Archaeologica.org

I dug this out of Askwhy.com.

It's a bit of analysis and a long quote from Celsus, the 2d century writer who blasted the Christians. I have bolded the quotation:

Celsus’s complaint was that Christians would “neither reason nor listen to reason”, on the grounds that “anyone who believes people without doing so is certain to be deceived”. He compares those who believe without rational thought to the…

…begging priests of Cybele and soothsayers, and to worshippers of Mithras and Sabazius, and whatever else you might meet, apparitions of Hecate or some other “daimones”. For just as among them, scoundrels frequently take advantage of the lack of education of gullible people and lead them wherever they wish, so also this happens among the Christians. Some do not even want to give or receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as, “Inquire nothing. Believe and your faith will save you. The world’s wisdom is evil, and the world’s foolishness is insight”.

Only those who have decided in advance to believe and forbid any inquiry into such matters can believe. These are not educated people, and Christian publicists had no power over people of knowledge and learning. Christians called human wisdom folly, and had no appeal to the wise. Is it any wonder that Christianity led to the Dark Ages?

* Sabazius being a 5th century BC Thracian god whose cult spread to Athens.

All -

Christians vs Gnostics

Or vice-versa

Version xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

All I'm looking at is an interesting

Take on supposedly biblical text

By the Byrds.

Up to you to decide....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUworKXB ... re=related

And I won't even bring Twain

Into this.

There is a limit to sarcasm, after all.

Maybe.

And if you want to look at about

87 different versions of this,

The referent is Ecclesiastes 3.1

Just for textual variation.


hoka hey

john

john wrote: And if you want to look at about

87 different versions of this,

The referent is Ecclesiastes 3.1

Just for textual variation.


hoka hey

john

The lyrics are great, John. But as I understand it, apart from that, the rest of Ecclisiastes is not at all Gnostic and more about morality.

'Course, I could be wrong ... but that's my take on it.

Minimalist wrote:I dug this out of Askwhy.com.

It's a bit of analysis and a long quote from Celsus, the 2d century writer who blasted the Christians. I have bolded the quotation:

Celsus’s complaint was that Christians would “neither reason nor listen to reason”, on the grounds that “anyone who believes people without doing so is certain to be deceived”. He compares those who believe without rational thought to the…

…begging priests of Cybele and soothsayers, and to worshippers of Mithras and Sabazius, and whatever else you might meet, apparitions of Hecate or some other “daimones”. For just as among them, scoundrels frequently take advantage of the lack of education of gullible people and lead them wherever they wish, so also this happens among the Christians. Some do not even want to give or receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as, “Inquire nothing. Believe and your faith will save you. The world’s wisdom is evil, and the world’s foolishness is insight”.

Only those who have decided in advance to believe and forbid any inquiry into such matters can believe. These are not educated people, and Christian publicists had no power over people of knowledge and learning. Christians called human wisdom folly, and had no appeal to the wise. Is it any wonder that Christianity led to the Dark Ages?

* Sabazius being a 5th century BC Thracian god whose cult spread to Athens.

Min, am I reading this right? Is this another example of Christians being confused with more Gnostic types?

seeker wrote:The why of it is always going to be speculation. Certainly we're unlikely to ever find anything that spells it out for us after a millennium of Christian cover-ups.

What makes Christianity unique is their intolerance, they were unwilling to be a part of the greater 'salvation cult' culture. i think that drive to paint themselves as unique is what pushed them into literalism. Early on I think they realized that they could more easily get a following of the intellectually lazy by pairing their religion down to a literal message that didn't have to be studied or even really fully understood. That's why they started pushing the notion of belief over works.

But I wonder what was driving this idea of literalism, given that Polycarp was pushing a Literal message in the earliest second century?

I think it's all too easy for us to look at power mongers today and then extropolate their motives back to apply them that time. It isn't always that way ... sometimes, there are other factor at play. Also, power mongers today tend to feed off existing mythologies (I'm using that word in its broadest sense). They don't tend to create them.

Anyway, it's interesting to speculate, isn't it!

I think that is absolutely right, Ish. Consider these quotations from Celsus (saved from the fires of xtian thugs by Origen so he could "refute" them.)

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".

"Let's assume for a minute that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolxis, Pythagoras' servant, convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead... and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy! -or Rhampssinitus in Egypt. The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her. Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesiaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus."

Celsus was writing c 180 AD which is the time of Irenaeus not Origen. But Celsus does tell us in these two quotes that even in his time there were serious quarrels among xtians as to what was meant by xtian doctrine AND he tells us that the Greco-Romans knew that xtianity was a pale copy of earlier tales.

Finally, this quote from Celsus:

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumours about the true and unsavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

Not only does it show that Celsus was aware of the literalist school of thought he mentions this tale which, centuries later, ended up in the Talmud.

While hunting around for Celsus' quotes I have learned that a scholar has re-created (to the extent possible) Celsus' writing by extracting it from Origen's "Contra Celsus." The book is available and if you'll excuse me I have to go back to Amazon.com for a moment.

Minimalist wrote:I think that is absolutely right, Ish. Consider these quotations from Celsus (saved from the fires of xtian thugs by Origen so he could "refute" them.)

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".

It sounds like a certain other forum I know!

"Let's assume for a minute that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolxis, Pythagoras' servant, convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead... and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy! -or Rhampssinitus in Egypt. The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her. Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesiaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus."

All of this is a complete misunderstanding of what the metaphor of, say, playing dice with Demeter in Hades means. So he is a Literalist and we are already in Literalist times.

Minimalist wrote: Celsus was writing c 180 AD which is the time of Irenaeus not Origen. But Celsus does tell us in these two quotes that even in his time there were serious quarrels among xtians as to what was meant by xtian doctrine AND he tells us that the Greco-Romans knew that xtianity was a pale copy of earlier tales.


Finally, this quote from Celsus:

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumours about the true and unsavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

Not only does it show that Celsus was aware of the literalist school of thought he mentions this tale which, centuries later, ended up in the Talmud.

While hunting around for Celsus' quotes I have learned that a scholar has re-created (to the extent possible) Celsus' writing by extracting it from Origen's "Contra Celsus." The book is available and if you'll excuse me I have to go back to Amazon.com for a moment.

This is good stuff, Min! Thanks.

The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her.

My impression of that line is that Celsus thinks that even the pagan story is complete horseshit. Celsus seems to have been a Platonist, and a certain reverence towards "reason" comes across in his work as does his scorn of "faith" which requires no reasoning.

Celsus is a guy I would like to have had a beer with.

Minimalist wrote:

The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her.

My impression of that line is that Celsus thinks that even the pagan story is complete horseshit. Celsus seems to have been a Platonist, and a certain reverence towards "reason" comes across in his work as does his scorn of "faith" which requires no reasoning.

Celsus is a guy I would like to have had a beer with.

Yeah, except that Plato talked in allegory too.. for example, Plato's Ascent from the Cave from the Republic is classic gnostic initiation story.

It's about us being trapped in a human body and not realising that we are divine until we make the Ascent from the Cave.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_c ... plato.html

Plato, the most creative and influential of Socrates' disciples, wrote dialogues, in which he frequently used the figure of Socrates to espouse his own (Plato's) full-fledged philosophy. In "The Republic," Plato sums up his views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in the depths and not even aware of its own limited perspective.

The rare individual escapes the limitations of that cave and, through a long, tortuous intellectual journey, discovers a higher realm, a true reality, with a final, almost mystical awareness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists. Such a person is then the best equipped to govern in society, having a knowledge of what is ultimately most worthwhile in life and not just a knowledge of techniques; but that person will frequently be misunderstood by those ordinary folks back in the cave who haven't shared in the intellectual insight.

If he were living today, Plato might replace his rather awkward cave metaphor with a movie theater, with the projector replacing the fire, the film replacing the objects which cast shadows, the shadows on the cave wall with the projected movie on the screen, and the echo with the loudspeakers behind the screen.

The essential point is that the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it. The importance of the allegory lies in Plato's belief that there are invisible truths lying under the apparent surface of things which only the most enlightened can grasp. Used to the world of illusion in the cave, the prisoners at first resist enlightenment, as students resist education.

But those who can achieve enlightenment deserve to be the leaders and rulers of all the rest. At the end of the passage, Plato expresses another of his favorite ideas: that education is not a process of putting knowledge into empty minds, but of making people realize that which they already know. This notion that truth is somehow embedded in our minds was also powerfully influential for many centuries.

So I'd like to have a beer with Plato!

Yeah, except that Plato talked in allegory too

Allegory is fine.....but what do you say to anyone who takes this stuff LITERALLY?

Minimalist wrote:

Yeah, except that Plato talked in allegory too

Allegory is fine.....but what do you say to anyone who takes this stuff LITERALLY?

You say...

"When you attribute to us the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth." Minucius Felix, Octavius.

In Octavius, he condemns Literalists who "choose a man for their worship."

The only thing is Minucius Felix is known as the first Christian apologist.

Ishtar wrote: But I wonder what was driving this idea of literalism, given that Polycarp was pushing a Literal message in the earliest second century?

I think it's all too easy for us to look at power mongers today and then extropolate their motives back to apply them that time. It isn't always that way ... sometimes, there are other factor at play. Also, power mongers today tend to feed off existing mythologies (I'm using that word in its broadest sense). They don't tend to create them.

Anyway, it's interesting to speculate, isn't it!

Of course I'm speculating but I think we have to look at what the Maccabees did by producing a written set of holy books. They created a whole literalist movement, it couldn't have existed before because there were no literal doctrines, everything was oral.

I think that the roots of literalism are in the Sadducee approach of only following the written word. The Sadducees did that because they knew who wrote it. That's why the traditional priests, the Pharisees, were suc a thorn in their sides. the Pharisees knew there was more than just what was written.

seeker wrote:
I think that the roots of literalism are in the Sadducee approach of only following the written word. The Sadducees did that because they knew who wrote it. That's why the traditional priests, the Pharisees, were suc a thorn in their sides. the Pharisees knew there was more than just what was written.

That sounds interesting, Seeker... but I don't know enough about this part of history to fully understand what you mean. Could you unravel this a bit?

Ishtar wrote:

john wrote: And if you want to look at about

87 different versions of this,

The referent is Ecclesiastes 3.1

Just for textual variation.


hoka hey

john

The lyrics are great, John. But as I understand it, apart from that, the rest of Ecclisiastes is not at all Gnostic and more about morality.

'Course, I could be wrong ... but that's my take on it.

Precisely, Ishtar -


The reason I chose this passage,

And the reason I chose that early video,

And the Byrds, god help them,

Too young too understand just exactly

What kind of fire they were playing with,

Is as follows.

Ecclisiastes is just about the best example

I can find

Of the faultline in which

The bicameral and/or shamanic

Was pushed down the slippery slope

To the moral/literalist.

To become permanently embedded in "Western" culture.

Nobody wants to diss Ecclisiastes,

Correct?


hoka hey

john

Ishtar wrote:

seeker wrote:
I think that the roots of literalism are in the Sadducee approach of only following the written word. The Sadducees did that because they knew who wrote it. That's why the traditional priests, the Pharisees, were suc a thorn in their sides. the Pharisees knew there was more than just what was written.

That sounds interesting, Seeker... but I don't know enough about this part of history to fully understand what you mean. Could you unravel this a bit?

By the time of the Maccabees the people who lived in Judah had been practicing a form of Zoroastrianism that their Persian rulers convinced was really the ancient belief they had all along. Their Parese (the Aramaic word for Persian) priests instructed them in all matters of religion and its observance, somewhere along the line becoming thought of as Pharisee, probably early in the Greek period to avoid being thought of by the Greeks as a bad influence.

Before the time of the Maccabees the Jewish were a few scraps of official decrees, laws and religious sayings. When the Maccabees came along and decided to begin a kingdom they created a national identity by making up stories about an 'Old Israel' and it's line of kings, linking it to the region by using the folk tales of the region and the historical annals of Egypt.

The Maccabees were priests, they already had followers but they needed the wealthy class and merchants to go along with them but one of the tenets of Zoroastrianism and thus the teaching of the Pharisee priests was that one must reject material wealth because the material world is inherently evil. That wasn't going to fly with the wealthy people that the Maccabees needed.

Simply put the OT was written in such a way as to allow the people in Judah who had wealth and power to justify keeping it by simply not mentioning some of the Pharisee principals even though those had been traditional to the beliefs people in Judah had. instead the emphasis was on obedience to God and his representatives because they were sent by God. The wealthy (oh what the heck, lets call them sons of Zadok) were excused from the prohibitions against wealth because it wasn't in the written law. The new group could enjoy the perks and benefits they got from the Greeks and the Pharisees were excluded from the process.

Of course the people still relied on their priests but the Sadducees held all the positions of power. This all happens close enough to the Roman period that I don't doubt that Roman and certainly Greek leaders knew about the subterfuge.

The Pharisees were stuck with it, they had forgotten about being Parese long ago and what was in the bible was close enough to their beliefs that they couldn't object but the Phariseees also knew that an entire set of beliefs about other aspects of Judaism, the 'oral torah' had been left out. By the time they got around to writing the Mishnah they were locked into their own denials of syncretism with christianity, Gnosticism etc.