Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:19 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I thought this was interesting, from Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted.

"All of this mattered in part because the Roman emperor Con- stantine had converted to Christianity and wanted to use this new religion to help unify his fractured empire. A split religion could not bring unity. The religion had to be united first. And so the emperor called a meeting in Nicaea of the most important Christian bishops in the empire, in order to debate the issues and to make a judgment to be binding on all Christians. This was the famous Council of Nicaea of the year 325 CE.
In the end the council voted for Athanasius’s position. Contrary to what is sometimes said, it was nearly a unanimous decision, not a close vote. Still, even after that day the debates continued, and for a while in the fourth century it looked as though the Arians were going to emerge victorious after all. But eventually the orthodox position was that of Athanasius. There are three persons in the God- head. They are distinct from each other. But each one is equally God. All three are eternal beings. And they all are of the same substance. This, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is quite a development from anything found in the New Testament, where there is no explicit statement of anything of the sort. Not even in a document like the Gospel of John, where Jesus is thought of as divine, is there any discussion of three being one in substance. As you might expect, later scribes of the New Testament found this lack disturbing, and so in one place at least they inserted an explicit reference to the Trinity (1 John 5:7–8).9 The Trinity is a later Christian invention, which was based, in the arguments of Athanasius and others, on passages of Scripture but which does not actually appear in any of the books of the New Testament.
Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable."

So basically the Council is what made the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity, nowhere else.

I think there is some argument about whether Constantine genuinely "converted", as he was known to continue to worship his (previous) other gods, later. But he DID use the new religion, (which IN NO WAY "was born" at Nicaea, as ANYONE who knew ANYTHING about ALL the arguments and events PRECEDING Nicaea knows), to unify his empire. The arguments concerning the Trinity preceded Nicaea, and went on afterwards. Nicaea did not invent the Trinity. They were more concerned about the "filioque procedit" argument, (how the Son "proceeds" from the Father). They tried to put an end to some of the arguments, but it didn't work. The concept of an "active agent" (ie the "spirit" of God) (proceeding) from the Father is very much present in much older documents, (but not as a "person").

Actually, I think the "filioque procedit" argument was much later. It was what precipitated the split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, which wasn't until 700 years or so after Nicea (although they had been arguing about other things for centuries -- this was just the "last straw"). The question was whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholic). You wouldn't think such a small thing would provoke a schism, but like I said, there was a lot of "history".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:16 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2014 11:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 09:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I think there is some argument about whether Constantine genuinely "converted", as he was known to continue to worship his (previous) other gods, later. But he DID use the new religion, (which IN NO WAY "was born" at Nicaea, as ANYONE who knew ANYTHING about ALL the arguments and events PRECEDING Nicaea knows), to unify his empire. The arguments concerning the Trinity preceded Nicaea, and went on afterwards. Nicaea did not invent the Trinity. They were more concerned about the "filioque procedit" argument, (how the Son "proceeds" from the Father). They tried to put an end to some of the arguments, but it didn't work. The concept of an "active agent" (ie the "spirit" of God) (proceeding) from the Father is very much present in much older documents, (but not as a "person").

Actually, I think the "filioque procedit" argument was much later. It was what precipitated the split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, which wasn't until 700 years or so after Nicea (although they had been arguing about other things for centuries -- this was just the "last straw"). The question was whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholic). You wouldn't think such a small thing would provoke a schism, but like I said, there was a lot of "history".

Sorry, but I don't think so. The "filioque procedit" ((Latin for "proceeds from (the Father) AND the SON" ... "que" appended to "filio" in Latin is "and the son")) from the Father was one of the things they argued about at Nicaea, (and actually started earlier..at least as early as the Council of Constantinople).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 11:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Actually, I think the "filioque procedit" argument was much later. It was what precipitated the split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, which wasn't until 700 years or so after Nicea (although they had been arguing about other things for centuries -- this was just the "last straw"). The question was whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox) or from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholic). You wouldn't think such a small thing would provoke a schism, but like I said, there was a lot of "history".

Sorry, but I don't think so. The "filioque procedit" ((Latin for "proceeds from (the Father) AND the SON" ... "que" appended to "filio" in Latin is "and the son")) from the Father was one of the things they argued about at Nicaea, (and actually started earlier..at least as early as the Council of Constantinople).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

It's pretty murky from the article you cite. It appears that the "filioque" phrase was in there long before the 11th century (although it wasn't accepted/approved by the Pope until then), so I was wrong about that, but I don't see anything to indicate that it was in the Creed at Nicaea or Constantinople (which was actually later then Nicaea). Apparently it was put in at a later council. I didn't have the energy to read the whole article -- just kind of skimmed it -- but it didn't seem like there was any strong statement about exactly when that phrase was put in. Murky, I say. But I will back off on the 11th century claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:49 PM
RE: Jesus myth
I go with Christopher Hitchens' argument that Jesus probably did exist (no it necessarily by that name).

The reasoned that the fact Jesus' birth had to be twisted in order for him to be born in Bethlehem (to fulfill the prophesy). The fact he is known as Jesus of Nazareth is a clue to his true origins. The census requiring people to return to their city of birth is now understood to have never occurred and was likely fabricated by early Christians.

That, according to Hitchens, is reason to think there was someone around at the time who fits the character, forming the cult that became Christianity... If he'd never existed, why not just fabricate the entire story and have him born and raised in Bethlehem?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
05-01-2014, 12:00 AM
RE: Jesus myth
And this is the video... Posted it before, but still worth a watch.






[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 12:01 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 12:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 11:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 11:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't think so. The "filioque procedit" ((Latin for "proceeds from (the Father) AND the SON" ... "que" appended to "filio" in Latin is "and the son")) from the Father was one of the things they argued about at Nicaea, (and actually started earlier..at least as early as the Council of Constantinople).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

It's pretty murky from the article you cite. It appears that the "filioque" phrase was in there long before the 11th century (although it wasn't accepted/approved by the Pope until then), so I was wrong about that, but I don't see anything to indicate that it was in the Creed at Nicaea or Constantinople (which was actually later then Nicaea). Apparently it was put in at a later council. I didn't have the energy to read the whole article -- just kind of skimmed it -- but it didn't seem like there was any strong statement about exactly when that phrase was put in. Murky, I say. But I will back off on the 11th century claim.

Yup, I was wrong about the date for Constantinople, don't know what I was thinking ??
They were arguing about it in some of the synods though, and here's a reference to some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synods_of_Antioch

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 12:22 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(04-01-2014 11:49 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  I go with Christopher Hitchens' argument that Jesus probably did exist (no it necessarily by that name).

The reasoned that the fact Jesus' birth had to be twisted in order for him to be born in Bethlehem (to fulfill the prophesy). The fact he is known as Jesus of Nazareth is a clue to his true origins. The census requiring people to return to their city of birth is now understood to have never occurred and was likely fabricated by early Christians.

That, according to Hitchens, is reason to think there was someone around at the time who fits the character, forming the cult that became Christianity... If he'd never existed, why not just fabricate the entire story and have him born and raised in Bethlehem?

Except Hirtchins was no scholar of religion, or History.
A "Nazirite" was a Jewish ascetic, which in context makes a lot more sense to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
If the point was that he was a Nazirite, then Hitchins is irrelevant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Jesus myth
wow

This wasn't like my thesis or anything lol. When you browse religious forums and have debated religion for years it is always the same round robin posits. I like to spice things up and when I see an interesting new spin, or at least a perspective or theory i am unfamiliar with, I like to pick that ball up and toss it onto the field, never know where it takes you. Sometimes the ball hits the field, rolls five feet and never moves again. Sometimes the opposing team grabs the ball and runs with it, and sometimes flags get dropped on the play.

Regardless, this sparked conversation, and I would submit to you that there is a chance a reader got a seed planted, an interest to look into Nicaea, the influence of Constantine and may have even broadened their knowledge base because of it. There were a lot of interesting things done by Constantine and the council that directly influenced Christianity as it is today in a big way. Most people just think they established the trinity concept, or agreed to posit jesus as son of god etc. A lot of things happened there, or so it seems.

I don't claim to be a scholar, my major is in Criminal Justice with specialization in Homeland Security from St Leo University. So outside of world religions, quest for wisdom etc type courses that were a requisite, I dont have a lot of formal education in the field. So my experience in reference to formal education and the discussion of religion has zero relevance here, I simply explain that due to bucky ball's implication about my education.

cheersDrinking Beverage

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-01-2014 07:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  wow

This wasn't like my thesis or anything lol. When you browse religious forums and have debated religion for years it is always the same round robin posits. I like to spice things up and when I see an interesting new spin, or at least a perspective or theory i am unfamiliar with, I like to pick that ball up and toss it onto the field, never know where it takes you. Sometimes the ball hits the field, rolls five feet and never moves again. Sometimes the opposing team grabs the ball and runs with it, and sometimes flags get dropped on the play.

Regardless, this sparked conversation, and I would submit to you that there is a chance a reader got a seed planted, an interest to look into Nicaea, the influence of Constantine and may have even broadened their knowledge base because of it. There were a lot of interesting things done by Constantine and the council that directly influenced Christianity as it is today in a big way. Most people just think they established the trinity concept, or agreed to posit jesus as son of god etc. A lot of things happened there, or so it seems.

I don't claim to be a scholar, my major is in Criminal Justice with specialization in Homeland Security from St Leo University. So outside of world religions, quest for wisdom etc type courses that were a requisite, I dont have a lot of formal education in the field. So my experience in reference to formal education and the discussion of religion has zero relevance here, I simply explain that due to bucky ball's implication about my education.

cheersDrinking Beverage

Where I come from, people with Masters degrees know the difference between "than" and "then". It raised a legitimate question, as did your use of the totally debunked Bushby.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-01-2014 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 07:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  wow

This wasn't like my thesis or anything lol. When you browse religious forums and have debated religion for years it is always the same round robin posits. I like to spice things up and when I see an interesting new spin, or at least a perspective or theory i am unfamiliar with, I like to pick that ball up and toss it onto the field, never know where it takes you. Sometimes the ball hits the field, rolls five feet and never moves again. Sometimes the opposing team grabs the ball and runs with it, and sometimes flags get dropped on the play.

Regardless, this sparked conversation, and I would submit to you that there is a chance a reader got a seed planted, an interest to look into Nicaea, the influence of Constantine and may have even broadened their knowledge base because of it. There were a lot of interesting things done by Constantine and the council that directly influenced Christianity as it is today in a big way. Most people just think they established the trinity concept, or agreed to posit jesus as son of god etc. A lot of things happened there, or so it seems.

I don't claim to be a scholar, my major is in Criminal Justice with specialization in Homeland Security from St Leo University. So outside of world religions, quest for wisdom etc type courses that were a requisite, I dont have a lot of formal education in the field. So my experience in reference to formal education and the discussion of religion has zero relevance here, I simply explain that due to bucky ball's implication about my education.

cheersDrinking Beverage

Where I come from, people with Masters degrees know the difference between "than" and "then". It raised a legitimate question, as did your use of the totally debunked Bushey.

I understand the difference between than and THEN as I chide my people about its proper use on a continuous basis. My personal challenge is I can not type, so I must stare at the keyboard while angrily banging away at it with two fingers from each hand...quite comical to watch according to my wife, then I look up, say a few expletives, and go back and correct all the mangled words that were fat fingered into all kinds of garbage.

I also hate to type, funny for some one whose job requires me to write position papers and military memos all day long, AND spend way to much time slaughtering believers in various forums as my wife calls it while shaking her head Blink

So some of my files of info that I have built over the years may be holding old information, even information no longer valid, I need to go through some time and vet/validate all of that sometime soon it appears. ah well. ConsiderBlush

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: