Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by bcedaifu »

The Crow wrote:Necessity is the mother of invention. With or without any real "christ figure" to base their beliefs on they naturally turned to the one thing they observed daily, the sky. In my opinion and mine only the "Sun" played a central role.
Solar reverence is the key point of Zoroastrianism, the monotheistic religion practiced in ancient Persia and points east.

Zoroastrianism greatly influenced Judaism, during the Babylonian exile, therefore, some influence on subsequent thinkers, coming from that background, should be expected. So, I agree with your assessment about a central role for celestial observations influencing theological discussions, in ancient times.

David Hindley's rejoinder, clarifying the Greek, a few pages back, is excellent, and should be a sticky! The daimon business is critical, in my opinion, and many thanks for clarifying the correct interpretation--not an evil spirit.

MaryHelena's arguments are not only valid, but interesting, and just as worthy of discussion, as Stephan's beloved theories about "Secret Mark". Be not put off, MH, by SH's attempted belittling.

I agree, (for once) with Peter Kirby's suggestion on the need to reduce the insulting, and focus more on the issues.

Carrier's legend about the utility of employing the race horse method to study of early history is simply false, in my opinion. Flashing numbers around may impress those unfamiliar with mathematics. Using numbers to assure validity of false input, is completely meaningless, in the context of fraud and fabrication of ancient documents. Analogy: would the race horse specialist have developed a meaningful equation, had he been given results that were deliberately erroneous? Tacitus' forgery suffices as illustration.

Thanks Robert Tulip for patience in the face of so many naysayers. Well done. I agree with almost every word MrMacSon writes. Thank you Thor for the link to Tertullian.

Just a terrific thread, with so many first class submissions. Really a joy to encounter. Thanks to all.
The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by The Crow »

bcedaifu wrote:
The Crow wrote:Necessity is the mother of invention. With or without any real "christ figure" to base their beliefs on they naturally turned to the one thing they observed daily, the sky. In my opinion and mine only the "Sun" played a central role.
Solar reverence is the key point of Zoroastrianism, the monotheistic religion practiced in ancient Persia and points east.

Zoroastrianism greatly influenced Judaism, during the Babylonian exile, therefore, some influence on subsequent thinkers, coming from that background, should be expected. So, I agree with your assessment about a central role for celestial observations influencing theological discussions, in ancient times.

David Hindley's rejoinder, clarifying the Greek, a few pages back, is excellent, and should be a sticky! The daimon business is critical, in my opinion, and many thanks for clarifying the correct interpretation--not an evil spirit.

MaryHelena's arguments are not only valid, but interesting, and just as worthy of discussion, as Stephan's beloved theories about "Secret Mark". Be not put off, MH, by SH's attempted belittling.

I agree, (for once) with Peter Kirby's suggestion on the need to reduce the insulting, and focus more on the issues.

Carrier's legend about the utility of employing the race horse method to study of early history is simply false, in my opinion. Flashing numbers around may impress those unfamiliar with mathematics. Using numbers to assure validity of false input, is completely meaningless, in the context of fraud and fabrication of ancient documents. Analogy: would the race horse specialist have developed a meaningful equation, had he been given results that were deliberately erroneous? Tacitus' forgery suffices as illustration.

Thanks Robert Tulip for patience in the face of so many naysayers. Well done. I agree with almost every word MrMacSon writes. Thank you Thor for the link to Tertullian.

Just a terrific thread, with so many first class submissions. Really a joy to encounter. Thanks to all.
I agree, (for once) with Peter Kirby's suggestion on the need to reduce the insulting, and focus more on the issues.
I have not insulted anyone?
Solar reverence is the key point of Zoroastrianism, the monotheistic religion practiced in ancient Persia and points east.
Agreed. But it is not limited to one specific religious system.
Thanks Robert Tulip for patience in the face of so many naysayers.
I am not disagreeing with Robert here. Its not just astro theology in a nut shell. Concentrating on one aspect of the Cosmology/Astrolatry of the ancients is to ignore the entire basis of what they may or may not have believed. All we have is the ancient literature what we glean from this is purely a matter of our own personal interpretation of it.
The daily motions and varying aspects of the living and energetic sun hero may be said to comprise the motif of almost every legend and myth bequeathed to us by the ancients.
NETLANCERS INC (2013-02-18). Collection Of Astrology And Sky Lore (Kindle Locations 22332-22333). NETLANCERS INC. Kindle Edition.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The Crow wrote: Necessity is the mother of invention. With or without any real "christ figure" to base their beliefs on they naturally turned to the one thing they observed daily, the sky. In my opinion and mine only the "Sun" played a central role.
Image

Christ-Helios in the Vatican tombs.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2011 ... an-tomb-m/
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Does it occur to anyone that all these solar images might actually be later developments within Christianity and do little to explain Christian origins themselves?

Does it ever occur to anyone that there just might be some slight significance to the fact that the earliest accounts of Christianity -- Paul's and other NT letters -- give no hint of solar worship as part of their religion?

Or if we conveniently move Paul's letters to the second century by ignoring the arguments against that process do we think we might run into problems with sun worship as the foundation of Christianity when we find the gospel narratives can (nearly) all be traceable to the Jewish Scriptures?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by The Crow »

This from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
This is perhaps the oldest form of idolatry practised by the ancients. According to Wisdom xiii. 2, the observation of the stars in the East very early led the people to regard the planets and the fixed stars as gods. The religion of the ancient Egyptians is known to have consisted preeminently of sun-worship. Moses sternly warned the Israelites against worshiping the sun, moon, stars, and all the host of heaven (Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3); it may be said that the prohibition of making and worshiping any image of that which is in heaven above (Ex. xx. 4; Deut. v. 8) implies also the stars and the other celestial bodies.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... ar-worship

Last paragraph on the same page reads:
The term "star-worship" ("'abodat kokabim u-mazzalot") in the Talmud and in post-Talmudic literature is chiefly a censor's emendation for "'abodah zarah." In connection with star-worship, it is related in the Mishnah ('Ab. Zarah iv. 7) that the Rabbis ("zeḳenim") were asked if God dislikes idolatry why He did not destroy the idols. The Rabbis answered: "If the heathen worshiped only idols perhaps God would have destroyed the objects of their adoration, but they worship also the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the host of heaven, and God can not destroy the world on account of the heathen."
Bold highlight my doing.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Omg, we all know -- and many of us have surely known since high school history -- about astrology and the worship of planets, sun and moon etc. But so what? Where is the connection with the earliest evidence for Christian origins? Jesus had 12 disciples: hey, they must be the constellations (there's no other conceivable plausible explanation, none at all!), er, or maybe some sources say they represent the hours of the night, -- but Jean Dixon even told us which sign each disciple was born under. Slam dunk. That's how Christianity began.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
RecoveringScot
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by RecoveringScot »

neilgodfrey wrote:Omg, we all know -- and many of us have surely known since high school history -- about astrology and the worship of planets, sun and moon etc. But so what? Where is the connection with the earliest evidence for Christian origins? Jesus had 12 disciples: hey, they must be the constellations (there's no other conceivable plausible explanation, none at all!), er, or maybe some sources say they represent the hours of the night, -- but Jean Dixon even told us which sign each disciple was born under. Slam dunk. That's how Christianity began.
Quite. How many British people remember why court juries historically were made up of 12 'good men and true'? It would never strike anyone in the ordinary course of life. It just persists as a social fact whose origins are not remembered or even particularly cared about.
The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by The Crow »

neilgodfrey wrote:Omg, we all know -- and many of us have surely known since high school history -- about astrology and the worship of planets, sun and moon etc. But so what? Where is the connection with the earliest evidence for Christian origins? Jesus had 12 disciples: hey, they must be the constellations (there's no other conceivable plausible explanation, none at all!), er, or maybe some sources say they represent the hours of the night, -- but Jean Dixon even told us which sign each disciple was born under. Slam dunk. That's how Christianity began.
Where is the connection with the earliest evidence for Christian origins?
Neil I am not saying this is the basis for Christian origins. Unless I miss my guess Paul is considered the founder of Christianity, right?

(1).Why is the number "12" seen more throughout the Bible than any other number? Coincidence? Maybe.
(2).Jesus a teacher at age 12. Coincidence? Maybe.
(3).12 disciples? Coincidence? Maybe.
(4).12 Tribes? Coincidence? Maybe.
(5).Joseph had 12 brothers? Coincidence? Maybe.

What are the odds that all of the above could have happened and they all accidentally come to the number 12 ? In my personal opinion I believe that it is more astronomical than astrological. There was no systematic observation of the heavens by the Jews as according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
No systematic observations of the heavenly bodies were made by the Jews.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02029a.htm

Not interested in a pissing contest here. Interested in how people explain away the coincidences.
Thor
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:09 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Thor »

neilgodfrey wrote:Does it occur to anyone that all these solar images might actually be later developments within Christianity and do little to explain Christian origins themselves??
There is a possibility they might be so. If they are, they give rise to some intriguing assumptions which must follow.

1. There is one true Christianity, one origin distinct from the external environment it emerged from. Unique in its factual correct historical account.

2. The early Church fathers, like Tertullian as quoted earlier, actually are guilty of heresies with the heretical writings against heresies. :problem:
Because if there is one true Christianity, and they simply do not represent it.

3. All other variations or branches of "Christianity" being accused of being heresies, was correctly labeled as wrong "Christianity". Because if there actually
was one true Christianity not yet correctly revealed. There are by definition no true Christians either.

neilgodfrey wrote:Does it ever occur to anyone that there just might be some slight significance to the fact that the earliest accounts of Christianity -- Paul's and other NT letters -- give no hint of solar worship as part of their religion?

Or if we conveniently move Paul's letters to the second century by ignoring the arguments against that process do we think we might run into problems with sun worship as the foundation of Christianity when we find the gospel narratives can (nearly) all be traceable to the Jewish Scriptures?
You should not interpret views as simply denying that there just might be some slight significance. To use Paul and other NT letters as you mention, as the only source of correct and factual understanding of the one true Christianity and its origin, is nonetheless far more than taking the "slight significance" into consideration.

The metaphorical aspect of "sun worship" as part of Christianity is misunderstood as claims of being the foundation and basis of Christianity. Personally I see it as a more complex matter than it being either or. I do not dismiss what you say, because I do agree with much of what you say. I simply find it difficult to dismiss all the other elements.

Not that I offer any truths or answers. I only present elements I personally find difficult to regard as irrelevant or insignificant.
ad_orientem.jpeg
ad_orientem.jpeg (105.41 KiB) Viewed 12060 times
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost »

Jupiter is called Dies Pater. He might be a sungod.
Post Reply