Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote: The first century was a very complex time and things are not helped by the fact that the Romans, too, abandoned their traditional gods (at least the upper classes) for Greek philosophy and the other Mystery Cults spread among the less literate branches of society.

What do mean by 'less literate branches of society'? To be an initiate in a Mystery religion you had to be a priest or learned sage of some kind. It wasn't a religion for the great unwashed. It was for the likes of Plato and Pythagorus, who were both initiated in Egypt. Are you saying they weren't literate?

I never used the word "conspiracy" but the problem is not "missing evidence" it is "other, contradictory, evidence."

As Humphreys shows in his piece on Paul, the problem is that the actual history and artifacts of Corinth in the mid-first century do not support the idea of any major Jewish settlement in the town. It was a wet spot on the map from Mummius' destruction until Julius Caesar re-founded it as a Roman colony in 44 and then not until after 31 that things finally quieted down in Greece. That just doesn't leave a lot of time for the town to grow into what the xtians claim it was by the time "Paul" would have had to get there.

We get the same argument about 10th century Jerusalem. The OT claims it was the capital of a far-flung empire but archaeology shows that there was nothing there except a miniscule little town. The Maximalists try to argue that everything was stolen or destroyed but would they have stolen the garbage middens? Would they have stolen the bodies out of the cemeteries? Why is it that earlier Middle Bronze Age cultures are represented....hell, they have neolithic artifacts, too.... and later iron age cultures are represented but the very period that the OT swears was its peak is the one which is totally missing?

Now, if you want to talk about "conspiracies" let's start there.

Ishtar - christianity had a beginning it was not always there but called something else. It was born in the cultural centers and cities of the roman world not in some gnostic cave on the edge of the desert. Whether it borrowed elements from those beliefs which preceded it is arbitrary speculation and I can see your point how similar it is to other religions.

My contention is, christianity began life as a jewish sect build around a set of teachings of small group of men. The messiah theology these men carried forward existed before they distiquished themselves from mainstream judiaism. Am I the only one that sees that?

To be an initiate in a Mystery religion

I doubt that every Roman legionary who joined the Mithras cult aspired to be a priest. Some people are just followers.

Actually, all that Mystery Cult means is that they did not write down their doctrines but passed the information on secretly. One could argue that the RCC tried to do the same thing by retaining Latin as the official liturgical religion.

Keeps out the riff-raff.

Forum Monk wrote:Ishtar - christianity had a beginning it was not always there but called something else. It was born in the cultural centers and cities of the roman world not in some gnostic cave on the edge of the desert.

You need to support that with something - because I have just made a good case for it being born from gnostic/Mystery theology, although I didn't mention anything about a cave. I've shown how the motif of the anointing began in India and was used in exactly the same context as it was in the Greek Mystery schools. I have shown how many scholars believe that Philo of Alexandria was highly influential in the beginning of the religion, and I think you'd need to look at some of his teachings (as I have) before making any contentions.

When the Roman emperor Hadrian visited Alexandria in the first half of the second century, he found Christians who practised the local pagan mysteries of the godman Serapis and who studied Pythagorean mathematics.

When the Valentinian teacher Marcellina came to Rome, she brought with her painted icons illuminated with gold, representing Jesus, Pythagorus, Plato and Aristotle. In fact, the works of Plato (along with the Egyptian Hermes) were found among the Nag Hammadi gospels.

What was born Rome, according to my research, was Christian Literalism - but the Gnostic schools where there first, and the literalists were born out of them. The Pagan Gnostic master Plotinus who taught in Rome in the middle of the third century treats Christianity as rival school of philosophy which, like his own, had developed from the teachings of Plato.

Both Plotinus and the Christian Gnostic Origen were members of the Platonist Ammonius in Alexandria.

Forum Monk wrote: Whether it borrowed elements from those beliefs which preceded it is arbitrary speculation and I can see your point how similar it is to other religions.

With respect, and maybe it's because you are at work and so can't lay out your research, at the moment it's only you who are speculating. I am laying out a lot of detail here while you are just making unsupported contentions.

Anyway, it's late here, so I'll look forward to picking this up with you again tomorrow.

Minimalist wrote:One could argue that the RCC tried to do the same thing by retaining Latin as the official liturgical religion.

There's another more practical reason to keep the RCC liturgy in Latin. It preserves it. Many translations and versions leads to distortion at worse and at minimum, loss of meaning. We see that now in the criticism levied against the "english" translations of the Bible vs. the original hebrew and greek.

Christians don't worship Serapis or Mithris or any "other-is". If they don't worship Christ they are something other than Christians.

Minimalist wrote:

To be an initiate in a Mystery religion

I doubt that every Roman legionary who joined the Mithras cult aspired to be a priest. Some people are just followers.

Actually, all that Mystery Cult means is that they did not write down their doctrines but passed the information on secretly. One could argue that the RCC tried to do the same thing by retaining Latin as the official liturgical religion.

Keeps out the riff-raff.

You are right about them keeping out the riff raff but you couldn't just be a follower if you wanted to be initiated. There were ordeals to go through and realisations to be reached that no mere follower would understand let alone want to be bothered with.

Here's a quote that goes some way to explain this. It's from Dionysus, who is thought to have been a pupil of the Pagan Gnostic Proclus, the last master of the Platonic Academy, which the Christian emperor Justinian forcibly closed down in 529 after prestigious 1,000 year history:

According to Dionysus, there are two Christian gospels - the familiar teachings of the literalist church - and that's the one for the mere followers because nothing much, beside lip service and childish belief in fairy stories, would be required from them.

But he also says that there was a secret gospel "which is symbolic and presupposes initiation." He says the narratives and symbols of Christianity have one meaning to the uninitiated and another to the initiated:

Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from the understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous and transcendent Truth the symbols represent.

Lots of religions have "entrance exams" Ish. The Jews lop off the tip of your willy...well, the boys anyway.

No wonder the Greeks and Romans thought they were barbarians!

Forum Monk wrote:Christians don't worship Serapis or Mithris or any "other-is". If they don't worship Christ they are something other than Christians.

Nowadays ... that's true. But those that understood, who had the inner knowledge (gnosis) knew that it didn't matter which figurehead you chose, it was all the same story but just told in a different way.

The uniqueness always claimed for Christ is only by later literalist Christians.

Right, I really am going to my bed now.

Goodnight guys!

Ishtar wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:Christians don't worship Serapis or Mithris or any "other-is". If they don't worship Christ they are something other than Christians.

Nowadays ... that's true. But those that understood, who had the inner knowledge (gnosis) knew that it didn't matter which figurehead you chose, it was all the same story but just told in a different way.

The uniqueness always claimed for Christ is only by later literalist Christians.

Right, I really am going to my bed now.

Goodnight guys!

Yeah goodnight, but when you wakeup and find time, I think we need to define some terminology. I was starting to look up references but decided to wait. I was having a hard time understanding what I should I be looking for and now realize I am confused by the meaning of "christian". Unless we can agree that christianity is based on the worship of Jesus the Christ there is no way I can defend nor would I defend any variant gnostic precursor. Christianity is not worship of the messiah (whomever he/she may be) - it is the belief that Jesus as presented in the writing today known as the New Testament is the savior and anointed one. Its very specific in identifying the person of worship. In fact it is a fundamental doctrine.

This is fun!
Agnostics, atheists, Christians, shamans, all arguing various aspects of Christianity.
But, I do have a point to pick with you FM.
I consider myself a “Christian” in that I am, to the best of my ability, a follower of the Christ.
(This like the Law given to Moses, in that it is impossible to do. But you have to try.)
And I certainly agree that “Christianity” could not exist until there was a Christ to follow.
But I do not worship the Christ.
I worship his Father.
I do have to do it via the channel that was set up through the Christ, but in the end, Jesus is not God.
He is, in his own words, “the son of God.” (John 8:38 &42)
And Paul’s opinion at Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4.
It is kind of like the military’s “chain of command” that must be followed.
Everybody has a boss, and you are only allowed to talk to your immediate superior, and the message goes up until you get to the Oval Office.
Then, “The buck stops here.”
(On a side note, observe Paul’s opinion that the old Law, as given to Moses, was fulfilled and made obsolete by Christ’s death.)

(On a side note, observe Paul’s opinion that the old Law, as given to Moses, was fulfilled and made obsolete by Christ’s death.)

Sounds like you follow "Paul," kb. Your jesus is supposed to have said: ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). "

Ahh KB: I guess you forget according to Christian belief he came back. I guess that means the law was resurrected too - with a vengeance.

By the way - you forgot hedonist.

Forum Monk wrote:
Yeah goodnight, but when you wakeup and find time, I think we need to define some terminology. I was starting to look up references but decided to wait. I was having a hard time understanding what I should I be looking for and now realize I am confused by the meaning of "christian". Unless we can agree that christianity is based on the worship of Jesus the Christ there is no way I can defend nor would I defend any variant gnostic precursor. Christianity is not worship of the messiah (whomever he/she may be) - it is the belief that Jesus as presented in the writing today known as the New Testament is the savior and anointed one. Its very specific in identifying the person of worship. In fact it is a fundamental doctrine.

You are right that nowadays Christianity means the worship of someone who was born in Nazareth called Jesus the Christ. When did that begin? Probably in Rome sometime around the second and third centuries CE.

But the Gnostics - who go back much further than that - believed that the word 'Christ' did not refer to a person but a kind of consciousness that all mystics aspired to - a pure, egoless state achieved by going through the two initiations of water and fire/light. Of course, there was a lot more to this progression of egoistic to egoless than the two initiations - but that was the climax of the mystic achievement.

The fall of soul into an egoistic state is represented by the two goddesses (Psyche in Greek) - the pure, unchanging one and the lower, fallen one. In the gospel stories, these are represented by the two Marys (which is why they both have the same name - one a virgin, the other a prostitute). The crucifixion on the Cross of Light represents the second initiation stage for the character Jesus (the first water initiation being the baptism in the River Jordan by John)

The non-canonical Gospel of Philip teaches:

"You can't see yourself in water or a mirror without a light. Nor again will you able to see yourself with light but no water or mirror. Therefore it is right to baptise with both water and light. But the light is the anointing."

At the final initiation, the two goddesses merge back into one pure unsullied Christ consciousness, which is why they are both depicted at the foot of the cross, and Jesus hands over Mary Magdelene to the other Mary's safe keeping.

The cross image comes from the way back, as far back as the Siberian/Vedic horse sacrifice, where the horse was splayed on a cross over a fire (there's that fire again).

This story, with different names, has been found in many other tracts using different names and different places. There is a Samaritan one that doesn't even have its dying and resurrecting man in Jerusalem because Jerusalem would have been irrelevant to them.

So if you want to trace the beginning of Literalist Christianity - the belief in a historical Jesus who they called Jesus Christ - you are looking at Rome second and third centuries.

But if you want to get to root of the religion - what it was really about and where did it really come from - you need to study the Nag Hammadi gospels, which are the ones that didn't make it into the Literalist Christians' New Testament which was probably compiled in Rome.

And if you have any knowledge about other religions and mythologies in the area - the Canaanite, the Egyptian, the Greeks (who were highly influential in writing the Coptic gospels) - you can start see a pattern emerging and once you see that, it'll be obvious to you that the Jesus story is a mystic allegory and not historical fact.

Hope this helps.