Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[Minimalist]

You are right that nowadays Christianity means the worship of someone who was born in Nazareth called Jesus the Christ.

Of course archaeology indicates that there was no Nazareth before the second century AD.

[Ishtar]

Tell that to MCWASTEOFSPACE!

Monk,

You seemed to be surprised by the term ‘Jewish Gnostics’.

Perhaps you know them better as the Essenes and the Theraputae? They were all over the Mediterranean area from the late BC centuries onwards, and not just the land of the Hebrews. One of their number was the Jewish Philo of Alexandria.

The Jewish Gnostics followed the teachings of Moses as a Gnostic allegory rather than as the history of the Jews, as it’s been sold to us – with the two initiations being the crossing of the Red Sea (water) and the burning bush (fire/light).

These stories were redeveloped by the Christian Gnostics later on into the Jesus story and his two initiations in the river Jordan (water) and the crucifixion on the Cross of Light.

[Forum Monk]

Tell that to MCWASTEOFSPACE!

???

You seemed to be surprised by the term ‘Jewish Gnostics’.

Nope - not surprised at all. It is clear based on your previous explanation (thanks) the gnostic variants, I don't know what elese to call them) and christianity are not the same. The so-called literal christianity (your words) is the only christianity as far as I am concerned. Christianity by accepted definition is based on the acts and teachings of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

It was an underground movement during the first century CE and its existence was attested by Ignatius of Antioch c. 100CE (see above link). Second or third century emergence in Rome is due to changing political attitudes and better acceptance of the monotheistic religion. Christianity's own writings indicate an earlier origin c. 30AD in Jerusalem which then spread abroad especially in the wake of the first Jewish Revolt around 66CE. Maybe Min is correct, Christians were suddenly interested in diassociating from Jews but up until then, they were often considered a jewish sect.

Very early in its inception, the church divided into jewish christians and Pauline christians over disagreement about the enforcement of the Mosaic laws.

Jewish Christians eventually constituted a separate community from the Pauline Christians, adhering to the belief that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that they remained part of the Jewish community. There was a post-Nicene "double rejection" of the Jewish Christians by both Gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. It is believed that there was no direct confrontation, or persecution, between Gentile and Judaic Christianity. However, by this time the practice of Judeo-Christianity was diluted, both by internal schisms and external pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity

It should be notied at some point, the jewish leadership rejected the idea that jewish christians were jewish in religion. The made a clear distinction: christianity was NOT a jewish belief.

The differences between gnostic belief and christian belief are profound inspite of the reasoned similarities that you and others see. The Jesus of christianity is neither egoless, allegorical, or symbolic - he is a historical person of flesh and blood. This is essential to the doctirine of repudiation of sins and the bodily resurrection. Without the literal Jesus, there is no christianity.

And just for the record, I think christianity is still mainly an underground religion today. In 325 CE the practice became institutionalized and codified rituals were adopted. Most true believers today do not necessarily accept the institutions as representative of their beliefs. Just ask KB - I know he agrees.

(btw I am at work and so cannot freely browse the forum - I have limited access to certain threads)

[Ishtar]

With absolutely no proof for a historical Jesus, and every evidence for the similarity of the story across the region and authenticated texts about what it meant to these people from highly respected philosophers, you're on very shakey ground again Kenny, imho!

I'm at work too ....

[Ishtar]

And if you're basing your conclusions on the letters of Ignatius, Oh Shaking One, can I direct your attention to the following para from your own link:

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

[Minimalist]

Tell that to MCWASTEOFSPACE!

http://www.uhl.ac/nazareth.htm

On a visit to Nazareth Hospital in November 1996 CSEC's director Stephen Pfann identified an ancient winepress associated with agriculatural terraces on the hospital grounds and the adjacent land. Potsherds found on the surface of the terraceds dated from various periods beginning with the early-to-late Roman Period.

A survey of the area was conducted in February 1997 by CSEC's archaeological staff. Four seasons of excavation, licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority and under the joint direction of Ross Voss and S. Pfann have been carried out by CSEC, with the help of students and local volunteers. These excavations have confirmed the land to be a complete Roman Period terrace farm with a winepress, watchtowers, olive crushing stones, irrigation systems, and an ancient quarry, and have illuminated previously unknown aspects of terrace farming in the Galilee.

Stephen Pfann, for those who do not know, is a well known bible scholar and theologian. But, unlike a lot of these clowns, he's a scholar first and if he didn't find a town or village then it says something.

[kbs2244]

FM:
I am in full agreement that the doctrines of what today is called “Christianity” is far from what Jesus taught.
Also with the idea that the Jews distanced themselves from the Christians.
Judaism was an accepted religion to the Romans. At the time, the Christians were not.


Rich/Min:
I would say that there is a difference between “fulfill” and “destroy.”
True, they both result in the ending, but in a far different way.
And it was not resurrected with him.
His resurrection resulted in a replacement of the “Old Law” with a “New Covenant.”

Ish:
The current “Cannon” was agreed upon at the Council of Nicene.
Both the OT and the NT.
The Cardinals dropped the burden of what qualified in the OT on a collection of Jewish scholars, and concentrated on the NT themselves.
The Gnostic concepts existed prior to Christ, and with the spread of Christianity, they absorbed some of “the good stuff” that fit their existing ideas.
But I think the term “Gnostic Christians” is a misnomer.
There is no such thing.
The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in 1945 (Interestingly by a guy named Mohammad Ali)
All those that study them call them “essays.”
None are believed to be written by the people in their titles.
Many are crude attempts of translating Greek philosophical works into Coptic.
There were good reasons that even a politically motivated selection committee would decide they would not “make the cut” into the Cannon.

[Ishtar]

Ish:
The current “Cannon” was agreed upon at the Council of Nicene.
Both the OT and the NT.
The Cardinals dropped the burden of what qualified in the OT on a collection of Jewish scholars, and concentrated on the NT themselves.
The Gnostic concepts existed prior to Christ, and with the spread of Christianity, they absorbed some of “the good stuff” that fit their existing ideas.
But I think the term “Gnostic Christians” is a misnomer.
There is no such thing.

Literalists co-opted in retrospect many Christian Gnostic writers such as second century writers Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch and Minucius Felix of Africa. These writers actually promoted a philosophical (love of Sophia) Christianity based around the mythical figures of the Logos and Sophia.

Not only were they not Literalists. They were not particularly interested in the figure of Jesus. Athenagorus goes iminutely into the particulars of the Christian doctrine, yet never mentions Jesus at all.

Neither does Minucius Felix, even when someone asks him to name someone who has returned from the dead. He said:

"....when you attribute to us the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth."

He condemns Christian Literalists who 'choose a man for their worship'.

Literalists of the time would complain that all the Christians in Persia were members of the Marcionite school of Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian complained that "Marcion's followers fill the whole universe".

At the beginning of the third century, the Christian Gnostic sage Bardesanes initiated into his school a Syrian ruler who made Christian Gnosticism the official state cult.

The Epistle of Polycarp laments that 'the great majority of Christians embrace the idea of Jesus not existing in the flesh."

I can go on like this for a long time ... listing one attested example after another .... I discovered all this through thinking for myself while you two, KB and Monk, keep telling me what your religion has told you to believe - as if that gives it any authenticity.

[kbs2244]

Ish:
My point was that if Gnosticism predated Christianity then there could be no such thing as Gnostic Christian because true Christianity was a new religion.
What you are describing is what I called the Gnostics “absorbing the good stuff. “
It was a case of an existing religion riding the wave of popularity of a new one.

[Forum Monk]

(What's that?...Tell her what?....Ok...)

I would no more consider Marcion a gnostic than St. Peter. It can be argued that many early church fathers, mainstream and fringe alike, had elements similar in belief to gnostics. It does not make them gnostic. In fact, at no time did Marcion deny the historicity of Jesus.

[Minimalist]

Arch says you are all wrong about Jesus, Ish.

In his opinion, of course!


(I told you he was like a kid with his nose pressed against the Toy Store window.)

[Ishtar]

Jesus Christ! I tell you, Min ... the pathetic argument these two are putting up makes me long for the logic and wisdom, by comparison, of dear old Arch!

Guys, you are a shower!

I am naming chapter and verse, quote after quote, attestation after attestation - and all you're doing is telling me what you believe WITH NOT ONE SHRED OF ANYTHING TO BACK IT UP.

I'm not interested in what you believe or what you've been told to believe. I don't need to be instructed on Christianity. I was one for the first 10 years of my life before stalking out of the church mid-service because I couldn't tolerate the same sort of crap you're giving me here.

There is no way you would accept this lack of evidence with any other subject, especially you Monk with your constant "Links please!". But at the mention of Christianity, your eyes blur over, you knees buckle and you lose the sense you were born with.



Admittedly Monk made a half-hearted attempt by referring to Ignatius as the first attested Literalist Christian. But that quickly bit the dust when it turned out his letters couldn't be trusted because they are known to forged.

Let me give you a hint gentleman - your man is Justin Martyr, c 150 AD.. He is supposed to be the earliest attested Literalist, but even then I could you give you a run for your money on him.



So I suggest you put him up so that we can have a proper debate about the evidence that doesn't bore me potless ... otherwise I'm going to go and talk to Arch.

[Minimalist]

Um....don't give Arch too much credit, Ish. I'll take Monk any day.

(And Monk, don't let that go to your head!)

[Forum Monk]

Unfortunately the rains have stopped (finally) and I have two hours of cutting the grass to look forward to...(what?....tell her what?....)

Ishtar - I have not spent a lot of time researching because I think you, inspite of your past years in the 'church' have failed to understand what a christian is and it gives me too much of a rambling target to discuss. You basically seem to think that because there are similar concepts in christianity with other beliefs, then christianity evolved from those beliefs. This is post hoc reasoning and incorrect.

There are significant differences which set christianity apart from other so-called religions. Focusing on the similarities will get you no where and is not a valid argument. Otherwise it leads one to conclude, as you often do, that virtually all beliefs originated in the Indus valley. Lets face it there are commonalities in all belief systems since there is some basic common thinking in men but there is not necessarily a progression.

[Ishtar]

We've have non-stop rain here all day too, Monk. It was like a monsoon in London ... but I'm very pleased for my garden.

Ishtar - I have not spent a lot of time researching because I think you, inspite of your past years in the 'church' have failed to understand what a christian is and it gives me too much of a rambling target to discuss. You basically seem to think that because there are similar concepts in christianity with other beliefs, then christianity evolved from those beliefs. This is post hoc reasoning and incorrect.

In other words, I'm not worth arguing with because I don't know enough the subject. OK, thanks Monk. I'm sorry to have bothered you, and I accept that I will have to take your word for it that I am incorrect because you tell me so, even though I've laid out my stall very clearly and with a lot of evidence ... but you don't think I'm worth it, so that must be true.

I guess that must be why you're just preaching at me from your lectern, instead of debating with me. I obviously need to be checked and put back into line.

There are significant differences which set christianity apart from other so-called religions.

Yes, the main one that makes it unique is that they believe that the star of their story once lived, even though there's no evidence for it. But whoops ... hey ... sorry... that's probably incorrect again isn't it? And no, please don't worry about explaining why that's wrong. After all, why should you bother with such an ignoramus?

Focusing on the similarities will get you nowhere and is not a valid argument.

Is it a more valid argument to say that the story of Jesus Christ is unique and therefore should not be compared to anything else in the region, no matter how similar the main events of the story are to others that existed at that time? Is it more valid, as your Church Fathers did when couldn't deny that these stories existed, to say that all the others were the work of the devil? How valid an argument is that? Oh dear. .. there I go again.

Otherwise it leads one to conclude, as you often do, that virtually all beliefs originated in the Indus valley.

No, that's a understandable misunderstanding of my position. The Vedic scriptures are the oldest we have, and so I can trace (as do many more expert mythologists than me) back to them. But I'm sure these motifs, metaphors and symbols could equally well be traced back to other cultures' scriptures if only they existed. I often see the similarities in the Norse legends too, but the earliest attestations for those are quite late. The other sacred texts that did survive are the Sumerian stories, and I often follow breadcrumb trails back to those too, on this board. But the Vedic and Sumerian are the only ones in written format that can be attested so early... if there were others, we'd probably find the same thing. So I don't think all religion comes from the Indus valley ... do you understand the difference? If not, tell me and I'll find another way of explaining it because I'd like us to be clear on this.

Lets face it there are commonalities in all belief systems since there is some basic common thinking in men but there is not necessarily a progression.

I see.. so every culture came up, independently, with a story about a descending and resurrecting godman who went through a two-fold initiation of water and then fire. But it just so happened that the Christians had the real one where it really happened, whereas all the others were just fictional stories ....even though they existed before the one about Jesus.

Right - that makes perfect sense.

Why didn't I think of it before?