Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:We have exactly one textual source, dating from the early 6th century to a couple of lines from the OT....or, which could have later been incorporated in the OT. This find is the silver scroll found by Gabe Barkay in 1979.

I actually thought of the silver scroll when I was writing that. The full text of the silver scroll is "The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace." which is known as the priestly blessing. The question is was that a part of the bible or simply a common blessing in the region which was added at a far later date. As such I don't think we can really class it as a bible fragment.

There is strong evidence that (in fact it is certain) the christian messiah is an extension of the hebrew messiah who was written about and taught about since the beginning of the jewish identity at least 600BCE and in the view of some scholars even as early as 1200BCE. (The first messianic prophecy: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." )

But there is no evidence at all that the OT was written at these times. Archaeology has not found any evidence of even proto-Israelites prior to Iron Age I. The only evidence for any of the OT stories is the OT itself.... Using that as a standard I can prove that any novel ever written is "factual."

Archaeology shows that the so-called "cities" of Iron Age Canaan were actually administrative centers. A palace for the king or governor, some warehouses, maybe some stables, but no temples.
To find ruins of temples we need to go to the Philistines (who were Greek) or the Phoenicians who pre-date the Canaanites.

It would be one thing to cite the OT as a source if the archaeology backed it up. But it doesn't. 200 years of digging in Egypt has not uncovered the slightest evidence of any Israelite "bondage" or "exodus." 150 years of archaeology in Jerusalem has not only failed to uncover any evidence of a 10th century empire centered on Jerusalem but has shown that 10th century Jerusalem was a minor little hill town. Archaeologist, David Ussishkin, has gone so far as to suggest that Jerusalem was unoccupied during the period in question.

Forum Monk wrote:We need to clear the air about something. As I've already said, there were many religions which had mysteries, secrets, christ-like figures, dying and resurrecting gods, so on and so on. But they are not the same religion and there is no evidence that because they contained similar elements they are connected or devolved from one another. This is simply not true.

Why not?

Forum Monk wrote: There is strong evidence that (in fact it is certain) the christian messiah is an extension of the hebrew messiah who was written about and taught about since the beginning of the jewish identity at least 600BCE and in the view of some scholars even as early as 1200BCE. (The first messianic prophecy: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." )

There is no historical evidence for such a person and every indication against. So if they invented the story, they would have just made him fit the bill...which is what many believe they did, because they were probably Gnostics using the story as a teaching tool.

The fact that the Christian Christ is strikingly different (i.e. the suffering servant, sacrifical lamb) has nothing to do whatever with gnostic principles of intiations or divine spark or the dying god-man of other religions.

Why? How? Why we should we believe that? Please make a case for this. Blind belief is not sufficient.

Forum Monk wrote: It is was one of the greatest mysteries revealed by Paul. The Wisdom of God was not Sophia or any goddess, it was an attribute revealed in Christ and Christ himself was the mystery hidden from the ages. None of the attributes of Christ are dreamed up or made up or passed on or borrowed from other cultures. They can all be found in the hebrew scriptures. Period. The great mystery that Paul received was the revelation, that christ had been in the hebrew writings all along.

Why? How do you know this, when others including professors of religion can at least make a case for it being otherwise? What is your basis for saying this?

Forum Monk wrote: Lets review:
1. Christ came in the flesh and lived, died and resurrected. Gnostics do not believe this - flesh is evil
2. Christ has redeemed people by his blood and people are saved by faith in who he is and what he has done - gnostics believe salvation comes from attaining sufficient secret knowledge.
3. Christ is the creator - gnostics believe the evil demuriage is the creator
4. Christ is seated at the right hand of the father - gnostics believe the goddess Sophia is at god's right hand
5. The name of Christ is above all names - gnostics honor Sophia.
6. Christ is co-equal with god - gnostics believe christ is a conduit to god and do not equate him with god.
7. Salvation is can not be attained by ritual, obedience, initiation, lawfulness, goodness or any thing man does, it is a free gift from god - gnostics believe one most attain salvation through learning, rituals, meditations, basically some kind of works.
8. Christ is worthy of all honor, glory and praise - I not sure what the gnostics believe about this.

You’re viewing this from the wrong end of the telescope. You are comparing what Christianity has become now to what Gnosticism has become now. This is a false argument. The demiurges and archons and so on are just metaphors that were used to make a deeper point. You are comparing one literal present day religion to another present day religion whose characters are not literal but you don’t understand what they actually represent, and you’ve come up with a complete dog’s dinner.

Forum Monk wrote: There is so much significant disparity between the beliefs of the two groups, to claim one emerged from the other is wishful thinking and really not even necessary, unless the purpose is to somehow discredit or diminish the beliefs of a significant group of people.

To say its wishful thinking is insulting to the detailed evidence that has been presented here, especially as you have barely provided any.

Gnosticism doesn't diminish Christianity in any way, and that is not its purpose. In fact, it legitimises it, by showing that it has a deeper substance and dimension - and that what we’ve been told to believe thus far is just half the story of a much greater, fuller one.

If anything, it was Literal Christianity that tried and definitely had an agenda to diminish to the point of extinction Gnosticism. If it was so different, do you not wonder why they felt so threatened by it?

Forum Monk wrote:We need to clear the air about something. As I've already said, there were many religions which had mysteries, secrets, christ-like figures, dying and resurrecting gods, so on and so on. But they are not the same religion and there is no evidence that because they contained similar elements they are connected or devolved from one another. This is simply not true.

Really? What evidence do you have for the above statement? I've offered you evidence that even the early Christian leaders like Clement and Origen thought of Christianity as being like the mystery religions.

Forum Monk wrote:There is strong evidence that (in fact it is certain) the christian messiah is an extension of the hebrew messiah who was written about and taught about since the beginning of the jewish identity at least 600BCE and in the view of some scholars even as early as 1200BCE. (The first messianic prophecy: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." )

Actually this is not true at all. The Hebrew Messiah is always represented as an earthly King not a spiritual savior. In fact the only King that the OT ever actually names as a Messiah is Cyrus, the Persian king.

As to reading a messianic prophecy into Gen 3:15 that's a pretty far reach. The funny part is that the whole 'crush your head strike his heel' motif comes from the Egyptian Book of the Dead (the Set, Osirus, Thoth saga) and even further suggests the late authorship of the OT.

Forum Monk wrote:The fact that the Christian Christ is strikingly different (i.e. the suffering servant, sacrifical lamb) has nothing to do whatever with gnostic principles of intiations or divine spark or the dying god-man of other religions. It is was one of the greatest mysteries revealed by Paul. the Wisdom of God was not Sophia or any goddess, it was an attribute revealed in Christ and Christ himself was the mystery hidden from the ages. None of the attributes of Christ are dreamed up or made up or passed on or borrowed from other cultures. They can all be found in the hebrew scriptures. Period. The great mystery that Paul received was the revelation, that christ had been in the hebrew writings all along. Lets review:

Could be but the greater probability is that the same underlying beginnings of the Hebrew bible was the basis of Gnosticism. This makes more sense because the entire region was a part of the Persian Empire under which all of these beliefs developed.

Forum Monk wrote:1. Christ came in the flesh and lived, died and resurrected. Gnostics do not believe this - flesh is evil

You are forgetting figures like Julius Caesar and Pythagoras who were definitely real people. You are also forgetting that Christ as a 'real' figure had to be declared so by the Council of Nicea precisely because of the Gnostic belief that he wasn't.

Forum Monk wrote:2. Christ has redeemed people by his blood and people are saved by faith in who he is and what he has done - gnostics believe salvation comes from attaining sufficient secret knowledge.

Again this is a later declaration and has little to do with early beliefs. At best you have assumed this.

Forum Monk wrote:3. Christ is the creator - gnostics believe the evil demuriage is the creator

Actually untrue on many levels. Christ is supposedly the son of the creator to most Christians. Some Gnostics see the demiurge as the creator but most see the demiurge as a corruptor if the creator's corruption, much as you see the devil.

Forum Monk wrote:4. Christ is seated at the right hand of the father - gnostics believe the goddess Sophia is at god's right hand
5. The name of Christ is above all names - gnostics honor Sophia.

Again you are making some assumptions that simply belie the facts. Not all Gnostics believe in Sophia. In fact most Christian Gnostics take the logos (of which Sophia is a personification) to be Christ.

Forum Monk wrote:6. Christ is co-equal with god - gnostics believe christ is a conduit to god and do not equate him with god.

Actually quite a few Christians don't equate him with God either, that was another declaration of the Council of Nicea not a reflection of Christian beliefs.

Forum Monk wrote:7. Salvation is can not be attained by ritual, obedience, initiation, lawfulness, goodness or any thing man does, it is a free gift from god - gnostics believe one most attain salvation through learning, rituals, meditations, basically some kind of works.
8. Christ is worthy of all honor, glory and praise - I not sure what the gnostics believe about this.

Both of these are merely declarations on your part. Since evidence for them is impossible I suggest they have little value in the discussion.

Forum Monk wrote:There is so much signficant disparity between the beliefs of the two groups, to claim one emerged from the other is wishful thinking and really not even necessary, unless the purpose is to somehow discredit or diminish the beliefs of a significant group of people.

Again the evidence is lacking for this statement. Even if I discount the difference between modern Christianity and 1st century Christians the theology is so loaded with Gnostic concepts as to be right at home in that millieu

Forum Monk wrote:In a previous post, seeker asked how do we know Paul and Peter taught the same christ and I am sure he was begging the question, about the authenticity of the Peter letters.

We need to only look at Paul for the answer who also explains how he came to know the truth about Christ apart from the knowledge of other men.

First I would like to apologize to everyone for this post because I realize that for some reading a fairly longish chunk of an ancient text can be tedious. Especially one from the bible but please indulge me as I make this point (you can glean the gist from the my bolded sections):

I did edit your post for brevity

You committed a common fallacy here, trying to use the bible to prove itself. Quoting Paul saying he didn't make it up is a bit like quoting Nixon saying "I am not a crook". What else do you expect him to say?

Ishtar, the excellence of your case is based on your own beliefs regardless of how you came upon them. You will dismiss hebrew and christian texts because you find some scholar somewhere disputing their authenticity or assumed dates and yet cling to early dating of Nag Hammadi texts inspite of the fact that very few knowing scholars will. All of your own evidence points to a late consolidation of gnosticsim, 200 to 300 CE. Thomas was written early but later was "gnostified" in much the same way you claim certain christian texts were "de-gnostified". So you are guilty of choosing what fits your world-view. All of the evidence presented by the scholars is debatable, conjecture, disputed, full of agendas. So I have chosen to ignore it because I don't feel its necessary to dispute such matters in order to clearly prove that the two religions are unconnected.

I have repeatedly acknowledged to you the presence of similar religous elements in other cultures. I don't need to refute it. But the fact they are similar does not require they are all interconnected and a progression one to another. That is faulty reasoning in my opinion. As for all the lines and line of posts which describe the emergence and repression of gnostic beliefs by the christian church, it is off-topic. So I feel no compelling reason to pursue it. I neither dispute nor affirm the atrocities of the early christian institution. It is plainly visible in history for all to examine and draw their own conclusions.

I very clearly laid out the difference between the two religions. There is no connection. They have different beliefs. It can't be any more obvious using only the same texts you try to assert prove Paul was a gnostic. I have explained to the best of my ability the true christian beliefs without resorting to bashing or refuting gnostic beliefs. So eliminating all controversy and looking at the foundational truths of each system, the case has been made.

As for what I believe and how I came to believe what I do, it is off topic as well.

Perhaps you have found my approach to addressing the topic unsatisfactory. I apologize.

I am still willing to continue this discussion.

seeker wrote:I did edit your post for brevity

You committed a common fallacy here, trying to use the bible to prove itself. Quoting Paul saying he didn't make it up is a bit like quoting Nixon saying "I am not a crook". What else do you expect him to say?

True but in this thread, Ishtar has allowed me a few bones and Galatians is one of them.

Forum Monk wrote:Ishtar, the excellence of your case is based on your own beliefs regardless of how you came upon them. You will dismiss hebrew and christian texts because you find some scholar somewhere disputing their authenticity or assumed dates and yet cling to early dating of Nag Hammadi texts inspite of the fact that very few knowing scholars will. All of your own evidence points to a late consolidation of gnosticsim, 200 to 300 CE. Thomas was written early but later was "gnostified" in much the same way you claim certain christian texts were "de-gnostified". So you are guilty of choosing what fits your world-view. All of the evidence presented by the scholars is debatable, conjecture, disputed, full of agendas. So I have chosen to ignore it because I don't feel its necessary to dispute such matters in order to clearly prove that the two religions are unconnected.

I have repeatedly acknowledged to you the presence of similar religous elements in other cultures. I don't need to refute it. But the fact they are similar does not require they are all interconnected and a progression one to another. That is faulty reasoning in my opinion. As for all the lines and line of posts which describe the emergence and repression of gnostic beliefs by the christian church, it is off-topic. So I feel no compelling reason to pursue it. I neither dispute nor affirm the atrocities of the early christian institution. It is plainly visible in history for all to examine and draw their own conclusions.

I very clearly laid out the difference between the two religions. There is no connection. They have different beliefs. It can't be any more obvious using only the same texts you try to assert prove Paul was a gnostic. I have explained to the best of my ability the true christian beliefs without resorting to bashing or refuting gnostic beliefs. So eliminating all controversy and looking at the foundational truths of each system, the case has been made.

As for what I believe and how I came to believe what I do, it is off topic as well.

Perhaps you have found my approach to addressing the topic unsatisfactory. I apologize.

I am still willing to continue this discussion.

I think it would not be a bad idea to step back a little and take a deep breath. None of this is a personal attack on Christianity or Gnosticism or anything else, we are simply talking about evidence.

Istar has offered you evidence of the existence of Gnosticism from Pythagoras in 500CE through the Council of Nicea. There is no reason to be angry about it. Your claim that her evidence is biased should be easy to bear out if true, without any animosity. Perhaps you have some source that demonstrates that Thomas was 'gnostified' though you might also want to consider Jewish Apocrypha that is also heavily Gnostic like the Book of Enoch and probably predates Thomas by a century so.

Your assertion that the presence of similar religious elements doesn't necessarily omply common beginnings has some merit. Do you have a theory that better explains the evidence?

Forum Monk wrote:

seeker wrote:I did edit your post for brevity

You committed a common fallacy here, trying to use the bible to prove itself. Quoting Paul saying he didn't make it up is a bit like quoting Nixon saying "I am not a crook". What else do you expect him to say?

True but in this thread, Ishtar has allowed me a few bones and Galatians is one of them.

Far be it from me to deny you the bones Ishtar has given you

seeker wrote:Really? What evidence do you have for the above statement?...

And so on. Just a reference to your post.

I guess you must know more about chrsitianity than I, seeker, since you can confidently claim that much of my declarations are untrue. I guess I should address these with actual proof that I'm not making up my own brand of christianity?

As for comparing first century emerging chrstian theology to what you call "early" gnostic theology, perhaps you can tell me what the gnostics believed in the 1st century. Although I'm not sure how you can possibly do that. I am basing the beliefs of early christians on the basis of Pauls letters (the seven Ishtar has allowed). What are you basing on? (how 'bout a link or two for my edification)

I will respond more later, its a great day and I have wasted too much of it already.

Forum Monk wrote:Ishtar, the excellence of your case is based on your own beliefs regardless of how you came upon them. You will dismiss hebrew and christian texts because you find some scholar somewhere disputing their authenticity or assumed dates and yet cling to early dating of Nag Hammadi texts inspite of the fact that very few knowing scholars will. All of your own evidence points to a late consolidation of gnosticsim, 200 to 300 CE. Thomas was written early but later was "gnostified" in much the same way you claim certain christian texts were "de-gnostified". So you are guilty of choosing what fits your world-view. All of the evidence presented by the scholars is debatable, conjecture, disputed, full of agendas. So I have chosen to ignore it because I don't feel its necessary to dispute such matters in order to clearly prove that the two religions are unconnected.

My case is not based on the dating of the Nag Hammadi texts. The only one I mentioned is The Gospel of St Thomas, and I based the dating for that on the Oxyhrynchus fragments. So far I don't think that I have dated the Nag Hammadi texts at all - or certainly not to prove any point.

Which Hebrew or Christian texts have I dismissed? I am not aware of any. I dispute the history of Christianity as written by Eusebius on behalf of Constantine, as does anyone who's studied it with an open mind.

I've asked you before to tell me how Thomas could possibly have been Gnostified at a later date...but still you don't tell me. Judging from your next statement, I guess you don't believe I'm worth it.

All of the evidence presented by the scholars is debatable, conjecture, disputed, full of agendas. So I have chosen to ignore it because I don't feel its necessary to dispute such matters in order to clearly prove that the two religions are unconnected.

That's arrogant - if they're debatable, then debate them. That's what we're here for. Why should I even bother to reply to you if you're going to ignore me? I think that's just about the most insulting thing anyone could say on here.

Forum Monk wrote: I have repeatedly acknowledged to you the presence of similar religous elements in other cultures. I don't need to refute it. But the fact they are similar does not require they are all interconnected and a progression one to another. That is faulty reasoning in my opinion. As for all the lines and line of posts which describe the emergence and repression of gnostic beliefs by the christian church, it is off-topic.

What? Sorry.. how is that off topic? It is totally germaine to the case. For one thing, because of the Literalists' book burnings and slaughter of the Gnostics, there is very little evidence for us to make this case - apart from what they said about the Gnostics in their papers that were part of the repression.

Secondly, as I said in my last post, if the Gnostic religions were nothing like Christianity, why were the perceived by 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Literalists as such as threat, to the extent that they had to persecute them?

Forum Monk wrote: So I feel no compelling reason to pursue it. I neither dispute nor affirm the atrocities of the early christian institution. It is plainly visible in history for all to examine and draw their own conclusions.

I'm sorry if you found it distasteful to read about the Bogomils being roasted alive and thousands of men, women and children being indiscriminately slaughtered. I find it upsetting too, which is why I bring it up. But I'm not going to gloss over it just because it's a little uncomfortable.

Forum Monk wrote: I very clearly laid out the difference between the two religions. There is no connection. They have different beliefs. It can't be any more obvious using only the same texts you try to assert prove Paul was a gnostic. I have explained to the best of my ability the true christian beliefs without resorting to bashing or refuting gnostic beliefs. So eliminating all controversy and looking at the foundational truths of each system, the case has been made.

I repeat for what must be third time now, but somehow you can't seem to hear it. So I'll try to find another way of saying it. What Gnosticism is today is not what Gnosticism was then. What Christianity is today is not what Christianity was then. So your case doesn't stand up. You need to view it from the other end of the telescope. Discard what Eusebisu has told you and start again from the evidence. You can't make your case for historicity on texts that are not historical, i.e. the Bible texts. So please look at the historical evidence.

As for what I believe and how I came to believe what I do, it is off topic as well.

You are dog-on right it is off topic, and completely unhelpful - so why is that all we're getting from you?

Forum Monk wrote: Perhaps you have found my approach to addressing the topic unsatisfactory. I apologize.

Yes. It's not personal, Forum Monk. I like you very much as a person. But I start to get the feeling that my intelligence is being insulted when I'm making a case with scholarly references, and the other person is just telling me what they believe - and when I comment on this fact, telling me that their beliefs are off topic!

C'mon...get with the programme!

Forum Monk wrote: I am still willing to continue this discussion.

Well, then let's have a proper discussion - and no more theological pronouncements that you can' t back up please! And please don't ignore my points because you think 'they're debateable". I can't tell you how arrogant that makes you sound.

seeker wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:

seeker wrote:I did edit your post for brevity

You committed a common fallacy here, trying to use the bible to prove itself. Quoting Paul saying he didn't make it up is a bit like quoting Nixon saying "I am not a crook". What else do you expect him to say?

True but in this thread, Ishtar has allowed me a few bones and Galatians is one of them.

Far be it from me to deny you the bones Ishtar has given you

Seeker, I just thought it would be simpler when discussing whether or not Paul was a Gnostic to stick to the seven letters that most people agree are not forgeries - although there is some doubt with even some of those.

However, perhaps I should have been clearer on this, but I didn't mean that they could be used to prove the historocity of Paul or Jesus or anyone. I thought we were just using them just to show how a Gnostic interprets the teachings standing in their own right.

Pattylt posted this on another board. Interesting stuff.

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

Christianity appears to have been cut from the same fabric as pagan mythology, and some early Christians admitted it. Arguing with pagans around 150 CE, Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."[17]

If early Christians, who were closer to the events than we are, said the story of Jesus is "nothing different" from paganism, can modern skeptics be faulted for suspecting the same thing?

Her last point is excellent!

Forum Monk wrote:

seeker wrote:Really? What evidence do you have for the above statement?...

And so on. Just a reference to your post.

I asked you a legitimate question regarding your statement that there was no connection between Christianity and the mystery religions. I at least took the time to offer you detailed reasoning and evidence regarding my statements. Wouldn't a similar consideration on your part be warrented or is this the misunderstanding of Christianity that you seem to imply that I have?

Forum Monk wrote:I guess you must know more about chrsitianity than I, seeker, since you can confidently claim that much of my declarations are untrue. I guess I should address these with actual proof that I'm not making up my own brand of christianity?

That's entirely up to you FM. I grant that you are trying to explain Christianity as you understand it but there are, at this moment, thousands of denominations of Christianity and many of them are mutually exclusive. Shall we say you are right and they all wrong? Is it only the one who agree with you that have the right to be Christians?

I do know quite a bit about the bible, I've been studying it and its origins for a very long time. I have opinions about the bible and early Christianity precisely because I've looked at a lot of evidence. I'm only asking for your evidence because there could be some compelling evidence out there I'm unaware of. Don't you verify your owns theories about your beliefs by looking at evidence outside of what you already have?

Forum Monk wrote:As for comparing first century emerging chrstian theology to what you call "early" gnostic theology, perhaps you can tell me what the gnostics believed in the 1st century. Although I'm not sure how you can possibly do that. I am basing the beliefs of early christians on the basis of Pauls letters (the seven Ishtar has allowed). What are you basing on? (how 'bout a link or two for my edification)

No problem giving you links, you need only ask:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publ ... ianity.htm

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/P ... stcult.htm

http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_an ... gions.html

There are more if you want. In fact I can produce a bibliography on the subject, its pretty well studied.

Forum Monk wrote:I will respond more later, its a great day and I have wasted too much of it already.

Have fun