Author Topic: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)  (Read 10905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nodak

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +3/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #174 on: January 10, 2012, 06:32:47 AM »

EES,
I am interested in how you fit mental illness or vegative states into your Thesis? Where do chimps fit in? Sociopaths? Horses? Dogs?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #175 on: January 10, 2012, 09:41:47 AM »
When you remove all the woo something still remains that is quite marvelous. It's called life, joy, compassion and love. And your suspicions are inaccurate :-). I recognize(know) the human condition when it's described and know that it doesn't require fake magic or faith.

Good.  So then there is NO NEED to label it as "god", or use concepts such as the "living father".

CALL it life.  CALL it joy.  CALL it compassion and love.

Just DON'T call it god....for all the reasons we've given you, over and over again.

Semantics.:-)

EES, you are a fool. 

By which, of course, I mean that your role is to speak the truths that no others dare say, for fear of reprisals. 

I'm sure you will be quite happy if we all call you "fool" from now on.

Sure - there is baggage attached to the word, with its implications of idiocy and stupidity....and maybe there is a more appropriate word that would include the "good parts" of being a fool, and exclude the "bad parts".

But there's no need is there? We can just call you a fool and know exactly what we mean by it.

After all, its all just semantics, isn't it?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #176 on: January 10, 2012, 10:57:30 AM »
Definition:
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

Authentic applies to someone who is genuine in their selflessness. There is no group until there is authenticity. Those that aren't authentic aren't members yet. :-)
Thanks, EES, for underlining just how ridiculous you are. Yep, there you have it exactly.  The claims of "genuineness" only determined by the theist, which of course match with how right he thinks himself.  The classic no truescotsman argument aka "only genuine selflessness, like me, is authentic"
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #177 on: January 10, 2012, 11:34:42 AM »
Couple things to consider.

First, there probably was an individual who served as the inspiration for the scriptural Jesus.  This does not mean that the scriptural Jesus existed.  It means that the actions and statements of the inspirational person were inflated and exaggerated through rumor and superstition until they had only a tangential bearing with the original.

Second, there's no one belief system that will bring peace and harmony to all on Earth, because not everyone thinks the same way.  For example, I can't stand peanut butter, yet other people love the stuff.  There's no harmony possible between the two standpoints, except to let me eat what I like and to let them eat what they like.  In other words, "there is no one true way".  And that isn't a belief system.  So the only way to possibly have peace and harmony is to let everyone have their own belief systems, except that you can't because some belief systems are simply not compatible with "there is no one true way".  A person who refuses immunizations on religious grounds potentially endangers the health and lives of other people, for example; their belief innately interferes with other people's lives.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #178 on: January 11, 2012, 11:59:20 PM »

It cannot be argued that Q originally presented Jesus as a teacher of wisdom without an eschatological message.

Me: why not, I wonder


Because the existence of Q depends on the theory that the gospels were constructed without too much knowledge passing between them, but instead needed an intermediate pseudo gospel. Scholars who believe in Q, also believe that it had eschatology in it, since the eschatology passes between variants of the gospels. Thomas has no eschatology, therefore it is not Q.

As I said earlier, this theory of Q is based on the idea that Mark, Matt and Luke are the only gospels. Christian scholars won't admit that many synoptic variants existed, so they came up with a Baldrick-style cunning plan, and put all their problems into one admission: that a small saying's gospel (Q) existed. This theory pleased them very much, because nobody could pick up a copy Q, and argue that there was stuff in Q that undermined the NT.

It's pretty awesome, if you are a Christian, to have a fictitious book that agrees with you totally, and explains away the problem of the synoptic being 3 bad copies of the same book. If you pretend that a sayings book existed, then you can pretend that 3 eye-witness authors wrote Matt, Mark, Luke. Otherwise, you have to accept that people just wrote synoptic variants willy nilly, every time they started up a church, and cut and pasted whatever they liked together.

My premise, which at first was instinctive and is now maturing, is this. Constantine and Eusibius are the sponsors and redactors of the modern bible. Constantine was not shy of rewriting history or demolishing prior history. Consider his 'damnation memoriae' of Maximian. Eusibius accounts have been questioned as well.

Eschatology only adds to people's fears, hardly a friend of spirituality or wisdom, me thinks. So, I say, that eschatology is the fraud. Eschatology belongs with the devils and angels. This would have served a man made ambition of power before being any benefit to peace or humanity.

In searching for the historical Jesus I'm inclined to think that the Dynamic Duo may have made this elusive as well. Constantine was in the right place with the right authority (and track record perhaps) to have such an affect.

So, from this view point, Thomas could be the Q source  or a derivative. As I said earlier :-) The theory of q , early 1800,s preceded the discover of the Gospel of Thomas late 1800,s. So the question remains, if Thomas has 66 sayings included in the Bible why do the Q theorists not consider it as a source or a derivative.

My affinity with GOT is based on the sense it makes intuitively. An innate wisdom about the nature of humanity. It really doesn't matter who said them. But one things for sure. the words do exist.


Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #179 on: January 12, 2012, 12:04:42 AM »

EES,
I am interested in how you fit mental illness or vegative states into your Thesis? Where do chimps fit in? Sociopaths? Horses? Dogs?

Mental illness could be from physical impairment or excessive egoic behaviours. Animals both share or sexual drives, a foundation of ego(preening and competition)and exhibit a gentle spirituality in certain circumstances. Animals seem to be better a living in the moment, forgiving etc...

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #180 on: January 12, 2012, 12:07:03 AM »
When you remove all the woo something still remains that is quite marvelous. It's called life, joy, compassion and love. And your suspicions are inaccurate :-). I recognize(know) the human condition when it's described and know that it doesn't require fake magic or faith.

Good.  So then there is NO NEED to label it as "god", or use concepts such as the "living father".

CALL it life.  CALL it joy.  CALL it compassion and love.

Just DON'T call it god....for all the reasons we've given you, over and over again.

Semantics.:-)

EES, you are a fool. 

By which, of course, I mean that your role is to speak the truths that no others dare say, for fear of reprisals. 

I'm sure you will be quite happy if we all call you "fool" from now on.

Sure - there is baggage attached to the word, with its implications of idiocy and stupidity....and maybe there is a more appropriate word that would include the "good parts" of being a fool, and exclude the "bad parts".

But there's no need is there? We can just call you a fool and know exactly what we mean by it.

After all, its all just semantics, isn't it?

Indeed it is :-)
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 12:22:34 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #181 on: January 12, 2012, 12:18:02 AM »
Couple things to consider.

First, there probably was an individual who served as the inspiration for the scriptural Jesus.  This does not mean that the scriptural Jesus existed.  It means that the actions and statements of the inspirational person were inflated and exaggerated through rumor and superstition until they had only a tangential bearing with the original.

Second, there's no one belief system that will bring peace and harmony to all on Earth, because not everyone thinks the same way.  For example, I can't stand peanut butter, yet other people love the stuff.  There's no harmony possible between the two standpoints, except to let me eat what I like and to let them eat what they like.  In other words, "there is no one true way".  And that isn't a belief system.  So the only way to possibly have peace and harmony is to let everyone have their own belief systems, except that you can't because some belief systems are simply not compatible with "there is no one true way".  A person who refuses immunizations on religious grounds potentially endangers the health and lives of other people, for example; their belief innately interferes with other people's lives.

Yet the emotions of authentic love, sadness and joy we share are the same(in potential). No, authentic isn't an interpretation. It means that the emotion is founded on genuine concerns for the welfare of others. that,s all. Love thy neighbor etc...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 12:24:32 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6610
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2012, 03:18:20 AM »
ees, we're not going to be tested on this crap, are we?

My dog just ate my homework, and my grandma died, and I don't feel good. I'll probably miss it.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline pingnak

Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2012, 04:47:11 AM »
Emotions are hardwired.  Instinctual.

Even tiny mammals like mice have them.  In fact, the less developed a mammalian brain, the more emotions rule them. 

They FEEL scared.  They react.

They FEEL horny.  They go find a female who's in heat (or let a male approach without attacking).

They FEEL joy.  They're going to be fed.  Praised/petted/etc.

If animals didn't FEEL, they'd make darned lousy pets. 

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2753
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #184 on: January 12, 2012, 08:08:51 AM »
My premise, which at first was instinctive and is now maturing, is this. Constantine and Eusibius are the sponsors and redactors of the modern bible. Constantine was not shy of rewriting history or demolishing prior history. Consider his 'damnation memoriae' of Maximian. Eusibius accounts have been questioned as well.

Fun if true. Origen collected the canon, and wrote extensive commentaries, inc Homily to Luke, where he analyzed every sentence. He was a bit more vague about John. I'm fine with current version of Matthew being redacted as late as 180AD, but Origen would have been the redactor, not Eusebius ... unless Eusebius faked the lot.

Quote
Eschatology only adds to people's fears, hardly a friend of spirituality or wisdom, me thinks. So, I say, that eschatology is the fraud. Eschatology belongs with the devils and angels. This would have served a man made ambition of power before being any benefit to peace or humanity.

Not terribly relevant.

Eschatology is passed between the gospels. If it's not in Thomas, then Thomas is not Q. (Explained for the 3rd time.) If Q does not contain eschatology, then the eschatology was copied from Mark->Matt->Luke. If this is the case, then you do not need Q.

Quote
In searching for the historical Jesus I'm inclined to think that the Dynamic Duo may have made this elusive as well. Constantine was in the right place with the right authority (and track record perhaps) to have such an affect.

??

Quote
So, from this view point, Thomas could be the Q source  or a derivative. As I said earlier :-) The theory of q , early 1800,s preceded the discover of the Gospel of Thomas late 1800,s. So the question remains, if Thomas has 66 sayings included in the Bible why do the Q theorists not consider it as a source or a derivative.

My affinity with GOT is based on the sense it makes intuitively. An innate wisdom about the nature of humanity. It really doesn't matter who said them. But one things for sure. the words do exist.

At this point, I seriously doubt that you read my last post.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2753
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #185 on: January 12, 2012, 08:25:40 AM »
Another problem you might like to consider, with your brilliance, is why it is that John is devoid of synoptic material. Did the author of John systematically ignore all logia, inc. "love thy neighbour", or did he simply not know about it? If John predates the logia, then Jesus was deified prior to him saying anything.



 
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #186 on: January 12, 2012, 11:46:36 AM »
Mental illness could be from physical impairment or excessive egoic behaviours. Animals both share or sexual drives, a foundation of ego(preening and competition)and exhibit a gentle spirituality in certain circumstances. Animals seem to be better a living in the moment, forgiving etc...

Please show how preening is from the "ego".  preening serves a function, and not your anthropomorphizing nonsense.  and plese do show how animals "forgive". 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #187 on: January 12, 2012, 10:17:06 PM »
Mental illness could be from physical impairment or excessive egoic behaviours. Animals both share or sexual drives, a foundation of ego(preening and competition)and exhibit a gentle spirituality in certain circumstances. Animals seem to be better a living in the moment, forgiving etc...

Please show how preening is from the "ego".  preening serves a function, and not your anthropomorphizing nonsense.  and plese do show how animals "forgive".

Preening is about preparing the individual for selection in my opinion. Therefore its about the self and procreation ultimately. The physical existence.

Animals forgiving was a bit of a stretch. I should have said they don't (seem) to bear grudges.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #188 on: January 12, 2012, 10:40:53 PM »
My premise, which at first was instinctive and is now maturing, is this. Constantine and Eusibius are the sponsors and redactors of the modern bible. Constantine was not shy of rewriting history or demolishing prior history. Consider his 'damnation memoriae' of Maximian. Eusibius accounts have been questioned as well.

Fun if true. Origen collected the canon, and wrote extensive commentaries, inc Homily to Luke, where he analyzed every sentence. He was a bit more vague about John. I'm fine with current version of Matthew being redacted as late as 180AD, but Origen would have been the redactor, not Eusebius ... unless Eusebius faked the lot.

From Wikipedia.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, our chief witness to Origen's life, says that in 203 Origen revived the Catechetical School of Alexandria where Clement of Alexandria had once taught but had apparently been driven out during the persecution under Severus.[6] Many modern scholars,[7] however, doubt that Clement's school had been an official ecclesiastical institution as Origen's was and thus deny continuity between the two. But the persecution still raged, and the young teacher visited imprisoned Christians, attended the courts, and comforted the condemned, himself preserved from persecution because the persecution was probably limited only to converts to Christianity. His fame and the number of his pupils increased rapidly, so that Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria, made him restrict himself to instruction in Christian doctrine alone."

Do a google search for Eusebius and other key figures in Biblical History and see what you turn up.  I often found the Eusebius was a common witness with scant other evidence.

Quote
Eschatology only adds to people's fears, hardly a friend of spirituality or wisdom, me thinks. So, I say, that eschatology is the fraud. Eschatology belongs with the devils and angels. This would have served a man made ambition of power before being any benefit to peace or humanity.


Not terribly relevant.

Eschatology is passed between the gospels. If it's not in Thomas, then Thomas is not Q. (Explained for the 3rd time.) If Q does not contain eschatology, then the eschatology was copied from Mark->Matt->Luke. If this is the case, then you do not need Q.

You have to keep in mind, I am coming from an alternate proposition. That the Bible was concocted for Constantines purpose. He needed an alternate religion to help him bring down the Tetrachy. Christianity was perhaps his creation and tool against paganism and its hold on the population.
. Eschatology was the fake stuff (and it is) that was added with Q or Thomas being the source of the wisdom parts that was gaining in popularity.

Again from Wikipedia...

"As the emperor who used Christianity to empower his government throughout the Roman Empire and moved the capital to the banks of the Bosporus, Constantine was a ruler of major historical importance, but he has always been a controversial figure."

Quote

In searching for the historical Jesus I'm inclined to think that the Dynamic Duo may have made this elusive as well. Constantine was in the right place with the right authority (and track record perhaps) to have such an affect.

Dynamic Duo = Constantine and Eusibius
Quote

So, from this view point, Thomas could be the Q source  or a derivative. As I said earlier :-) The theory of q , early 1800,s preceded the discover of the Gospel of Thomas late 1800,s. So the question remains, if Thomas has 66 sayings included in the Bible why do the Q theorists not consider it as a source or a derivative.

My affinity with GOT is based on the sense it makes intuitively. An innate wisdom about the nature of humanity. It really doesn't matter who said them. But one things for sure. the words do exist.

At this point, I seriously doubt that you read my last post.
[/quote]

I was reflecting on all the reading I have been doing. Apologies, It's hard to keep track.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2753
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #189 on: January 12, 2012, 10:42:13 PM »
Animals forgiving was a bit of a stretch. I should have said they don't (seem) to bear grudges.

Neither do rocks.

They do bear grudges, but it's related to their ability to remember what the grievance was.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #190 on: January 12, 2012, 11:12:03 PM »
Another problem you might like to consider, with your brilliance, is why it is that John is devoid of synoptic material. Did the author of John systematically ignore all logia, inc. "love thy neighbour", or did he simply not know about it? If John predates the logia, then Jesus was deified prior to him saying anything.

The problem we will continually run into is this. I am working back through history from a proposal that suggests that the original sin is in the hands of Constantine and Eusibius. This puts all pryer related material at risk of forgery or misappropriation.

John as presented in the Bible runs the same fabricated material/storyline as the synoptic gospels. That is, Jesus was capable of miracles, The Jewish folk need some correction, Jesus had an association with john the baptist. God is an external entity, Jesus resurrected. Same old, same old. The difference though, is there is a stronger effort to argue why Jesus should be taken seriously(Sound like an ulterior motive rather than a narrative).  What or whether john wrote anything would be my question.




Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2012, 11:20:09 PM »
Animals forgiving was a bit of a stretch. I should have said they don't (seem) to bear grudges.

Neither do rocks.

They do bear grudges, but it's related to their ability to remember what the grievance was.

 :)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2753
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #192 on: January 13, 2012, 01:12:04 AM »
The problem we will continually run into is this. I am working back through history from a proposal that suggests that the original sin is in the hands of Constantine and Eusibius. This puts all pryer related material at risk of forgery or misappropriation.

Well, sounds like a fair task, and I'm with you there, brother, but Origen was a rather phenomenal man, (if you believe the accounts), and he was one of the most prolific writers in history. Therefore, in order to fake Origen, you would have to be a prolific writer and apologist, yourself. It would seem more rational to conclude that Origen was the origin of all the crap (pardon the pun).

If Justin martyr's Apology and Dialogue with Trypho (150AD) were faked, then why would the faker make Justin quote the wrong version of Matthew, and ignore John and Luke? Surely less embarrassing to have him quote official texts? JM also believed in the virgin birth and hell. If Eusebius had control over JM, then he would have re-written his Matthew quotes.

Origen was also fairly controversial, and he came up with many ideas that had to be stomped out by later Church fathers. If Eusebius faked Origen, he would have to be Ace Rimmer. Origen liked the Shepherd of Hermas, which was not liked by Tertullian or Eusebius.

Tertullian did extensive attacks on Marcion (Adversus Marcionem, written 208AD). Marcion started a popular ascetic church (135AD) that believed all sorts of shit about Jesus. We would also have to credit Eusebius of faking Tertullian and inventing a popular pointless sub-religion of Christianity. Marcion brought us Paul, who was a loony prior to Marcion, unless Marcion faked Paul.

Eusebius is not renowned as a thinker or apologist, but as a historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Teachings

I think if you are going to accuse a particular person of faking Jesus' deity, you have to look much closer to 100AD. Church history gets a bit complicated after 220AD.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #193 on: January 13, 2012, 01:52:29 AM »
The problem we will continually run into is this. I am working back through history from a proposal that suggests that the original sin is in the hands of Constantine and Eusibius. This puts all pryer related material at risk of forgery or misappropriation.

Well, sounds like a fair task, and I'm with you there, brother, but Origen was a rather phenomenal man, (if you believe the accounts), and he was one of the most prolific writers in history. Therefore, in order to fake Origen, you would have to be a prolific writer and apologist, yourself. It would seem more rational to conclude that Origen was the origin of all the crap (pardon the pun).

If Justin martyr's Apology and Dialogue with Trypho (150AD) were faked, then why would the faker make Justin quote the wrong version of Matthew, and ignore John and Luke? Surely less embarrassing to have him quote official texts? JM also believed in the virgin birth and hell. If Eusebius had control over JM, then he would have re-written his Matthew quotes.

Origen was also fairly controversial, and he came up with many ideas that had to be stomped out by later Church fathers. If Eusebius faked Origen, he would have to be Ace Rimmer. Origen liked the Shepherd of Hermas, which was not liked by Tertullian or Eusebius.

Tertullian did extensive attacks on Marcion (Adversus Marcionem, written 208AD). Marcion started a popular ascetic church (135AD) that believed all sorts of shit about Jesus. We would also have to credit Eusebius of faking Tertullian and inventing a popular pointless sub-religion of Christianity. Marcion brought us Paul, who was a loony prior to Marcion, unless Marcion faked Paul.

Eusebius is not renowned as a thinker or apologist, but as a historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Teachings

I think if you are going to accuse a particular person of faking Jesus' deity, you have to look much closer to 100AD. Church history gets a bit complicated after 220AD.

"Justin Martyr, also known as just Saint Justin (103–165), was an early Christian apologist. Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue survive. He is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church[2] and the Eastern Orthodox Church.[3]"

This is the common theme I am seeing. " Most of their works are lost"  and Irenaeus is a frequent key source and possibly Tertullian. You could flip that and ask did Eusibius modify the accounts of these and a few others inspired or under threat from Constantine.

Writings

The earliest mention of Justin is found in the Oratio ad Graecos by Tatian, who calls him "the most admirable Justin," quotes a saying of his, and says that the Cynic Crescens laid snares for him.

Irenaeus[7] speaks of his martyrdom and of Tatian as his disciple. Irenaeus quotes Justin twice,[8] and shows his influence in other places.

Tertullian, in his Adversus Valentinianos, calls Justin a philosopher and martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. He was flogged and beheaded with six other Christians in Rome for his beliefs.

Hippolytus and Methodius of Olympus also mention or quote him.

Here's our champion again

Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length,[9] and names the following works:

    The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;
    a Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate;
    the Discourse to the Greeks, a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;
    a Hortatory Address to the Greeks;
    a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian;
    a work entitled The Psalmist;
    a treatise in scholastic form On the Soul; and
    the Dialogue with Trypho.

Eusebius implies that other works were in circulation; from St Irenaeus he knows of the apology "Against Marcion," and from Justin's "Apology"[10] of a "Refutation of all Heresies ".[11] Epiphanius[12] and St Jerome[13] mention Justin.

Rufinus borrows from him Latin original of Hadrian's letter.

After Rufinus, Justin was known mainly from St Irenaeus and Eusebius or from spurious works.

The Chronicon Paschale assigns his martyrdom to the year 165. A considerable number of other works are given as Justin's by Arethas, Photius, and other writers; but their spuriousness is now generally admitted. The Expositio rectae fidei has been assigned by Draseke to Apollinaris of Laodicea, but it is probably a work of as late as the 6th century. The Cohortatio ad Graecos has been attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, as well as others. The Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, an exhortation to Christian living, is dependent upon Clement of Alexandria, and is assigned by Pierre Batiffol to the Novatian Bishop Sisinnius (c. 400).

The extant work under the title "On the Sovereignty of God" does not correspond with Eusebius' description of it, though Harnack regards it as still possibly Justin's, and at least of the 2nd century. The author of the smaller treatise To the Greeks cannot be Justin, because he is dependent on Tatian; Harnack places it between 180 and 240.

Could this be the work of a tamperer perhaps

And on Tertullian ( our liitle historian is busy once again)

"Scant reliable evidence exists to inform us about Tertullian's life. Most history about him comes from passing references in his own writings.

According to church tradition, he was raised in Carthage[7] and was thought to be the son of a Roman centurion, a trained lawyer, and an ordained priest. These assertions rely on the accounts of Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, II, ii. 4, and Jerome's De viris illustribus (On famous men) chapter 53.[8] Jerome claimed that Tertullian's father held the position of 'centurio proconsularis' ("aide-de-camp") in the Roman army in Africa.[9] However, it is unclear whether any such position in the Roman military ever existed.[10]"

And of Jerome ( post Eusebius)  contradiction dogs the author again.

" Saint Jerome (c.?347 – 30 September 420; formerly Saint Hierom; (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Ancient Greek: ???????? ????????? ?????????) was a Roman Christian priest, confessor, theologian and historian, and who became a Doctor of the Church. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, which was on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his list of writings is extensive.[1] "

In answer to your why's - possibly its a tangled web we weave when we set out to deceive.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #194 on: January 13, 2012, 02:24:15 AM »

Tertullian did extensive attacks on Marcion (Adversus Marcionem, written 208AD). Marcion started a popular ascetic church (135AD) that believed all sorts of shit about Jesus. We would also have to credit Eusebius of faking Tertullian and inventing a popular pointless sub-religion of Christianity. Marcion brought us Paul, who was a loony prior to Marcion, unless Marcion faked Paul.


The question to ask is what merit does Pauls tails bring to Constantine's aspirations. Heaps more eye witness accounts to miracles, perhaps. A story of a Roman Jew conversion (how convenient).

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #195 on: January 13, 2012, 07:30:35 AM »
Hi MonkeyMind,

Let's try doing this in reverse history with Constantine and Eusibius as our villians (Forgers)

I accept that the historicity of Jesus is weak up to Eusibius, bit here's where I'm coming from.

Assume Constantine does do a "Baldrick" and cons or threatens Eusibius into tweaking a little history.
Constantine's Motive: Power and Division. Note his Senate and himself have priors for tampering with the Historical Record.

But the christian story lacks the right stuff to go head to head with paganism and it's lofty fake promises. Christianity (or the Jesus story needs some sauce). It may have had a low profile in the early centuries but due to some good evangelical work its growing in popularity. it's new and it's the option considering Judaism is so well known. Christianity has the heresy debate raging and multiple variations on the theme(possibly).

Constantine knows of the story of Horus and he says to Eusibius tweak the Jesus story and add this stuff and I'll guarantee you'll get thousands to church on Sunday. God will be pleased.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

You'll need to use the Q Source (or Thomas) because some of the population like and know that parable stuff, but don't include the stuff that talks about a personal relationship with God. To much like anarchy. We (the church and I Constantine) need to remain between the people and god. This Bible that we create will give us that authority.

Make sure you include miracles, we pagans know that people like miracles and will worship those close to God.   

Now let's look through Bertaberts references for Eusibius Hand and contradictions at work.

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone “messiah”),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)

Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best “evidence” for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

"The first person to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324..."

TACITUS (c.112CE)

"Tacitus on Christ
Main article: Tacitus on Christ

In his Annals, in book 15, chapter 44, written c. 116 AD, there is a passage which refers to Christ, to Pontius Pilate, and to a mass execution of the Christians after a six-day fire that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD by Nero.[30]

    Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[31]

This narration has long attracted scholarly interest because it is a rare non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. Almost all scholars consider these references to the Christians to be authentic.[32][33]

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

Agreed just possible evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ(us).
But remember, I think Jesus may have been given his resounding notoriety by Eusebius 



SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a “Chrestus” who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius’ time, but:
* this “Chrestus” is a Greek name (from “useful”), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as “Christos”
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it’s nothing to do with Jesus,
it’s evidence for Christians grasping at straws.

Ignore... no value either way.

IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.


"St. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter and St. Evodius (who died around AD 67). Eusebius[5] records that St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius. Making his apostolic succession even more immediate, Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch."


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratus_of_Athens

"Saint Quadratus of Athens (Greek: ????? ????????) is said to have been the first of the Christian apologists. He is said by Eusebius of Caesarea[1] to have been a disciple of the Apostles (auditor apostolorum). Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter summarized by Eusebius,[2] records that Quadratus became bishop of Athens after the martyrdom of Publius, invigorating the faith of the congregation in that city and keeping them together. He is counted among the Seventy Apostles in the tradition of the Eastern Churches.

He addressed a discourse to the Roman Emperor Hadrian containing a defense, or apology, of the Christian religion, when the latter was visiting Athens in AD 124 or 125, which Eusebius states incorrectly[3] moved the emperor to issue a favourable edict. With the exception of a short passage quoted by Eusebius (H. E., 4.3), this work has entirely disappeared. The passage quoted notes that many of those healed or raised from the dead by Christ were still living; this seems to be part of an argument that Christ was no mere wonder-worker whose effects were transitory. P. Andriessen has suggested that Quadratus' Apology is the work known as Epistle to Diognetus,[4] a suggestion Michael W. Holmes finds "intriguing". While admitting that Epistle to Diognetus does not contain the only quotation known from Quadratus' address, Holmes defends this identification by noting "there is a gap between 7.6 and 7.7 into which it would fit very well."[5]

Because of the similarity of name some scholars[6] have concluded that Quadratus the Apologist is the same person as Quadratus, a prophet mentioned elsewhere by Eusebius (H. E., 3.37). The evidence, however, is too slight to be convincing. The later references to Quadratus in Jerome and the martyrologies are all based on Eusebius, or are arbitrary enlargements of his account.

Another apologist, Aristides, presented a similar work. Eusebius had copies of both essays. Because he was bishop of Athens after Publius, Quadratus is sometimes figured among the Apostolic Fathers. Eusebius called him a "man of understanding and of Apostolic faith." and Jerome in Viri illustrissimi intensified the apostolic connection, calling him "disciple of the apostles," though no claim is made in the brief surviving fragment of the Apology that he was personally in touch with any of the Apostles."


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus’ works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: “Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse”.
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

OK

PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the “darkness” in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

But perhaps evidence for a Gnostic Jesus. Just read the Gospel of Truth and it is in the same vein as the Gospel of Thomas. i.e. a personal relationship with Spirituality or innate wisdom.

"Valentinus taught first in Alexandria and went to Rome about 136 AD, during the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, and remained until the pontificate of Pope Anicetus. In Adversus Valentinianos, iv, Tertullian says:

    Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent.

Commonly unaccepted, we cannot know the accuracy of this statement, since it is delivered by his orthodox adversary Tertullian, but according to a tradition reported in the late fourth century by Epiphanius, he withdrew to Cyprus, where he continued to teach and draw adherents. He died probably about 160 or 161 AD."

POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

"There are two chief sources of information concerning the life of Polycarp: the letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of Polycarp and the passages in Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses. Other sources are the epistles of Ignatius, which include one to Polycarp and another to the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp's own letter to the Philippians. Other sources, such as the Life of Polycarp or excerpts from Tertullian and Eusebius of Caesarea are considered largely unhistorical or based on previous material. In 1999, some third to 6th century Coptic fragments about Polycarp were also published."


LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

Ignore... no value either way.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.

Ignore... no value either way.

NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius “quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus—without, however, mentioning His name” - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen’s time it had become attached to Jesus’ name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it’s just later wishful thinking.

"Statements and fragments of his apparently very numerous works have been preserved by Origen, Theodoret, and especially by Eusebius, and from them we may with learn the nature of his Platonist-Pythagorean philosophy, and its approximation to the doctrines of Plato."

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm

This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he
Not according to Eusibius, I'd say.

Christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.

Here tiz from Bertabert:

Now to the gospels.

My scenario proposes that the Gospels are forgeries  and that Eusebius (in Rome) is the possible culprit.

G.Mark

It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.

For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton’s great work on G.Mark:

From Michael's web page.

The author of Mark has traditionally been identified with the early disciple John Mark, based on a citation of the writer Papias in Eusebius. The citation is usually dated around 125 CE, though some have moved it back to 100 CE. Eusebius writes:

   "For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." (Papias, ECW)

It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter’s secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but “adapted as needed” ... “but not in order”. This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

G.Matthew


It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work

(our Villians again)

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.
1, 2 Peter
Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably written in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
G.John

Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.

False NT attributions

The same is true of all the NT documents (apart from Paul1) - NONE are by an eye-witness, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus -
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby’s or in Brown NT Commentary e.g.


No NT author met Jesus

So, of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of “Paul’s” letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown’s or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby’s.

”This article is only about the historicity of Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.

According to Luke 4:16–30, for example, there should be a synagogue at the top of Nazareth hill and a “brow of the hill” (cliff) over which the Jews once tried to cast Jesus down to his death. No such cliff exists, nor is there any reasonable place where such a cliff could have existed during the last hundred-thousand years. Of course, no synagogue remains have ever been found atop the Nazareth hill’or anywhere in the vicinity. In fact, no evidence of buildings of any kind dating to the turn of the era has ever been found at the Venerated Sites.
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/naz3article.html

Part two

All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase “innocent until proven guilty” or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle. Well, this is nonsense - no historian assumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.

Consider some other ancient works

The Golden Ass of Apuleius - this “historical document” tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar to the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/

The Iliad - this “historical document” is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.

Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a “historical document” means nothing about a books truthfulness.

So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.


Some one created the sayings recorded in the GOT and the Gospel of Truth. They are what resonate to my experience of spirituality. It really wouldn't matter who the person was. It's, in my opinion evidence of a condition with much promise for humanity.

And this harks back to the point in the OP.


And NT Authorship

The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus’ identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade.”

The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture

With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some one person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)

The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).

Or Eusebius did some tweaking

Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word “Gospel”, and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.

Could be a Gnostic

Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them “memoirs of the apostles” as well as “Gospels” but gives NO authors’ names.

see above re Justin

Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had “been preached for a short time”. This is an important clue - a church father who mentions “the Gospel, as it is called” - showing that is what it is called “the Gospel”, no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a “short time”, perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.

The Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth perhaps. The Q source

Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the “diaTessaron” (literally “from four”, implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the “memoirs of the Apostles” from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.

It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.

"Following the death of Justin in 165, the life of Tatian is to some extent obscure. Irenaeus remarks (Haer., I., xxvlii. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, i. 353) that after the death of Justin, he was expelled from the church for his Encratitic (ascetic) views (Eusebius claims he founded the Encratitic sect), as well as for being a follower of the gnostic leader Valentinius. It is clear that Tatian left Rome, perhaps to reside for a while in either Greece or Alexandria, where he may have taught Clement.[citation needed] Epiphanius relates that Tatian established a school in Mesopotamia, the influence of which extended to Antioch in Syria, and was felt in Cilicia and especially in Pisidia, but his assertion can not be verified."

This one is a bit of a stretch from the others, but we do have Eusebius hand on it , gnosticism and obscurity.

[/quote]

« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 07:34:55 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #196 on: January 13, 2012, 08:32:04 AM »
The only answer to peace on Earth is for everyone to stop killing each other for resources, land, etc. (Unless people want to use the alternative option which is to destroy all humanity).
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #197 on: January 13, 2012, 08:53:24 AM »
So if you had to label yourself, are you a Gnostic?

Sorry, but to be honest, I haven't read everything you have said in this thread. It's waaaay above my head. Hey that rhymes!

I see you keep mentioning Eusibius, probably to support the GOT. But according to William Henry Bennett:

Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".

And you say:
Quote
Some one created the sayings recorded in the GOT and the Gospel of Truth. They are what resonate to my experience of spirituality. It really wouldn't matter who the person was. It's, in my opinion evidence of a condition with much promise for humanity.

What is this condition?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #198 on: January 13, 2012, 10:32:32 AM »
Preening is about preparing the individual for selection in my opinion. Therefore its about the self and procreation ultimately. The physical existence.

Animals forgiving was a bit of a stretch. I should have said they don't (seem) to bear grudges.

ah, baseless opinions.  Good to know. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #199 on: January 13, 2012, 07:47:38 PM »
So if you had to label yourself, are you a Gnostic?

Sorry, but to be honest, I haven't read everything you have said in this thread. It's waaaay above my head. Hey that rhymes!
 :)
I see you keep mentioning Eusibius, probably to support the GOT. But according to William Henry Bennett:

Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".

And you say:
Quote
Some one created the sayings recorded in the GOT and the Gospel of Truth. They are what resonate to my experience of spirituality. It really wouldn't matter who the person was. It's, in my opinion evidence of a condition with much promise for humanity.

What is this condition?

I wouldn't like a label. I think it,s the isms that keep us barking up the wrong trees.

Plato's Cave is a good analogy of the ism impact and the anger it can generate (anti-peace effect)

I am an equal, in spiritual potential, to all before me and after me. This means, in my view, we are one in a spiritual context.

I see this equality reflected in the "Jesus" sayings of the Gospel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Here's my conclusions and theories (thus far).

There is a human condition related to spirituality and wisdom that is difficult to find words to describe. Its a shared condition (at least in potential and responsibility). In life we eventually realize the value of compassion, authenticity, love etc.... Unlike material desires that are never completely satisfying  these things bring joy which is completely satisfying in the moment of that experience.

Wisdom, is something that comes to us ( the am , burst of clarity, as an example). It,s recognizable to others as wisdom even though they weren't a party to the wisdom's so called birth.

Wisdom cannot be associated with things generally regarded as bad but it can be associated with goodness.

Eusibius is pro miracles (fake and overt) and a requirement to have a relation with the state for spiritual pursuits (fake but less overt perhaps).

Like any great mystery, you need to find motive. Constantine had both motive and opportunity. He (and his accomplices) also had the authority and the access to documentation. Forgery is an issue in the Historicity of Jesus.     

My instinct (at this time) is that there was a Jesus . The key to this being true is in validating the wisdom in the words of the GOT(s) and them not having an earlier source and the date of the GOT and Gospel of Truth - still popularly ambiguous. In my opinion, the words, are best reflected in the Gospel of Thomas. They are merely advise for personal benefit and enlightenment to "the (one)big fish" in life. Not for congregation or state benefit.




 

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #200 on: January 13, 2012, 07:56:03 PM »
The only answer to peace on Earth is for everyone to stop killing each other for resources, land, etc. (Unless people want to use the alternative option which is to destroy all humanity).

I disagree. Peace just like war is based on a choice. Not a gods choice but a persons.

In all of history, indigenous and civilized, humanity has resolved to law to keep the Peace.

76% of all nations have signed the ICC Rome's  Statute. As a child needs guidance to maturity so does each national identity and it's future generations  in a global village. We need one law with 100% of nations as signatories.  So close yet so far when you consider the non signatories.


Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4654
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #201 on: January 13, 2012, 09:31:22 PM »
The only answer to peace on Earth is for everyone to stop killing each other for resources, land, etc. (Unless people want to use the alternative option which is to destroy all humanity).

I disagree. Peace just like war is based on a choice. Not a gods choice but a persons.

In all of history, indigenous and civilized, humanity has resolved to law to keep the Peace.

76% of all nations have signed the ICC Rome's  Statute. As a child needs guidance to maturity so does each national identity and it's future generations  in a global village. We need one law with 100% of nations as signatories.  So close yet so far when you consider the non signatories.
Yet the RCC is still one of the richest "corporations" in the world,had hundreds if not thousands of crimes against children and still strives to build wealth and build massive worship halls......The money they horde and waste could feed the world hungry for DECADES

BTW the demise of the Indigenous came a tthe hands of your forefathers!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 09:33:02 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #202 on: January 14, 2012, 03:27:56 AM »
The only answer to peace on Earth is for everyone to stop killing each other for resources, land, etc. (Unless people want to use the alternative option which is to destroy all humanity).

I disagree. Peace just like war is based on a choice. Not a gods choice but a persons.

In all of history, indigenous and civilized, humanity has resolved to law to keep the Peace.

76% of all nations have signed the ICC Rome's  Statute. As a child needs guidance to maturity so does each national identity and it's future generations  in a global village. We need one law with 100% of nations as signatories.  So close yet so far when you consider the non signatories.
Yet the RCC is still one of the richest "corporations" in the world,had hundreds if not thousands of crimes against children and still strives to build wealth and build massive worship halls......The money they horde and waste could feed the world hungry for DECADES

BTW the demise of the Indigenous came a tthe hands of your forefathers!

The ICC has nothing to do with the RCC. I'm with you regarding distribution of their wealth. Wealth is not a requirement or aid to spirituality.

Across the globe indigenous communities have been stressed or wiped out by colonization. It's not new news. You could chatize plenty. Personally I think we lost a lot because of these events. My point though was that these communities some as old as 50,000 years evolved to value law as the remedy for communities.

The ICC's (International Criminal Court) Rome statute is a legal document prescribing against atrocity etc... with 76% of all nations on earth (today) as signatories. in my view, that's progress we should build upon.

"Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute the core international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression) in situations where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves. Thus, the majority of international crimes continue to go unpunished unless and until domestic systems can properly deal with them. Therefore, permanent solutions to impunity must be found at the domestic level.[7]"

As you can see without more support it fails to deliver it's potential.

Here have a quick read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court 
  ;)

 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 03:35:14 AM by eartheconomyspirit »