No one is dismissing them "out of hand." No one has dismissed them at all. You keep trying to squeeze what is a very gray issue into either black or white. That is not helping your argument. There are very good reasons, all of them academically sound, for not taking them at face value. They are important theological documents. Their value as historical documents is more tendentious. What would lead you to pretend we are not considering them? There is no conceivable way for you to actually defend that claim. In the cases (for example) of Caesar, or Cicero we actually have a vast corpus of their personal writing to inspect and examine. We can tell (for example) that the last books of the Gallic Wars were not completed by Caesar as the Latin changes so dramatically. In the case of the Epistles, we have too tiny a sample to make any honest claim of certainty.... beyond the clear signs that at least some of them were not written by the same people who wrote others under the same name. You have to understand... nothing has reached the Bible in any form resembling a deliberate history. Every shred of the New Testament (at least) is religious propaganda and apologetics. In much of it, the writers are literally falling over themselves in trying to prove the divinity of Jesus, in some cases going even so far as to invent Old Testament prophecies that never even existed in order to claim them fulfilled. Religious texts pose special problems for historians, as they rarely have any obligation to historical veracity. That is not why they were written. Gosh... where does one start? Do you want me to catalog the history of persecution of "heretics" (read, non-Pauline Christians) by the Paulines stretching all the way to the Albigensian Crusades in the 13th century? Do I need to point out that the Nicene Creed is a point by point attack on competing Gnostic Christianity? Okay... try some of these: There you go. A handful of references that you might find edifying. The historical Jesus is irrelevant to Christendom. He wrote not a word of the scriptures. He is certainly not the primary theologian of Christianity (that falls firmly to Paul). And he almost certainly actually performed only the tiniest number of the acts attributed to him in by Gospels... if any. How does one avoid being "vague" when one is asserting there was no effect at all? You have to remember, we have written histories from that time. We have archeological artifacts in the forms of coins, and inscriptions, and texts. There is within them no sign of Jesus having had any effect on the "the Jewish hierarchy and of the Roman rule." His existence made no more difference than a tossed stone makes on the surface of the sea. What is clear is that the Gospels cannot be true. They simply do not conform with Roman history and Roman law. The prayer box is essentially meaningless regarding of the historicity of Jesus. Nobody is asserting that there was no early Christianity. And it simply bad luck for your position that early Christian artifacts are so scarce... but again, no surprise since it was not yet an important faith.
It frankly is no more intellectually honest to say that Jesus walked the earth than it is intellectually honest to say that he didn't. Neither position can be proven, therefore, if intellectual honesty is your goal, you should just be asking others to agree that his physical existance can neither be proven or disproven. Somehow I don't think that is your goal though.
Surely the best thing to do, if you think that, is to consult a professional historian? The writers who state that Jesus walked the earth do so because that is what the evidence says. They are of all religions and none, educated and not. But those who claim that no such person existed, also claim that there is no evidence on the subject. That second claim by itself makes the utter certainty with which they make their claim rather curious. And unlike the first group, which contains atheists and Christians and other, all of those in the second group belong to anti-Christian groups. They are also generally conspicuous for their lack of education in ancient history. Nor are there lacking among them those who make comments such as "we are going to destroy your Jesus". And ... once we observe all this, is it not rather evident that claiming Jesus never existed is a debating tactic? Imagine we sought to run the Moslems around. Wouldn't the simplest way to do so be to simply deny Mohammed existed, or something like that? We wouldn't have to prove our claim; we could just sit there and wait while they tried to find evidence that he did. Then whatever they produced, we could just dismiss as biased, or, if we couldn't dismiss it, we could simply increase the level of proof we demanded. They couldn't possibly win, since "winning" would involve convincing us of something we didn't really doubt but found convenient to pretend we did for polemical reasons. And, while they ran around, they wouldn't be able to discuss the real evidence for their religion or whatever with us. Effectively we neuter the whole debate by side-tracking it. Of course that tactic would be very dishonest. But are we quite sure that some people wouldn't do it, if they found it convenient? Or that others wouldn't believe them, if they in turn found it convenient to do so? But of course everyone is at liberty to follow whichever side on this they prefer. You must excuse me, however, if I decline to go further into that "debate". All the best, Roger Pearse
I am saying that none of the documents of the New Testament were written as historical texts. They are instead uniformly highly evolved theological statements of faith meant to serve the purpose of propaganda and apologetics. They are evangelical in nature... arguments for a particular sectarian point of view. They are not unreliable for the purpose they were created to serve. But they are hopelessly unreliable as history. Such a paragraph can only be written by someone who has somehow managed to completely avoid the last several centuries of Biblical textual scholarship. It is by this point only the most dogmatic and fundamentalist of Christians who adhere to the view that the authors of most New testament texts are reliably identified. The assignment of most are tradition, and often cannot even be defended by the texts themselves. All four of them are actually anonymous. You offer here a pathetic Hobson's choice. Why specify "ancient" sources, other than because you are deliberately trying to parse your way to a rhetorical score rather than address the substance offered? No, Roger. The fact that ancient sources on Christianity have been ruthlessly gleaned by centuries of orthodox Christian effort makes your challenge here little more than an example of the success of Christian suppression of opposing ideas. Had some forward thinking gnostics not buried their library for protection at Nag Hammadi, we would have almost no real view into the diversity of the early Christian Church other than the attacks and insults thrown at them by the Church fathers. Your brave admission here that the synoptic gospels used other sources at least acknowledges that the Gospels are not generally first hand accounts. Why should you believe me? Why... read the new testament yourself. From whom comes the concept of "original sin?" Who in his letters turned the Jews into the villains of the passion story rather then Romans (of which he was one by citizenship)? Who invented the idea of Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin? Who turned Jesus from the Jewish Messiah into Savior of the World? Who shifted the emphasis of Christianity from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom? Who enlarged the chosen people to include anyone that accepted Jesus as Saviour? Who made salvation a matter of belief in Jesus almost regardless of the demands of the Torah? Who established a hierarchy (literally a holy order) to create and control a Church and more importantly to create and control the beliefs of its membership? These are all the contributions of Paul, not of Jesus. It is eclectic, certainly. But not random. And to the extent that they are in disagreement with Christian dogma, only that would label them as anti-Christian. My primary attitude towards Christianity is gratefulness that modern Christians are much worse Christians than Modern Muslims are Muslims. It is simply an historical fact that the only nation ever converted to Christianity without bloodshed is Ireland. Again, you (along with Felicity) seem intent on misrepresenting my position. I do not claim that the sources are unreliable for the purpose they were written. I claim that they are unreliable as history, because they were never written for the purpose of recording history. Hours? You must be a very slow typist. To bad nobody else seemed to notice. Certainly neither the Jews nor the Romans did. They left not a hint about such disruptions anywhere. I have read that now four times, and all I can divine is that you are offended. But I cannot help you. Christianity is absolutely a syncretic faith, combining Judaism with Hellenistic and later Roman Paganism. This can be demonstrated by such wide ranging features of the faith as the holidays it celebrates, the similarities between the passion and Greek Mystery cults, and even the Pope's title of Pontifex Maximus... a position preveiously held by Julius Caesar among others. This syncreticsism is originally another of Paul's contributions. No.
Um, I am unable to discern any practical difference between "There are very good reasons... for not taking them at face value. ... Their value as historical documents is more tendentious" and "dismissing historical documents out of hand because you don't like what they say". What is the difference? And, isn't your whole post more or less dedicated to finding reasons not to use the testimony of the Gospels? Baffled. Incidentally your post repeatedly made vague claims to academic authority in this. Can I ask that you footnote claims of this kind when you make them? I'm not sure, given the kind of sources you quote, that you read academic authors, you see. If so, it would be better not to make claims of this kind. Is there cross-purposes here? I.e. are you asserting that the literary corpus of Caesar and Cicero is typical of most "figures of antiquity"? If not, I'm not quite sure how your comments are relevant. And ... I'm not quite sure how we could defend your objection to what was said. That "most figures of antiquity" are scantily recorded could be verified by a glance at any prosopography, surely? But ... do you only believe in people who come with the literary output of Cicero? If so, why? (I don't want to bamboozle readers, so I should explain that a prosopography is a published handlist of people living in a period with the references to them, used so that academics can keep the various people with the same names straight in their minds). Is this not "dismissing out of hand" "every shred of the NT"? If not, how is it different, in practical terms, from so doing? Do you feel we can ignore ancient evidence, if we can just label it in advance "religious propaganda and apologetics"? If so, how is this different to prejudice? But moving on to your claim: can you say what primary sources demand this surely rather extreme claim? Are you sure? From time to time, I see people online deny that the New Testament says Jesus is divine, and Christians generally struggle rather to rebut the claim. This suggests, surely, that, far from "much of it" being written to prove the divinity of Jesus, it rather emphasises his humanity. Considering the rise of docetism at the back end of the 1st century, that is understandable. The technical term for this kind of argument is "special pleading", if I remember correctly. It's actually not an argument at all, but a game with words. This type of argument reduces to "all texts that I call religious are unreliable; I don't want to consider these texts are reliable; I shall call the 'religious' and then I can ignore them." But surely we should never use labels as a method to ignore data; but as a means to understand them? And again, I have to point back to your first comment: aren't you here making an argument to dismiss texts "out of hand"? If not, how so? But where are the "specific historical references"? Now I'm not sure why you reference the Albigensians? How is this relevant to a discussion of events prior to AD 313? We all know that men acting in the name of religion have done ghastly things in past centuries; almost as bad, indeed, as men acting in the name of atheism in the last 30 years. But the relevance of this is not clear to me. Your rhetorical threat -- it can hardly be anything else! -- to 'catalogue the history of persecution of "heretics"' is curious. Do you know the origins of the term "heretic"? Are you denying that those who took their doctrines from Zeno or Heracleitus were such? And ... are you not aware that, prior to AD 313, the Christian church was an illegal organisation which had no power to persecute anyone? I am also quite interested in this claim that the Nicene creed is a "point by point attack on competing Gnostic Christianity". Can you produce some ancient evidence for this? I don't believe that gnosticism was of any importance by that period; and the Nicene creed was certainly drawn up to rebut Arianism, not gnosticism, as all the accounts of the period tell us. I'm not sure precisely why we should consider this woman as any kind of authority -- would you explain why we should? Anyone can write a book, if so minded. But I have a number of questions about this quote. Firstly, it is unreferenced in any of its claims. But there is worse. * The statement about Theodoret (not Theodore!) is quite wrong. Theodoret removed 200 copies of the Diatessaron -- a harmony of the 4 gospels -- and replaced them with the "separated" 4 gospels. * The first sentence is an opinion, and is actually false. * The second deliberately misrepresents what Irenaeus says. * The third sentence is correct, but misleading. And why shouldn't the Christians draw up lists of genuine texts, when the forgery of "gospels" is an activity which continues to our own time? * As for "By prohibiting and burning any other writings, the Catholic Church eventually gave the impression that this Bible and its four canonized Gospels represented the only original Christian view" ... um. Well, if we look in the early Christian writers, we quickly discover that the reason that there are only four gospels in the bible, is that only four have any documentable connection with the apostles. We also discover that forgery is a problem, which they meet with canons of authentic books. I'm really not sure how any of that is unreasonable. * Finally... how is any of this *evidence* of "persecution of heretics"? Do you see why your "quote" is rather unfortunate for your position? It is ignorant, malicious, and unbalanced. I'm afraid that they seem to be polemicists. May I suggest that it's generally best to verify the claims of authors to authority, before quoting them? I'm afraid that convenience will lead us into these kinds of difficulties, where we rely on people like this, undeserving of our confidence.
hA-Ha! Your long-windedness met a taker and found someone with the wherewithal to wade through all your hoo-haa and put it in its proper place.
But ... do you know what the ancient sources say about NT origins? What ancient sources do you use, that tell you so? Or is this modern imagination? I take it, sadly, that you don't know of any evidence for your claim. If so, without meaning to be rude, surely it would be wisest to be rather less certain about it? Perhaps I was unclear! Sorry! Here I was asking you for evidence for your claim. Is that a problem? As far as I know, no ancient source records how the texts came to be buried there, although a couple of Coptic texts record some interesting and possible related statements. Would you say how do you know that gnostics buried them? I think you need to be more sceptical of your "source" (and could you say where you get this from?). Nothing in the NHL justifies these comments, you know; the Fathers make clear the presence of the heretics, and indeed there will always be people who want to stick the word "Christian" onto whatever the people who control the social agenda of their times want people to do and say. I don't think it does! I'm afraid you've read more into what I wrote than I actually said here. I would certainly consider the NT as a reliable source on the authorship of the epistles (among others). But ... do you? If not, how can your argument be valid? Ah. I think perhaps we've lost context here: this doesn't seem to be the point at issue? Not sure why you suppose malice! I'm reading what you write. Your position is one of debunking the gospels as a source -- we're not discussing theology but history here --, and I don't honestly see quite why you deny it. Could you explain to me what the *practical* difference is between your position and that which is attributed to you? Are the *words* important? I'm sorry if I was unclear. Let me break it down. * Christians today are not syncretic. * Christians today are hostile to paganism and such things. * Those who hate them like to find ways to taunt them. * So they pretend that early Christianity was syncretic and borrowed bits from paganism. * This is designed to wind up Christians who are hostile to paganism. * But if Christians were actually NOT hostile to paganism, they wouldn't worry about it. * In which case, the accusation would have no point, and no purpose. * After all, Christian-haters do not generally go around jeering "Christians worship Christ!" because to do so serves no purpose. What I'm saying is that this type of argument bears within it evidence that it is untrue. It wouldn't be made at all, were it true, because it wouldn't matter. Hope that helps. We need to be wary of specious arguments, especially if we agree with them. Of course none of my arguments are ever specious... Such a response rather confirms my statement. People who believe in (e.g.) Islam don't need to dodge. Think for yourself, hey? All the best, Roger Pearse
My quote: It frankly is no more intellectually honest to say that Jesus walked the earth than it is intellectually honest to say that he didn't. I do not know any professional historians who have chimed in on this. But feel free to enlighten me. If there is a credible historian who is stating his opinion I would be interested. But my answer still stands to the OP
I think perhaps what I said came across wrongly here. What I meant is that I couldn't think of a reason why you should believe me, whatever I said. On the other hand, you'd got hold of a view that I happen to know no professional ancient historians share. Now you don't know me. Your mistake doesn't do either of us any good. So how do I help you? I rather supposed that you were a student, and so probably had a professor of ancient history hanging around somewhere local. My thought was to just send him an email and ask for an appointment and ask him face-to-face what the consensus of his discipline was. Short of that, do a JSTOR search. But of course none of this may be true. Sorry if so. I'm afraid I didn't see this -- I came in on the Mithras issue. All the best, Roger Pearse
BULL! If you actually read that page you would see two translation of the same text! ...to such an extent that as I understand at one time the priest of that mitred god [Mithras] was accustomed to say, "the mitred god himself also was a Christian." (Geden) ... So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian. (ANF) not the priest! Pilleatus is Mithra.
Here it is again - "And this is a great thing to see in the whole world, the lion vanquished by the blood of the Lamb: members of Christ delivered from the teeth of the lions, and joined to the body of Christ. Therefore some spirit or other contrived the counterfeit that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race was at some time to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ. So much so, my brethren, that those who seduce by means of amulets, by incantations, by the devices of the enemy, mingle the name of Christ with their incantations: because they are not now able to seduce Christians, so as to give them poison they add some honey, that by means of the sweet the bitter may be concealed, and be drunk to ruin. So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian. Why so, brethren, unless that they were not able otherwise to seduce Christians?" (ANF) Saint Augustine Tractatus in Joh. Evang. VII, 6. Augustine (early 5th century A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii, p.59} A page of Mithra quotes. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/#Tertullian
You know perfectly well there was variation, and now both are used. No, actually it doesn't. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/#Tertullian Actually "Mithras" LOL, is associated with lions. However this is neither here nor there in this discussion. again- not CULTS. and Not so. They are specific - and only Mithras fits well enough to be called a "counterfit!" Also - as any Jew can tell you - there is no prophecy of Iesous Christos in the OT. Again - or Mithras - as that is whom he is discussing, and he is associated with lions. You are not going to change this to "cults!" He is discussing ONE! Not so! Yes Christos can be found in other texts, however, Mithras (named here) is called such, and his followers also a form of the word - just as with Christians. Again - he is talking about ONE "counterfit" (meaning copy) which only Mithras fits and his title is used! LOL, proves my point above - not yours. Pilleatus/Mithras was called Christos. LOL, I'm thinking they were saying - This is the real Christos - you Christians are trying to supplant him! We were first. I might add, as they did with many pagan Gods - Christianity turned them into saints - taking over their holidays, etc. LOL! I don't! Pagans have been around longer then Judaism, and many have pointed out the Hebrew incorporation of Pagan ideas, from Egypt, and other captivities, etc, as well as later Christians incorporating such. Like YHVH the Sun God. As has already been pointed out - he isn't "trying to claim"- he had those titles already - which is why they call him the "counterfit." Obviously. You are the one braking this up to try and make Mithra NOT before. But it is one unit about Mithras. This makes it very clear he was before - ""Therefore some spirit or other contrived the COUNTERFEIT that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race WAS AT SOME TIME to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ." This very clearly connects him to Jesus, "counterfit," this god's religion looks the same - and being before. Yes it is in other places, and I'm not going searching for them - AS I DON"T HAVE TO - it is in the text we are discussing. "mingle the name of Christ with their incantations:" - they pray, ask, etc, using Christos! And the end - the Priest of Mithras - "So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian." BULL! It is in the text you are trying to break up to say something else! Again bull! See above. We have a text with all of it together. Again - You are trying to break it up, inserting your ideas about those BROKEN UP bits - and trying to MAKE IT say something else. We are not discussing those - we are discussing a text that shows the Mithras Cult had many elements, that LATER, are connected with Iesous, BEFORE Iesous, - and therefore the clergy made up a story about the devil/demon knowing about Iesous in advance and creating a COUNTERFIT before him, to confuse Christians.
I think that I would go with the ANF -- Geden's translations are good, but perhaps a little loose. All the best, Roger Pearse
We must be at cross-purposes; the Augustine quote doesn't say that Mithras predates Jesus. Indeed it isn't clear that "Pilleatus" refers to Mithras rather than Attis, say. (I did a longer post on this a few posts back -- shout if you didn't see it and I'll see if I can find the link). All the best, Roger Pearse
It is well known that there were christians in that part of the roman empire 1400 years ago. I am not sure what your point is.
That's not very nice. Indeed I notice various points at which you wrote as if in a rage. It's generally a good idea to hold off posting, when you feel that strongly. Persian Mitra and Roman Mithras are not the same, despite early modern hypotheses to this effect. The archaeology discovered over the last century made this clear. I can say more about this if it would be useful, but I know the forum software limits the length of a post. Um, I posted a link to the full text, and you responded with a link to a page of excerpts. The only reason I can think that you would do this, is that you weren't really reading what I wrote, and presumed I was *asking* you for the context, rather than about to give it myself. Reading your response further confirms this; instead of following my argument, you just inject random disagreements and reiterations. I presume you were in a hurry. I think perhaps you might want to reread my post and respond in slower time. I was making a careful argument, based on reading what Augustine said in the whole chapter, not just the quote. Just flashing some quick disagreement with whatever catches your eye doesn't do your argument any good at all. This text does not name Mithras; the word is "Pilleatus". Do you want to look at the Latin? Better not to state it as fact, until we have evidence for it. FYI I don't think it's true -- you've been tangoed by some low-grade atheist source, I would guess, who never checked it either. There's a lot of this about, in truth. You probably wonder why I bang on about "ancient sources", but these kinds of urban legends are why. Once you've seen a few of them, and researched a few and found them untrue, you quickly discover that the best way to get rid of them is to ask where the ancient source is. That gets rid of most of the crap. I've reached the point with Mithras at which I believe *nothing* unless I see the data that is supposed to justify some conclusion or other. You wouldn't *believe* how unreliable the general printed books are. All the best, Roger Pearse
Darlin' there is a link to the original source in context to the Augustinian quote. There is no link for the second translation and the link does not include the second translation. Are we to assume, then, that the second translation is unreliable? I THINK SO. Roger has politely warned you concerning good scholarship. I suggest you heed that advice. I asked you to substantiate that claim. If it is so obvious, it should be easy. One link, a few sentences--not some convoluted justification based on myriad false assumptions and "similarities."
Franz Cumont says that Augustine is referencing Mithras--Augustine himself is not. SCHOLARSHIP MATTERS.
I think he may well have done, however archaeological finds from 500 years after his death don't prove that he did, and nor do they prove that he was the son of God..... any more than any other human being is.
Some people deny he existed--deny the evidence. As for whether you believe in his being the Son of God or not--that's a different set of criteria and a different mode of scholarship. That's why I'm addressing only his existence as a real person--not his divine being.
which is fine - but archaeological evidence showing there were christians in Jerusalem 500 years after his death, which is already well known, does not prove that he existed.
