The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.
Ishtar wrote:the fact that none of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish was my own discovery, or realisation if you like. I haven't read it anywhere else.
Probably because they are mutually exclusive categories it is assumed that it is self evident .
Not many Ponsonby -Smythes in the IRA etc .
George
Ishtar wrote:No, not many Ponsoby-Smythes in the IRA.
So if you went on to discover that the Proclamation of the Republic had been drafted by the Ponsoby-Smythes, what conclusion would that lead you to?
That either the source or the parish priest /minister had at least incorrectly recorded the surname .
Ponsonby whilst not that common is not that rare but Ponsoby is , include the hyphen Smythe and you have a real rarity , a bit like a Jewish early church father .
George
Digit wrote:The IRA was founded by Protestants George, so who knows!
Roy.
There were some protestants and a variety of nationalities in both incarnations but it was basically Irish and catholic .It's striking the number of nationalistic movements that have had "foreigners " among their founders .
I did initially say "not too many " but realistically it should have been none . Ponsoby-Smythe despite having Irish connections i.e you are as likely to come across a Ponsoby /Pownceby/Puwnseby in Ireland as anywhere else in the UK but it is not common ,unlike the more frequent Ponsonby , but sticking another hyphenated name after it even one as common as Smythe makes it a geneaologists dream search due to it's rarity .For an aside It seems to have attracted more attention than the church fathers .
In my last post, the fact that none of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish was my own discovery, or realisation if you like. I haven't read it anywhere else.
I'm guessing that you are excluding Saul/Paul and the assorted "apostles"? All of whom have as much, if not more, chance of being fictional as opposed to real. It is true though that we get a lot of Greco-Roman names showing up...although Marcion one of the earliest was from Sinope in Asia Minor not Alexandria. BTW, Sinope is right next to the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus where, as previously mentioned, Pliny the Younger had his run in with xtians in 110 AD.
Another one of those coincidences?
It seems like a long way from Judaea, no?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
In my last post, the fact that none of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish was my own discovery, or realisation if you like. I haven't read it anywhere else.
I'm guessing that you are excluding Saul/Paul and the assorted "apostles"?
The Early Church fathers succeeded the Apostolic fathers who were the generation who may have had contact with the apostles , so at least two generations after Paul.
The ECF were opposed to Mosiac law but more importantly ,also unlike the Jews , they acknowledged JC as a messiah , some may have had jewish parents , (Jerome ?) which they or their hagi/biographers would have kept quiet about .
There's a great little book called "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman which looks at the diversity of early xtian positions on this point, Dig. Positions which were later stamped out and, to the greatest extent possible, eradicated by the group which he calls proto-orthodox. Once becoming the recognized authority they then went back and re-wrote history as if they had always been there.
I have an e-copy of it. If anyone wants a copy just drop me a PM with an email address.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Thanks Min, but I am aware of that fact, ta! I was waiting to see what George had to say as the early CX church did not consider J as divine. That took fire and sword!
Messiah means 'anointed one' George, in other words, 'King!'
That was J's 'crime,' a political one. Rome genarally was not interested in local religions, but when J claimed to be 'King,' then Rome's political machine swung into top gear.
He was executed as 'King of the Jews!' thus demonstrating that Rome was more powerful than any King!
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
High Priests were anointed, too. In fact, in the Book XX of Antiquities of the Jews reference to "the one called Christ" virtually everyone mentioned in the entire paragraph except the two Roman procurators was a christos at one time or another.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
True Min, but at no point does the OT or NT suggest that J was a member of the priestly hierachy.
In the NT he is asked who he is and is told he is the Mesiah, and he agrees. He was also of the kingly house. Hence 'King of the Jews.
If his crime had not been political the Romans would have left matters to the High priests etc.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
If his crime had not been political the Romans would have left matters to the High priests etc.
That assumes that any of the story is true, though. Crucifixion was reserved for slaves and rebels. The NT does not suggest that he was a member of either group.
Then again, who "anointed" J in the first place?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Crucifixion was used for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. It was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from crucifixion (like feudal nobles from hanging, dying more honorably by decapitation) except for major crimes against the state, such as high treason.
ie, someone claiming to be King, Tiberius would not have like that at all!
That assumes that any of the story is true
Quite! But the Jewish authorities would have not been able to execute enemies of Rome, again, a King!
Theres is no reason to assume that J was physically anointed, any more than an heir apparant is crowned. I can see no other reason for crucifying J as 'King of the Jews!'
Strange how his death is blamed on the Jews as they could not have done it as 'King of the Jews!'
Mind, history has blamed us for everything!'
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:
Messiah means 'anointed one' George, in other words, 'King!'
The term Messiah ,even for Jews can also be applied to a priest Roy iirc. The jews were waiting for a messiah ,and still are , they did not accept JC as one ( initially there may have been a political component but it was mainly doctrinal ), whilst clearly the christians did ,this is one of the basic schisms between the two faiths . By the time of the early church fathers it was much bigger and had included an opposition to Mosiac law . The ECF’s were by todays standards essentially anti –semitic complete with the usual baggage of claims of deicide etc , it is unthinkable that they may have been Jews .
