul of Tarsus "dreams of seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus. It was after many years of study and contemplation. I reject the Bible, the Church. I do not believe in a god, or gods.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[GreNME]

Listen, eccles, I don't think anyone here is trying to misrepresent your personal history, but I believe that the problem many of us here who are disputing many of the conclusions you've come to is because quite a few of us have studied plenty on the subject, and at least some of us have come across some of the same internet sources you have and found them wanting compared to other, more scholarly sources.

I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that these conclusions that you've come to are as much a spurious basis in folklore and magical thinking as the religion they focus on attacking. The correlation-as-causation relationships you're proposing are based more on old and outdated conclusions based more on ethnocentric interpretations of ancient cultures and mistaken assumptions based on clips of multiple mythologies.

[eccles]

Listen, eccles, I don't think anyone here is trying to misrepresent your personal history, but I believe that the problem many of us here who are disputing many of the conclusions you've come to is because quite a few of us have studied plenty on the subject, and at least some of us have come across some of the same internet sources you have and found them wanting compared to other, more scholarly sources.

I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that these conclusions that you've come to are as much a spurious basis in folklore and magical thinking as the religion they focus on attacking. The correlation-as-causation relationships you're proposing are based more on old and outdated conclusions based more on ethnocentric interpretations of ancient cultures and mistaken assumptions based on clips of multiple mythologies.

Fair enough my friend. Nothing in Judea/Christianity can be verified and proved. I suppose that is why it used to be said - never discuss religion or politics.

Let me ask you this GreNme: What are your conclusions, thoughs, ideas about the origin of Judeo/Christian?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[GreNME]

Fair enough my friend. Nothing in Judea/Christianity can be verified and proved. I suppose that is why it used to be said - never discuss religion or politics.

Well, actually, quite a lot of stuff from that period can be verified and proved. Quite a lot about the early Christians is becoming more well-known as we learn more. The thing is that despite all of this new stuff we're learning about the people and the culture and the politics and religion, none of it has changed the level of verifiable information about this guy that the Christians built their theology around.

Let me ask you this GreNme: What are your conclusions, thoughs, ideas about the origin of Judeo/Christian?

My thoughts? My thoughts are it isn't that simple. There are literally reams of sociological, anthropological, historical, and psychological factors into the development of the societies, mythologies. Humans don't fit so neatly into the box of a single explanation (or s single set of explanations). That's the realm that religion and mysticism attempts to answer.

[eccles]

Well, actually, quite a lot of stuff from that period can be verified and proved. Quite a lot about the early Christians is becoming more well-known as we learn more. The thing is that despite all of this new stuff we're learning about the people and the culture and the politics and religion, none of it has changed the level of verifiable information about this guy that the Christians built their theology around.



My thoughts? My thoughts are it isn't that simple. There are literally reams of sociological, anthropological, historical, and psychological factors into the development of the societies, mythologies. Humans don't fit so neatly into the box of a single explanation (or s single set of explanations). That's the realm that religion and mysticism attempts to answer.

Thanks for the very good reply GENme. It is logical (Spock).
Certainly from about 100CE can be verified and much from Alexandria can be verified as I am finding out. But this "Dead Jew on a Stick". Well, that is another matter.

Now I have to help NASA with it's Shuttle problems.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Roberthttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

[GreNME]

Actually, much more can be verified well back to several centuries BCE. However, Judea was a relative backwater and it's obvious that Jesus didn't make any splashes with the people keeping track of... well, stuff of the day. If you want to learn of life of people in general in the region of Palestine (as it was called then), there are plenty of resources, but you're not going to find many mentions of Jesus-- you're actually not going to find any of him during the time he was alive. When it comes to records, depending on the culture you look at you're going to find varying levels of detail in writings, records, and artifacts. But if what you're looking to chase is the origin of the Jesus story, then you'll be dissatisfied.

[Simon39759]

Actually, much more can be verified well back to several centuries BCE. However, Judea was a relative backwater and it's obvious that Jesus didn't make any splashes with the people keeping track of... well, stuff of the day. If you want to learn of life of people in general in the region of Palestine (as it was called then), there are plenty of resources, but you're not going to find many mentions of Jesus-- you're actually not going to find any of him during the time he was alive. When it comes to records, depending on the culture you look at you're going to find varying levels of detail in writings, records, and artifacts. But if what you're looking to chase is the origin of the Jesus story, then you'll be dissatisfied.


Yep, pretty much.
Hardly anybody at the time seems to have noticed Jesus' presence.
It's only one generation later, and for a good part thanks to the impetus of Saint Paul, that the movement starts to gain some impetus and rise up to leave its mark.

[eccles]

Actually, much more can be verified well back to several centuries BCE. However, Judea was a relative backwater and it's obvious that Jesus didn't make any splashes with the people keeping track of... well, stuff of the day. If you want to learn of life of people in general in the region of Palestine (as it was called then), there are plenty of resources, but you're not going to find many mentions of Jesus-- you're actually not going to find any of him during the time he was alive. When it comes to records, depending on the culture you look at you're going to find varying levels of detail in writings, records, and artifacts. But if what you're looking to chase is the origin of the Jesus story, then you'll be dissatisfied.


Yes, now the centre of learning was the Great Library of Alexandria. As you would know Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE), known also as Philo of Alexandria was one of the great philosohpers of the day.

"Arguments have been put forth that Philo was actually the founder of Christianity by virtue of his combination of Jewish theological ideas and those present in the Greek mystery religions, a combination of which would appear much like Christianity. It is possible the followers of Jesus seized upon Philo's precepts and incorporated them into the letters that became the New Testament." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Yet it seems he had never mentioned Jesus - probably never heard of him.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[amb]

Well, as I keep saying, that one guy called Jesus existed in Judaea and got nailed by the Romans, is a bit like saying that a guy called Ivan existed in the USSR in WW2 and was killed by the Germans. Jesus was a very common name. So if you strip him of the divine claim, there's really not much more than a guy with a common name.

But this Jesus guy caused a bit of rumpus in the temple on passover weekend which got him arrested. That is according to Ehrman in ''Jesus Interrupted''.

I'm of the opinion that perhaps this Jesus had no historical existence, but that's just me.

[amb]

Listen, eccles, I don't think anyone here is trying to misrepresent your personal history, but I believe that the problem many of us here who are disputing many of the conclusions you've come to is because quite a few of us have studied plenty on the subject, and at least some of us have come across some of the same internet sources you have and found them wanting compared to other, more scholarly sources.

I can't speak for others, but it's my opinion that these conclusions that you've come to are as much a spurious basis in folklore and magical thinking as the religion they focus on attacking. The correlation-as-causation relationships you're proposing are based more on old and outdated conclusions based more on ethnocentric interpretations of ancient cultures and mistaken assumptions based on clips of multiple mythologies.

I don't believe it's a matter of who has studied more or less. I believe it's what you accept as true and what in your opinion is not. Which historian may be right or wrong? I have read many books as has Eccles, then I make up my mind which author is sincerely trying to dig up the truth and which author is trying to make a quick buck. Authors and researches such as Freke and Gandy have spent decades researching their books. John Shelby Spong has spent a lifetime researching his books. All reach a different conclusion on who was Jesus. None say he was ''the son of god''. I go a little further and say, perhaps he had no historical existence at all.

[HansMustermann]

But this Jesus guy caused a bit of rumpus in the temple on passover weekend which got him arrested. That is according to Ehrman in ''Jesus Interrupted''.

I'm of the opinion that perhaps this Jesus had no historical existence, but that's just me.

Minor riots around Passover were actually very common. Aside from itself being a religious reminder, there were thousands of people coming into Jerusalem for Passover, and it was already the kind that were religious enough to do that. It's only normal that a lot would end up looking at the pagan romans and ask themselves "why do we let _these_ guys run the show?"

Plus, the city invariably ended up overcrowded and under-supplied on the occasion, which sure didn't help the mood.

But at any rate, a ruckus this year too was _expected_. That's why Pillate had moved into Jerusalem for passover, and why Caiaffas was jumpy. They only needed to have enough working memory to remember last year.

So basically what I'm saying is: there were _dozens_ of Jesuses running amok around Passover each year.

Even in that fateful day there were at least _two_ Jesuses which caused trouble: the two that Pillate gave the crowd a choice to save. One was Jesus of Nazareth, and the other was Jesus Barabbas.

So basically, it's a bit like saying that someone called John was involved in a riot in LA. I mean, no kidding? :p

So, again, if the "historical Jesus" was just a guy called Jesus which caused a commotion on Passover... I'm not impressed. There were dozens of people called Jesus causing trouble each Passover. Who cares about just another guy with a common name, causing trouble on a traditional date for causing trouble?

[amb]

I was once a Roman Catholic and WAS encouraged to think. So were all the others I knew. It may be a regional thing or a preference of a given priest, but that broad brush certainly does not cover all (and probably not nearly all) Roman Catholics.

I just had to say that point. It seems that much of what I read on this forum about what Catholics are told to do or think or not to do or think, in my experience, is incorrect. And I'm not terribly young. Even my grandparents were Catholics and were most definately encouraged to read their bibles and talk to their priest if they had any questions. I really don't know where this "forbidden to think" idea comes from. It certainly does not apply to the entire population of Roman Catholics. Besides, we all (those I knew) quite well that "Christ" was a title. (shrugs)

You have not ever attended a catholic funeral mass, or a wedding, babtism service? Have you not listened to the claptrap coming from the pulpit?
As a kid many decades ago, been a very inquisitive lad I asked my local catholic priest......''If god created the world and as you just preached, everything needs a maker, then who made god?'' His answer set me on the road to atheism. ''These are questions that must not be asked my son'' said the priest. '' You are commiting a sin by such questions.''
Like I said, that was more than 5 decades ago, but I don't think much has changed in the meantime. They have to protect their lively hood don't they?

[eccles]

You have not ever attended a catholic funeral mass, or a wedding, babtism service? Have you not listened to the claptrap coming from the pulpit?
As a kid many decades ago, been a very inquisitive lad I asked my local catholic priest......''If god created the world and as you just preached, everything needs a maker, then who made god?'' His answer set me on the road to atheism. ''These are questions that must not be asked my son'' said the priest. '' You are commiting a sin by such questions.''Like I said, that was more than 5 decades ago, but I don't think much has changed in the meantime. They have to protect their lively hood don't they?

I can confirm that that remark to that boy is typical of a priest. Many a time were boys at Xavier College where I went told the same thing. Usually they got detention or the strap.

Priests can be very rude. My mother wanted to donate new kneeling pads for the altar rails where recipients of Communion knelt. We went to the Presbytery to see the parish Priest Dr. Collins. He was rather rude to my mother. It is a wonder Dad did not tell him off an takes us all out of the Presbytery. Priests think they are little Tin Gods and can treat their parishioners like dirt. The Parish Church did get it's kneeling pads --- for Mum's comfort.

I and a friend were Organ Historians. He would contact Churches to make a time to see the organ. We would record and photograph it. We got many more knock-backs from Roman Catholic Parishes than any other Demoninations. My friend is a renowned member of the National Trust of Australia and was awarded an Order of Australia for his work cataloguing historic organs.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Minarvia]

You have not ever attended a catholic funeral mass, or a wedding, babtism service? Have you not listened to the claptrap coming from the pulpit?
As a kid many decades ago, been a very inquisitive lad I asked my local catholic priest......''If god created the world and as you just preached, everything needs a maker, then who made god?'' His answer set me on the road to atheism. ''These are questions that must not be asked my son'' said the priest. '' You are commiting a sin by such questions.''
Like I said, that was more than 5 decades ago, but I don't think much has changed in the meantime. They have to protect their lively hood don't they?

Of course I have attended many of these things, I never said I did not. And I am now an atheist and have been for some time. That doesn't mean I will lie about my past experiences. I am just admitting that they were mostly positive in the sense that none of the Catholics in my family and the ones I know were having "Christ beaten into them and forbidden to think."

This was decades ago, too. And when I left the priest was gracious about it and none of my family members who remained ever heard a thing about it or were treated in any way differently, for which I was glad.

Like I said before, this could simply depend upon your region and your given priest.

[GreNME]

I don't believe it's a matter of who has studied more or less. I believe it's what you accept as true and what in your opinion is not. Which historian may be right or wrong? I have read many books as has Eccles, then I make up my mind which author is sincerely trying to dig up the truth and which author is trying to make a quick buck. Authors and researches such as Freke and Gandy have spent decades researching their books. John Shelby Spong has spent a lifetime researching his books. All reach a different conclusion on who was Jesus. None say he was ''the son of god''. I go a little further and say, perhaps he had no historical existence at all.

Freke and Gandy have been pretty thoroughly shown to have been ham-fisted and sloppy with their research (a breakdown (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Jesus_Mysteries)), and their scholarship on the subject is questionable at best. They join the ranks of Kersey Graves and Dorothy Murdock as the primary sources for the bunk in the first part of the woo-laden Zeitgeist (http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I) internet phenom. Spong is basically someone who is taking old-school conciliatory interpretations (not unlike the Jefferson Bible approach) and re-writing for a modern audience-- all well and good for someone looking for a re-evaluation of their personal philosophy, not so much for actual scholarship and understanding of the history.

What I'm pointing out is not a measuring contest of who has been studying for a longer time or who has the larger personal library from which to draw. I'm pointing out that the sources of information are important, and that with the immense progress in archaeological and historical understanding that came in just the last half of the 20th century alone, relying on stuff written from the 1910's back and only barely touching the vast recent discoveries of the last 40-50 years means you're going to be working from a lot of gaps in terms of understanding a comprehensive and contextual view of the civilizations of antiquity. We're finding out things that we simply didn't know 60+ years ago-- like the fact that there was no single or dual "early Christian church," and that instead there were practically dozens, most of whom fizzled out, were absorbed by other movements, or eventually coalesced into what we know as the "early church" today. There are more scholars today studying the history of the Middle East than we had studying the whole history of Western society just a century ago. No longer a mysterious school of study, Egyptology is now a mature and extensive field that employs multiple tracks of study from geology to social behavior to art to politics (and more). The geometric growth in the number of collective individuals studying the various aspects of the Mid-East and Northern African regions has increased the level of understanding immensely, and the amount of data that can be researched is staggering-- none of us here could even make a dent in it if we tried.

In other words: the materials available even for lay-study are vast and wide, while the internet has (for the most part) provided an echo chamber for the very vocal but predominantly fringe set of ideas out there, which tends to grossly misrepresent the actual data available to the person interested in learning more on the subject.

For an example of what I mean, simply look at the US presidential race last year-- if you got your impressions from looking only at internet sources, you would very likely have gotten the (very misleading) impression that Ron Paul not only had a chance of winning the Republican ticket, but actually had a huge populist following based on the spamming of the "go Ron Paul" slogans all over the net any time the race was mentioned. There are a lot of skewed views out there on the nature and status of current, modern research on what the earliest people in the Christian church were like, what they believed, and what they based those beliefs on, most of the skewing being directly related to the echo chamber effect of fringe theories and their enthusiasts. Most of the less fringe studies either avoid making conclusive statements about who or what Jesus was, or they intentionally leave descriptions vague because whomever the man may (or may not) have been is irrelevant to the movement which followed, and to almost all of the scholarly community it's that social movement and its actions or impacts that tend to be the focus. On the other side of that, it seems the biggest group of individuals working ardently to either verify or deny/refute the messianic or religious significance of the figure "Jesus" tend to be doing so on more ideological bases than on scholarly bases.

What I'm suggesting is that for an intellectually honest evaluation of the historical relevance of the figure and for less-skewed facts, it is highly recommended to avoid the ideological writers and literature, because what they're usually doing is promoting an ideology, not knowledge, and that in a qualitative sense is no different in structure than religious doctrine.

[amb]

I agree with most of what you say. I'm of the opinion that perhaps the best scholarly work in the last century on the subject has to be Albert Schweitzer's work The Quest For The Historical Jesus A man with no ideology as far as I can see.

[eccles]

I agree with most of what you say. I'm of the opinion that perhaps the best scholarly work in the last century on the subject has to be Albert Schweitzer's work The Quest For The Historical Jesus A man with no ideology as far as I can see.

AMB,
Do you REALLY know much about Dr. ALbert Schweitzer?

As a boy I became aware of him as an organist and his devotion to the music of J.S.Bach. He helped re-introduce Bach to a World that had nearly forgotton him. I can't temember if I had any of the Dr's recordings but I do remember hearing them on the radio. Schweitzer is best remembered for his medical work in Arfica. He was also a brilliant Theologian as that Wiki article attests, and I can vouch for it's accuracy:

In 1899 Schweitzer became a deacon at the church Saint-Nicolas of Strasbourg. In 1900, with the completion of his licentiate in theology, he was ordained as curate, and that year he witnessed the Oberammergau Passion Play. In the following year he became provisional Principal of the Theological College of Saint Thomas (from which he had just graduated), and in 1903 his appointment was made permanent.[22]

Since the mid-1890s Schweitzer had formed the inner resolve that it was needful for him as a Christian to repay to the world something for the happiness which it had given to him, and he determined that he would pursue his younger interests until the age of thirty and then give himself to serving humanity, with Jesus serving as his example.

In 1906 he published Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ("History of the Jesus-life research"). This book established his reputation, and it is worth reviewing its publication history. The original edition was translated into English by William Montgomery and published in 1910 under the somewhat aberrant title The Quest of the Historical Jesus. This title stuck however, and the book became famous under that name in the English-speaking world. A second German edition was published in 1913, containing theologically significant revisions and expansions. This revised edition did not appear in English until 2001.

In The Quest, Schweitzer reviewed all prior work on the question of the "historical Jesus" starting in the late 18th century. He pointed out how Jesus' image had changed with the times and with the personal proclivities of the various authors. He concluded with his own synopsis and interpretation of what had been learned over the course of the previous century. He took the position that the life of Jesus must be interpreted in the light of Jesus' own convictions, which he characterized as those of "late Jewish eschatology."

Schweitzer wrote that Jesus and his followers expected the imminent end of the world.[23] He became very focused on the study and cross referencing of the many Biblical verses promising the return of Jesus and the exact details of this promised event, as it was originally believed that it would unfold, in the First Century. He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation," with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory," and even tells his disciples exactly when all this will happen: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."(Matthew 24:34) The same story is told in the gospel of Matthew, with Jesus promising his rapid return: "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."(Matthew 23:36)

Schweitzer observes that St. Paul believed in the immediacy of the "Second Coming of Jesus," mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Schweitzer concludes that Christians of the first century theology literally believed in the imminent fulfillment of the promise of the World's ending, within the lifetime of Jesus's original followers. Schweitzer cross references many Biblical verses to confirm this very serious theologic problem: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) and "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)

Other key Biblical verses that Schweitzer documents in The Quest demonstrate the impossibility of the original Gospels' literal accuracy are: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32), "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." (1 Corinthians 7:29) and "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son...." (Hebrews 1:2) He finds also, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (1 Peter 1:20, "But the end of all things is at hand." (1 Peter 4:7) and "Surely I come quickly." Revelation 22:20)

The publication of The Quest for the Historical Jesus, effectively put a stop for decades to work on the Historical Jesus as a sub-discipline of New Testament studies. This work resumed however with the development of the so-called "Second Quest", among whose notable exponents was Rudolf Bultmann's student Ernst Käsemann.

Schweitzer writes that the many modern versions of Christianity deliberately ignore the urgency of the message that Jesus originally promised, for an immediate "world end," that was so powerfully proclaimed in his First Century theology. Each new generation hopes to be the one to see the world destroyed, another world coming, and the saints governing a new earth. Schweitzer brilliantly concludes that the First Century theology, originating in the lifetimes of those who first followed Jesus, is both incompatible and far removed from those beliefs later made official by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 CE.

Schweitzer established his reputation further as a New Testament scholar with other theological studies including The Psychiatric Study of Jesus (1911); and his two studies of the apostle Paul, Paul and his Interpreters, and the more complete The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1930). This examined the eschatological beliefs of Paul and (through this) the message of the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer

OK?





http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[amb]

Correct. He was the first [I think] to proclaim that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, therefore not what the church made him out to be, namely divine or anything beyond a fire and brimstone preacher much like John The Baptist.

[SirPhilip]

An Adam and Eve? Definately NO.
Samson and Delilah? It is interesting that the Torah actually contains, in Samson & Delilah, a heroic myth very similar to the Greek and Roman tragedies although with a much less metaphorical, confounding format than the other books. What Eccles is getting at, although struggling to justify it, is mythology possesses repeating themes to the point characters are interchangeable. This is in fact the case with basic tenets and trappings across two class distinctions of religion found throughout the world: naturalistic based, which focus on a principle of nature, and monotheistic, which ascribe it monarchical personhood.

[eccles]

Now I am going to put this to you. I am in the process of studying about Gnosticism. That was very strong in Alexandria from about 300BCE(?).

The library of Alexandria was a major learning center in the Middle East. The discovery of the Nag Hamadi Texts which had many texts of the Gnostic Gospels throws a different light on the origin of Christianity. Also many of the Egyptian texts were known such as the Book of the Dead. It appears that much of the Torah is based on Egyptology. Here is a very good example:: The Decalogue aka. the Ten Commandments. Now have a look at Chapter 125D of the Book of the Dead - the 42 Negative Comfessions:

The negative confession and the naming of the forty-two gods

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hail, Long-Strider who comes from Heliopolis, I have not done iniquity.
Hail, Embraced-by Fire who comes from Kher-aha, I have not robbed with violence.
Hail, Divine-Nose who comes from Khemmenu, I have not done violence to another man.
Hail, Shade-Eater who comes from the caverns which produce the Nile, I have not committed theft.
Hail, Neha-hau who comes from Re-stau, I have not killed man or woman.
Hail, double Lion God who comes from heaven, I have not lightened the bushel.
Hail, Flint-Eyes who comes from Sekhem, I have not acted deceitfully.
Hail, Flame who comes backwards, I have not stolen what belongs to the gods.
Hail, Bone-Crusher who comes from Heracleopolis, I have not lied.
Hail, Flame-Grower who comes from Memphis, I have not carried away food.
Hail, Qerti 9 who comes from the west, I have not uttered evil words.
Hail, Shining-Tooth who comes from Ta-She, I have attacked no man.
Hail, Blood-Consumer who comes from the house of slaughter, I have not slaughtered sacred cattle.
Hail, Entrail-Consumer who comes from the mabet chamber, I have not cheated.
Hail, God of Maat who comes from the city of twin Maati, 10 I have not laid waste lands which have been ploughed.
Hail, Backward-Walker who comes from Bubastis, I have not pried mischievously into others' affairs.
Hail, Aati who comes from Heliopolis, I have not foolishly set my mouth in motion against another man.
Hail, doubly evil who comes from Ati, I have not given way to wrath without cause.
Hail, serpent Amenti who comes from the house of slaughter, I have not defiled the wife of a man.
Hail, you who look at what is brought to you who comes from the Temple of Amsu, I have not pollluted myself.
Hail, Chief of the Princes who comes from Nehatu, I have not terrified any man.
Hail, Destroyer who comes from the Lake of Kaui, I have not trespassed sacred grounds.
Hail, Speech-Orderer who comes from the Urit, I have not been angry.
Hail, Child who comes from the Lake of Heqat, I have not made myself deaf to Maat. 11
Hail, Disposer-of-Speech who comes from Unes, I have not stirred up strife.
Hail, Basti who comes from the Secret City, I have made no one to weep.
Hail, Backwards-Face who comes from the Dwelling, I have committed no acts of impurity nor have I had sexual intercourse with a man.
Hail, Leg-of-Fire who comes from the Akheku, I have not eaten my heart. 12
Hail, Kenemti who comes from Kenemet, I have not abused anyone.
Hail, Offering-Bringer who comes from Sais, I have not acted with violence.
Hail, Lord-of-Faces who comes from Tchefet, I have not judged hastily.
Hail, Giver-of-Knowledge who comes from Unth, I have not taken vengeance on a god.
Hail, Lord-of-Two-Horns who comes from Satiu, I have not spoken too much.
Hail, Nefer-Tem who comes from Memphis, I have not acted with deceit nor have I performed wickedness.
Hail, Tem-Sep who comes from Tattu, I have not cursed the king.
Hail, Heart-Laborer who comes from Tebti, I have not polluted the water.
Hail, Ahi-of-the-water who comes from Nu, I have not been haughty.
Hail, Man-Commander, who comes from Sau, I have not cursed the god.
Hail, Neheb-nefert who comes from the Lake of Nefer, I have not been insolent.
Hail, Neheb-kau who comes from your city, I have not been sought distinctions.
Hail, Holy-Head who comes from your dwelling, I have not increased my wealth, except with such things as were mine.
Hail, Arm-Bringer who comes from the the Underworld, I have not scorned the god of my city.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

As far as the New Testament and the Gospels, it seems that John could have been written by persons unknown in Alexandria with much text copied from Egyptian texts.

I have more work to do on this. I shall return.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[GreNME]

I agree with most of what you say. I'm of the opinion that perhaps the best scholarly work in the last century on the subject has to be Albert Schweitzer's work The Quest For The Historical Jesus A man with no ideology as far as I can see.

I think the work is fine, but incredibly incomplete due to lack of information. Namely, the huge dearth of information that has been discovered in the 100 years since that book was published. If you think that book is a fine starting-off point, then I won't argue that as it's as good as several others people could name. However, we're finding out that there were aspects of even the First Century Christ cult that had more nuance than was previously known in the 1900's and 1910's (and earlier).

[GreNME]

Now I am going to put this to you. I am in the process of studying about Gnosticism. That was very strong in Alexandria from about 300BCE(?).

If by "strong" you mean "limited, fanatical, very diverse, and without a single doctrine" then I might agree with you (and Murdock and her various "sources"), but the story of the 'mystery' groups that inhabited the area tells a far less cohesive story. There was no single "gnosticism" of the time, there were (at least) several groups with varying schools of thought.

The library of Alexandria was a major learning center in the Middle East. The discovery of the Nag Hamadi Texts which had many texts of the Gnostic Gospels throws a different light on the origin of Christianity.

The problem is that you're stating it backwards (as Murdock and several others often do). First, not all of the "Gnostic" sects were in the area of northeastern Egypt, and second not all of those who were included in their syncretistic texts any mention of the Christian cults. Third, there's more likelihood that the Hellenistic Jews and the Greek Christians had a great deal of influence on the Syrian-Egyptian schools than the other way around, since it was the teachings in those schools which seem to have altered to include the Jesus mythology, while time after time the various Christian sects that seemed to have incorporated teachings from the Syrian-Egyptian schools were labeled as heretical (Irenaeus, an early Christian leader, wrote against them). These smaller groups were considered outsiders well into medieval times. For a (very) basic rundown on the various Gnostic sects, see the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) on them.

Also many of the Egyptian texts were known such as the Book of the Dead. It appears that much of the Torah is based on Egyptology. Here is a very good example:: The Decalogue aka. the Ten Commandments. Now have a look at Chapter 125D of the Book of the Dead - the 42 Negative Comfessions:

The negative confession and the naming of the forty-two gods

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snippety-do-da>
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

The flaw in this thinking is from assuming that Egypt was an exporter of ideas instead of an importer. The fact is that Egypt was almost exclusively an importer of ideas, particularly when it came to ideas and innovations from Mesopotamia. That the Hebrews would have imported from as far away as Egypt when their neighbors and conquerors already had several different original codified sets of laws-- including the Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi%27s_Code), the Code of Ur-Nammu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu), and the Urukagina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina)-- is more than a little far-fetched and not making much sense (unless the Exodus story of Hebrew enslavement in Egypt is believed, for which there is no evidence).

No, Egypt was a major importer of ideas from Mesopotamia, whether it was writing (the earliest Hieratic scripts in Egypt resemble Mesopotamian Hieratics in the corresponding period), technology (Egypt learned to make chariots and sailboats from Mesopotamia), and even some astronomy (Babylonian astronomy and the base-60 counting method are still evident in modern astronomy and time-keeping respectively). What Egypt managed to do was not innovate, but in many ways to improve on ideas: Egyptians were the first to use spoked wheels, and their method of calendaring had far more precision than their Mesopotamian counterparts. The Egyptian calendar managed more precision for two reasons: 1) unlike most of the Mesopotamian calendars, which are lunar-based (yes, including the Hebrew calendar), the Egyptians tied their calendar to solar cycles, certain constellation positions, and 2) the flooding of the Nile (which was, at the time, like clockwork).

But back to the laws for a moment. The similarity of the Hebrew (Mosaic) laws to that of the Code of Hammurabi are more than superficial. In Mosaic law, not only are there the Ten Commandments that every Sunday schoolchild knows, there are more than 360 laws that are dependent on your age, your station in life, the type of work you do, where you live, and even your gender. The Code of Hammurabi, conversely, lists somewhere on the level of 280 laws that are dependent on your age, your station in life, the type of work you do, where you live, and even your gender. The Code of Ur-Nammu, for your consideration, lists something like 60 "If this, then that" conditions regarded as being applicable in a somewhat unilateral scale. The Urukagina, on the other hand, is more vague in content and not as direct as the other two, though it predates pretty much all other writings on law. The Mesopotamian codified laws, particularly when juxtaposed to your list of confessions from the Egyptian BotD, now seem to show that perhaps Egypt picked a little bit up from their neighbors to the north-east, which makes it seem a little out-of-the-way for the Hebrews, who are known to have lived among the Sumerians and Akkadians, and had lived under Babylonian rule for many years, to have instead of borrowed their lawgivers from as far away as Egypt when the very same thing in a more direct form existed right where they already lived.

As far as the New Testament and the Gospels, it seems that John could have been written by persons unknown in Alexandria with much text copied from Egyptian texts.

I have more work to do on this. I shall return.

You're going to have to quantify that with some real information and citations, and doing a bit better than simply juxtaposing two texts which might possibly sound alike. You need to keep in mind the very important concept that correlation does not equal causation.

[HansMustermann]

That the Hebrews would have imported from as far away as Egypt when their neighbors and conquerors already had several different original codified sets of laws-- including the Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi%27s_Code), the Code of Ur-Nammu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu), and the Urukagina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina)-- is more than a little far-fetched and not making much sense (unless the Exodus story of Hebrew enslavement in Egypt is believed, for which there is no evidence).

Not to mention that the thousands of tablets from Ebla, you know, same area as the later Hebrews, point at a complex legal system and extensive case law in the area. They didn't even need to import anything themselves, the whole thing had already been imported long before.

[GreNME]

That's true, but I made it a point to use Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu because a lot of their stuff can be argued as having directly influenced Egyptian ideas. My point is that "out of Egypt" is a concept that works contrary to the modern scholarly accepted idea of how Egypt interacted with its neighbors.

[HansMustermann]

True enough.

[eccles]

GreNme,
I do agree with you about the interaction between Egypt and all peoples of that area. I am not making out that Judeo/Christianity was derived only from Egypt, but surely it must have had a lot of influence seeing that Alexandria was part of Egypt. (and still is).

Now lets go to the Christian Scriptures. No doubt you know about the Seputagint. For the benefit of other members here I post this summary which comes from http://www.allabouttruth.org/septuagint-2.htm a biased Christian Site:


"Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.

Septuagint - Is it a Reliable Translation?
Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture."

I gather that, when Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible containing the books approved by him and the Council of Nicea, the Septuagint, with its errors was used not the Tanakh.

So far as the new Testament is concerned, were the Gospels really written in Alexandria in the 2nd. Century CE? I would say yes.

I still stick to my belief that ALL the New Testament accounts of Jesus the Nazarene are nothing but fables around a man who possibly lived and they are all copied from other religious fables of neighbouring areas.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[GreNME]

I'm sorry, eccles, but you're making a strawman argument in the last post. I pointed out specifically the ways Egypt was actually influenced by Mesopotamia, as well as pointing out precisely how these older Mesopotamian sources were more likely the lines of influence to the Hebrew versions you were talking about. That you come back with a website offering no response to what I pointed out and simply repeat your conclusion gives me the impression that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

Bringing up the Nag Hammadi does not in essence make your point. I already explained that the people of the mystery schools constituted a minority of the Christian cults. I pointed out that even the early church considered their school of thought to be "incorrect" (relative to their own). I also pointed out that calling these mystery schools "the Gnostics" isn't an accurate representation of what these schools actually were.

I'm not attempting to be aggressive here, and neither am I making any argument that the stories in the Christian bible are accurate. I'm pointing out that your beliefs add unnecessary complexity to the nature of the development of early Christianity. The story of how the early Christian church developed is circuitous enough, so there's no need to add an "out of Egypt" storyline when the same influencing factors existed from more direct sources. No one here is attempting to argue you into believing whatever doctrine you used to.

[amb]

I think the work is fine, but incredibly incomplete due to lack of information. Namely, the huge dearth of information that has been discovered in the 100 years since that book was published. If you think that book is a fine starting-off point, then I won't argue that as it's as good as several others people could name. However, we're finding out that there were aspects of even the First Century Christ cult that had more nuance than was previously known in the 1900's and 1910's (and earlier).

Again, very correct. The Nag Hammadi papyrus were only discovered in 1948.

[eccles]

Again, very correct. The Nag Hammadi papyrus were only discovered in 1948.

That was a significant find. Here is a paragraph from Wikipedia about them:

"The contents of the codices were written in Coptic, though the works were probably all translations from Greek. The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery it was recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898, and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas has been proposed, though this is disputed by many if not the majority of biblical matter researchers. The once buried manuscripts themselves date from the 3rd and 4th centuries."

Which means they are copies. How accurate they are of course can never be determined. The Gospel of Thomas contains many sayings attributed to Jesus. Where they originated from no one knows. The Roman Catholic Church, of course dismisses them as they point to the close relation between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, even to them kissing each other on the mouth.

Now we must look at the Development of the New Testament canon. Once again, Wikipedia:

"The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Although the Early Church primarily used the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint or LXX, or the Targums among Aramaic speakers, the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures.

Instead the New Testament Canon developed gradually over time. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the tradition of complete Canon existing from Apostolic times, has little foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament was the result of debate, disputes and research, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not reaching its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

How can these scriptures can be regarded as a true and accurate account of the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth when their authenticity and dates of composition can never be verified.

Archaeology would have to make a major discovery of original authored manuscripts that can be verified before the bible can be taken seriously. Until then, it is just another book of fables.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[amb]

Most scholars have a fair idea when the various gospels first appeared. Mark around 60-70s
Mathew, around the mid 80s, Luke, around 85-90. and John 90-110.
Taking Mark as the first to be written, it's around 25-35 years after the life of this Jesus ended. Before that time it was oral story telling. We all know the massive changes to an original story that entails. An anthill becomes a mountain after a short time.
Even the ramblings of Paul which are the very first christian writings are aound 15-20 years after the facts. [if any] I would have to concur, the bible as a whole cannot be taken seriously. As a collection of poetry, fables and some good story telling it's second to none. But it's not a serious history book.