I disagree.
If that was the case, he wouldn't have been given such prominence in all the early histories, the Clementine writings and the gnostic gospels.
An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis
- Thread starter Mcreal
- Start date
I disagree.
If that was the case, he wouldn't have been given such prominence in all the early histories, the Clementine writings and the gnostic gospels.
Mcreal said:
That is an example of why a lot of your commentary is spurious.
Calling the Clementine writings and the gnostic gospels 'histories' is laughable.
Why wasn't James given due, clear prominence in the books of the NT? i.e. in the so-called earliest 'history'.
Last edited:
What do you disagree with?
1. ".. it was OK
not realising it as going to be a multi-post serial?" or
2. "A lot of what you have said is spurious eg. overstating the Ebionites?"
2. "A lot of what you have said is spurious eg. overstating the Ebionites?"
I elaborated in post #89 on how the hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the [late] 2nd century i.e. how we don't even see or hear anything about the term until a century later! and what the ties are!
Adv. Haereses III.21.1, says:
1. "God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son" (Isaiah 7:14) as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.
Note "The Ebionites, following these" i.e. 'Theodotion the Ephesian' and 'Aquila of Pontus', 'both Jewish proselytes'. Note that Ephesus and Pontus are well away from Galilee or Jerusalem i.e. well away from 'James'.You cited an Introductory Notice to the PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE LITERATURE
'(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to “James, the Lord’s brother,” in all the writings, is a clear indication of this ...
More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.6 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,7 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter."
More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.6 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,7 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter."
Note
"(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing 'with a purpose'."
No it's not.
So Paul is engaged in countering the view expressed in the Kenotic Hymn, which is supposed to decide once and for all what he thought, eh?
Now that proves your ideas are completely awry, because naturalist theories don't serve theological functions. Gods are by definition "super" natural. Natural explanations, true or erroneous, can't be invoked in support of magic.
If we go to a magic show and see a conjurer sawing his lady assistant in half, and I say: wait a minute, that's an illusion; I've found a rational explanation for this seeming event - that makes me an "apologist" for magic?
You're saying naturalist statements have "apologetic" functions, while gibberish about crucifixions in the Empyrian by daemonic powers are embraced by atheists for rationalist purposes, and treated as "genuine history"?
"Theologists" say Jesus was an ordinary human being, while atheists say he must have been an angel from heaven? Is that what happens? Aye right, as we say here.
This is good fun. I say that Vespasian was an ordinary human warlord who happened to become Emperor by bumping off his predecessor. That makes me an apologist for the imperial cult. But if I said he was the prophesied messiah that would be quite in order, eh?
That's OK actually, and it will be until I become Pope.
Eh? http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.php
I think I understand actually. Catholics say Rome became the centre of the Church. Craig B says Rome became the centre of the Church. Ergo, Craig's a Catholic.
But the Pope's a Catholic.
Therefore Craig's the Pope!
Therefore you're right about Brainache contradicting me. Congratulations. Logic always wins out in the end.
Last edited:
From that link:
"...Scripture talks about the "New Jerusalem" and doesn't talk about the Church in Rome until the end of the Book of Acts.
"Understanding this partially hinges on whether we accept that Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus (Mathew 16:18). Catholics think there is undeniable biblical and historical evidence to support the primacy of Peter."
"Understanding this partially hinges on whether we accept that Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus (Mathew 16:18). Catholics think there is undeniable biblical and historical evidence to support the primacy of Peter."
.
The New Jerusalem of Revelation was not a physical place
"Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem ...'
"Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadows of the New Testament (typology), Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem ...'
.
The book of Acts makes the establishment of the Church in Rome the goal
"...We see in the book of Acts a powerful movement to establish the Church in Rome. That is where the book of Acts finishes. St. Luke states, “This is how we finally came to Rome” (Acts 28:14) ... The move to Rome was very early in Christian history, it's in the Bible. That's about as early as it gets. Jesus said "make disciples of all peoples" (Mat 28:19) and that could best be accomplished through the communications nerve centre of the world, which was Rome."
lol !! It happened b/c the bible said it would happen. Vacuous."...We see in the book of Acts a powerful movement to establish the Church in Rome. That is where the book of Acts finishes. St. Luke states, “This is how we finally came to Rome” (Acts 28:14) ... The move to Rome was very early in Christian history, it's in the Bible. That's about as early as it gets. Jesus said "make disciples of all peoples" (Mat 28:19) and that could best be accomplished through the communications nerve centre of the world, which was Rome."
Of course that's vacuous. As I have stated as regards both Rome and Constantinople, it happened in response to political realities. But happen it did.
Last edited:
What is "it"? What happened in response to 'political realities'?
This.
Last edited:
What supports the notion that "the city of Rome became the centre of the Church" early in Christianity?
None of the Ecumenical councils were in Rome until the 12 century.
Apart from some dubious assertions about bishops of Rome, there is no evidence that Rome became an early centre of Christianity. No definitive archaeology. No good contemporaneous commentary or witnessing.
None of the Ecumenical councils were in Rome until the 12 century.
Apart from some dubious assertions about bishops of Rome, there is no evidence that Rome became an early centre of Christianity. No definitive archaeology. No good contemporaneous commentary or witnessing.
I think I'll leave this one to you, if you are telling me that Rome became a Christian centre only in the twelfth century. Good day.
I disagree that I was "overstating the Ebionites"
Just because the earliest record comes from Irenaeus doesn't mean that the Ebionites didn't exist before the 2nd century. In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that there was a sect of Messianic Jews who called themselves "Ebionites" in the first century before the first Jewish revolt.
I didn't call the Clementine writings "Histories", I was including them on a list of early writings which depicted James as the first leader of the earliest "Church". Opinions are divided on just how historical they are, but some Scholars seem to think they are based on an earlier work.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.i.html
So it isn't as straightforward as you suggest. Either way, they represent at least one tradition in early Christianity which favoured James as the leader, obedience to the Jewish laws and call Jesus the "True Prophet" who would be resurrected in the last days. They also refer to Paul as "Enemy":
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxx.html
BTW: Here is a reference to Rome's preeminence in the Christian world after the fall of Jerusalem:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.i.html
It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Craig, now your tone is getting narky. Please let's try to discuss differences with respect.
Okay, well I can't argue with that. I presumed you were aware of the detailed arguments in favour of my point. I am happy to discuss that point but I get the impression you are dogmatically closed to the possibility of being wrong here.
No, I don't know why you presume that I was referring to one hymn only when I had addressed a range of sources. Moreover, I do not rely upon a single passage in Paul's writings for anything as far as I am aware.
I am afraid you have totally missed my point when you respond with reference to natural explanations and magic. I would like to explain but your response leaves me doubting that you are interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs.
I don't know what you're talking about but it sure as houses has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Try this: some scholars have doubted that Jesus ever really did go into the wilderness to be tempted for 40 days after his baptism. The reason? Because it reads very much as though the story is trying to make Jesus a representative of Israel that went through the Red Sea out into the Wilderness for 40 years. Going into the wilderness is a physical natural thing, but it serves a theological function. It is written to convey a theological message, not a true honest-to-god historical record.
To my knowledge only apologists dispute that.
It is clear we have nothing to discuss with each other. I understand most atheists say Jesus was just an ordinary man. You seem to be concerned about a number of issues I don't find relevant to what I thought was the discussion at hand.
------------------
Okay, well I can't argue with that. I presumed you were aware of the detailed arguments in favour of my point. I am happy to discuss that point but I get the impression you are dogmatically closed to the possibility of being wrong here.
No, I don't know why you presume that I was referring to one hymn only when I had addressed a range of sources. Moreover, I do not rely upon a single passage in Paul's writings for anything as far as I am aware.
I am afraid you have totally missed my point when you respond with reference to natural explanations and magic. I would like to explain but your response leaves me doubting that you are interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs.
I don't know what you're talking about but it sure as houses has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Try this: some scholars have doubted that Jesus ever really did go into the wilderness to be tempted for 40 days after his baptism. The reason? Because it reads very much as though the story is trying to make Jesus a representative of Israel that went through the Red Sea out into the Wilderness for 40 years. Going into the wilderness is a physical natural thing, but it serves a theological function. It is written to convey a theological message, not a true honest-to-god historical record.
To my knowledge only apologists dispute that.
It is clear we have nothing to discuss with each other. I understand most atheists say Jesus was just an ordinary man. You seem to be concerned about a number of issues I don't find relevant to what I thought was the discussion at hand.
Edited by Darat:
Breach of Membership Agreement removed
------------------
Last edited by a moderator:
It is time for me to bow out of this discussion.
I have said more than once now that your scenario is not impossible. The reason I do not embrace it, however, is because I think you (like Eisenman) are finding in the evidence what you are looking for, what you expect to find.
For example, you spoke of remarkable coincidences between DSS and NT passages and inferred that the two passages pointed to the same group of people or community.
Yes, that is one possible interpretation. But there are also other possible interpretations. Another one is that both the NT and DSS passages point to a common interest in common sources by two quite different groups of people.
The real test of any hypothesis, of any historical reconstruction, is to try to find arguments and evidence that disproves it. That's how good scholarship works.
But if we find that other evidence we have does contradict our hypothesis, but then we find reasons to reject that evidence as it stands, and to argue that in its original form it really supported our hypothesis -- then okay ....
but if we do that over and over again with all the evidence that contradicts our theory, then I think some of us have a right to question it.
I hope we can agree that our hypotheses are not dogmatically proved to be true, but are options that need to be tested and argued.
Yes. I have never claimed that this hypothesis is 100% certain. I haven't found anything that contradicts it so far. I have seen arguments from authority based on theories that were formed before the discovery of the DSS. I have seen apologists hand wave away any connection between the DSS and Xtianity because the DSS don't share Paul's Christology.
I don't mind if you don't want to keep reading, but I still find it convincing.
I don't think that criticism is justified. I address your points fairly, and now I will do that once more with your next observation.
You keep asserting that I must be a religious apologist or motivated by malice in order to disagree with you, and now you are stating that only religious belief could enable me to see the sojourn in the wilderness as other than a natural event. I entreat you to respond sincerely to this question: when did you last peruse the Synoptic accounts of that "natural event"? These blast your contention of "naturalism" to pieces.
Mark 1:12 Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him ...
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
Luke 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
Luke 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.
I will refrain from saying any more about this.
These considerations and others like them form the basis of the "embarrassment" argument by which some scholars attempt to determine what, if any, parts of the gospel story have a basis in fact. You can easily see that, I suppose.
It goes like: Statement x is contrary to Christian doctrine regarding the nature of Jesus. Therefore presumably it was not invented by Christian redactors, or interpolated by Christian copyists, of these Gospels. So where does it come from ...? Perhaps x is a real historical element which, for one reason or another, turned out to be ineluctable. Or if not, then what? Such things make the study of these texts all the more interesting.
Last edited:
No, I wasn't telling you that.
It occurs to me that some readers might prefer to watch a short video than read my endless posts. As luck would have it, I found a short wacky video which has been chopped together in a strange way which I'm told appeals to youngsters these days... It's only 15 minutes long:
ESSENES Ebionites JAMES the Just in Dead Sea Scrolls at QUMRAN
That might give people some idea of what I've been getting at in this thread.
ESSENES Ebionites JAMES the Just in Dead Sea Scrolls at QUMRAN
That might give people some idea of what I've been getting at in this thread.