Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 24, 2024, 12:33 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iesou Chresto -
#41
RE: Iesou Chresto -
Hi everyone.

This will be my first post on this forum (after my introduction)

My online friend minimalist invited me to comment.

Minimalist, I really admire your dedication to history. You obviously know your stuff and are very well read. I too have spent a bit of time trying to work out what happened all those years ago. I do not claim that my comments are any more authoritative than yours, and I've already learnt a lot by reading this thread through. I'll just add some more ideas.

I think we always need to bear in mind that the traditional story about how the early Christians allegedly were followers of Jesus is nonsense. Jesus, if he never existed, was a fundamentalist Jew. He was a member of the sect of the Nazarene's, who were probably a branch of the Essenes, so he was never Christian. Nor were his brother James, the other members of his family or any of his disciples. To be a Christian you needed to believe in the divinity of Christ, and Jews never believed, and still don't, that Jesus was divine. To have such a thought was heresy.

The Jesus narrative was only invented at the very earliest in the year 70, probably with the Gospel of Mark. This was well after Nero and the fire of Rome.

Christians probably did exist in the 50s and 60s, as witnessed by Paul's genuine letters. Yet I contend that they knew nothing of Jesus. In fact I believe that Paul's Christ was not the Jesus that we think we know so well from the Gospels. I strongly suspect, but can't prove that where Paul mentions "Jesus Christ" the "Jesus" has been interpolated into the writing. Paul said almost nothing about what Jesus said or did, which is why I think the above.

It's interesting about "Chrestos." It's possible that Marcion's predecessors worshipped "Chrestos" (and in fact, so did Paul.) At the risk of rambling on too much, here is my spiel on Marcion.

Marcion
Marcion (110–160 CE) was a key figure in Christianity’s history. He may have been the son of a bishop, and hailed from Pontus, a region on the southern coast of the Black Sea in modern Turkey. He was a ship owner and financially well off. He travelled to Rome about 142–143 CE, and soon attracted a large following, as his wealth allowed him influence and position. (http://www.gnosis.org/library/meadmarcion.htm, http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/fff/fff38.htm).

Some sources claim that Marcion was the first person to promote the Pauline Epistles, as prior to his emergence in Rome, we don’t directly hear of Paul, (other than in Ignatius’ letters, and they’re of doubtful authenticity.) No one knows how Marcion came across Paul’s letters, yet it’s possible that without Marcion, they might never have been published. Some commentators have hypothesized that Paul was, in fact, Marcion himself. I think that highly unlikely, as it would take a literary genius to invent Paul’s character.
The hero of Marcion’s canon was named Isu Chrestos - not “Jesus” or Yeshua. This is one of the reasons I suspect when “Paul” mentions “Jesus,” “Lord Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” such references are interpolations.

Marcion was a Docetist; someone who believed Christ was a spirit, an entity who sprung full-grown from the mind of God. Marcion’s (and Paul’s) Christ rescued people from the unattractive God of the Old Testament and the obligations of the Torah. He wasn’t the Messiah of Israel, the hero of Jewish expectations, but the savior of mankind.

Marcion thought that only Paul had understood the message of salvation facilitated by belief in Christ, which was precisely what the narcissistic Paul claimed too.

Marcion’s Pauline Epistles were Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Laodiceans (Ephesians,) Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Marcion was an anti-Semite, and believed that people had inserted the Judaic elements of Paul’s writings after Paul’s death. He completely ignored the Old Testament and any other references to Judaism. His followers were the first Christians to completely break away from Judaism. He (correctly) regarded Yahweh as a primitive god: jealous, envious, vindictive, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He didn’t deny Yahweh’s existence, and even acknowledged that he was the creator of the universe, but claimed that an entirely different, previously unknown, god had sent Isu Chrestos. This new god was one of love and benevolence, and had sent Isu Chrestos to replace Judaism’s legalism with mercy and tolerance.

Marcion’s Gospel is very similar to the canonical Luke, although about one third shorter. He called it the Euangelion—the “Good News”—and it wasn’t attributed to an author. The first three chapters of today’s Luke weren’t in it, so it lacked any genealogy, family, or birth story for Isu Chrestos. It’s commonly stated that Marcion shortened the original Luke; however, given that Marcion’s version probably appeared long before today’s “Luke,” it’s more likely that Marcion’s version was closer to the original.

He was the first commentator, in 140 CE, to propose the existence of a new canon, and therefore that a totally new religion, separate from Judaism, had come into being. His canon consisted only of the Euangelion and Paul’s ten letters. Marcion was, therefore, in one sense, the founder of New Testament Christianity.

His complete break with the Jewish epic was a direct challenge to emerging Catholic Christian orthodoxy. He was excommunicated from the Catholic Church around 144 CE, and labeled as a heretic. Polycarp, who couldn’t cope with competition, called him “the first born of Satan,” and other church fathers denounced him. That didn’t stop him. He returned to Asia Minor and continued to spread his ideas. His church expanded throughout much of the known world within his lifetime and remained very influential throughout the second century, when it was more successful than Catholicism. It continued to expand for more than a century, persevering alongside Catholic Christianity, and was its equal well into the fourth century, at which time the Catholics gained political power and forced the rejection and disbanding of most, but not all, Marcionite churches.

One of the oldest Christian churches ever found is Marcionite, dates from 318 CE, and is located in Syria. The inscription on a wall is dedicated to “The Lord and Savior Isu Chrestos.”

In its opposition to Marcion, the Roman Catholic Church would identify itself as the heir to Jewish tradition, and even claimed itself to be the new “true Israel.” So the fact that Marcion was opposed to Judaism meant he had enormous influence on the evolution of Catholic Christianity.
Tertullian, (160 – 220 CE) an influential theologian and a member of the Catholic Church, was highly critical of Marcion, and wrote five books criticizing him. Considering how things turned out, it’s eye-opening that he denigrated Marcion’s guru Paul as not being Jesus’ true apostle:
“I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostles…since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles. Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions. Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler’s cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. He professes himself to be ‘an apostle,’ to use his own words, ‘not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ.’ Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs, another countersigns; one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records. No one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt, that ‘many shall come, saying, I am Christ.’ Now if anyone can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ! But still, for my own part, I appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus both refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and confound your shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing them.” (Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 1, translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.)

How interesting! Tertullian, one of the founding fathers of Catholic Christianity, questioned Paul’s legitimacy. He was stating the obvious; Paul was only a self-appointed apostle and had no valid authority, because he never met Jesus. Paul’s status in Christian Churches has obviously grown since the time Tertullian wrote this.

The Roman Church eventually pinched many of Marcion’s patrons, and Paul’s teachings became the essence of Catholic Christianity. Hence Marcion’s ghost is very much alive in Christian churches today. (http://messianicpublications.com/daniel-...f-marcion/). His anti-Jewish, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul heresy lives on, but it was dogma that would have dismayed Jesus.
Reply
#42
RE: Iesou Chresto -
Hey, Mark. Thanks for the input.

(I wasn't really suggesting you join here....you could have answered at TTA, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the two... but I'm glad you did.)


Quote:Christians probably didn't exist in the 50s and 60s, as witnessed by Paul's genuine letters. Yet I con tend that they knew nothing of Jesus. In fact I believe that Paul's Christ was not the Jesus that we think we know so well from the Gospels. I strongly suspect that can't prove that where Paul mentions "Jesus Christ" the Jesus has been interpolated into the writing. Paul said almost nothing about what Jesus said or did, which is why I think the above.

Yes, the problem is that all we know of Marcion is what Tertullian and Irenaeus, et al, tell us. Much as the first 3 chapters of luke were later add-ons (much as the last nine verses of mark were added on) we have no idea what these so-called pauline epistles said. We only know what the eventual winners claimed they said.

The whole Chrestus thing is confusing because we have only a few textual references to Chrestus ( and the ones we have seem to be those manuscripts which did not come from monastic sources.) However, we do have archaeological inscriptions - noted above - going way back to Antonia Minor who died in 37 AD and the term Chrestus was used as a Greek name in the Hellenstic world.

So.... we have early inscriptions of Chrestus but not of Christos. And we have early texts which say - or were edited to say - Christos by later scribes. In this I do not ascribe the same level of forgery to those scribes as I do to the obvious frauds of the Pastoral Epistles or the Testimonium Flavianum. I suspect that they genuinely thought they were just correcting the spelling of earlier, more careless, scribes with no intent to deceive.
Reply
#43
RE: Iesou Chresto -
(April 20, 2014 at 7:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Mark. Thanks for the input.

(I wasn't really suggesting you join here....you could have answered at TTA, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the two... but I'm glad you did.)


Quote:Christians probably didn't exist in the 50s and 60s, as witnessed by Paul's genuine letters. Yet I con tend that they knew nothing of Jesus. In fact I believe that Paul's Christ was not the Jesus that we think we know so well from the Gospels. I strongly suspect that can't prove that where Paul mentions "Jesus Christ" the Jesus has been interpolated into the writing. Paul said almost nothing about what Jesus said or did, which is why I think the above.

Yes, the problem is that all we know of Marcion is what Tertullian and Irenaeus, et al, tell us. Much as the first 3 chapters of luke were later add-ons (much as the last nine verses of mark were added on) we have no idea what these so-called pauline epistles said. We only know what the eventual winners claimed they said.

The whole Chrestus thing is confusing because we have only a few textual references to Chrestus ( and the ones we have seem to be those manuscripts which did not come from monastic sources.) However, we do have archaeological inscriptions - noted above - going way back to Antonia Minor who died in 37 AD and the term Chrestus was used as a Greek name in the Hellenstic world.

So.... we have early inscriptions of Chrestus but not of Christos. And we have early texts which say - or were edited to say - Christos by later scribes. In this I do not ascribe the same level of forgery to those scribes as I do to the obvious frauds of the Pastoral Epistles or the Testimonium Flavianum. I suspect that they genuinely thought they were just correcting the spelling of earlier, more careless, scribes with no intent to deceive.

That was quick! I should have edited my reply before I posted it. I meant to write Christians did exist.
Reply
#44
RE: Iesou Chresto -
There is a two hour time limit on editing here...just for future reference.

When one of the fundies says something really stupid - happens all the time - I always quote it so they can't go back and change it.

Perhaps, as Suetonius says, they were "Chrestians" who were tossed out of Rome under Claudius? And Pliny describes "Christians" who bear no resemblance to any "jesus" in the early 2d century as goveror of Bithynia-Pontus....coincidentally not so far from Sinope

[Image: 6813.jpg]

before 112 AD. It seems more likely that Pliny wrote Chrestians and it was later changed by a helpful scribe.
Reply
#45
RE: Iesou Chresto -
(April 20, 2014 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There is a two hour time limit on editing here...just for future reference.

When one of the fundies says something really stupid - happens all the time - I always quote it so they can't go back and change it.

Perhaps, as Suetonius says, they were "Chrestians" who were tossed out of Rome under Claudius? And Pliny describes "Christians" who bear no resemblance to any "jesus" in the early 2d century as goveror of Bithynia-Pontus....coincidentally not so far from Sinope

[Image: 6813.jpg]

before 112 AD. It seems more likely that Pliny wrote Chrestians and it was later changed by a helpful scribe.

Here's my two cents worth.

There were Jews who were kicked out of Rome under Claudius' orders, but they weren't Christians.

I think Paul's theology was inspired by the Roman government and was an attempt to undermine Judaism. There may have been many "Pauls," all working for the government, yet is it was only his writings that survived. Remember that Paul wrote a letter "to the Romans," and they quite clearly had some preconceptions about a Christ.

As the 60s progressed, it was obvious that Paul's version of Christianity was having absolutely no effect on dampening down Jewish messianic expectations. Paul (the person) faded off out of the pages of history. The military needed to be bought in. There was the big war of 66 to 70.

I think it was only after the war that the Roman propaganda machine decided to change tack and use a story of Jesus to create the Gospels. This story too was aimed at undermining Judaism.

I think that it was only later in the second century that a rather pathetic attempt to merge Paul's Christ with the story of a once living flesh and blood Jesus was made, and the Christianity that we now know began to take shape. It was a mix of Paul's Christ with the Jewish Jesus. Little remnants of the real Jesus story about the political insurgent were left dangling in the Gospels like dags on a sheep's bottom.

Was there ever a real historical Jesus? Possibly yes... and the barebones of his story was used to create the Jesus of the Gospels. That kicked the Jews directly in the shins, where it really hurt, because for them Jesus had been a brave political wannabe Messiah and an unsuccessful insurgent. The government turned him into something else...a pathetic pacifist who respected Rome, loved his enemies and paid his taxes. The propagandists then twisted the knife by claiming that Jesus' own people, the Jews, were responsible for his death.

Anyway, that's Mark's version of events for your interest.Thinking
Reply
#46
RE: Iesou Chresto -
(September 28, 2013 at 12:55 pm)Tonus Wrote: Maybe they were trying to refer to him as "the snake oil salesman."

That's an insult to actual snake oil salesmen, as snake oil actually exists.
Reply
#47
RE: Iesou Chresto -
And I have to grant the possibility.

But it is equally possible that it was in the aftermath of the 3d revolt that the Romans had really had their fill of the jews. Marcion was intensely anti-semitic. That would have been popular attitude in the 140s AD.
Further, it is at that time that we start to hear about xtian apologies and Roman writers, i.e. Lucian of Samosata, start to write against them.

We don't get that in the aftermath of 70. What we get are Pliny and his xtians singing a hymn to Christus "as if to a god." He also reports that these same "xtians" cursed christ and sacrificed to the emperor.

This is not the story that xtians were putting forward some time later.
Reply
#48
RE: Iesou Chresto -
(September 28, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Latin word Christus comes from Χριστος in Greek. The root of the word, χριω, means "to be oily". Although the Greeks rubbed themselves with oil to bathe, the concept of anointment to pass on an office (or divine favor) was alien to them. It's a Jewish custom.

Chrestus, on the other hand, came from Χρηστος, meaning "good", or "worthy".

So when the Romans encountered a cult started by a man known as "the greasy one", or possibly "the guy who just finished his bath", they were sure they were hearing it wrong. These people had to mean "the worthy one", right?

ROFLOL

The Romans obviously didn't have any good theologians. "The guy who just finished his bath" has to refer to Jesus after he'd been baptized in the river Jordan. Everything would have been so much simpler if they'd come to that logical conclusion. Tongue
Badger Badger Badger Badger Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?
Reply
#49
RE: Iesou Chresto -
I laugh my ass off when xtian pilgrims today go to be baptized in the Jordan River. It is basically an open pit sewer. They are dunking themselves in jewish and palestinian shit.

In the Roman baths though, since they did not have soap, they used oil and then had it scraped off.
Reply
#50
RE: Iesou Chresto -
(April 21, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I laugh my ass off when xtian pilgrims today go to be baptized in the Jordan River. It is basically an open pit sewer. They are dunking themselves in jewish and palestinian shit.

So what else is new?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)