|
|
General Discussion
Started by NickOtani at 05-27-2007 6:22 PM. Topic has 56 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 05-27-2007, 6:22 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
Whatever evidence we have of the actual existence of the historical Jesus would not be allowed in a court of law. It is hear-say evidence, often three or more times removed from any alleged primary source. The Gospel of Mark was written first, aproximately 40 years after Jesus was gone. Matthew and Luke contain information taken from Mark. John is not even one of the "synoptic" Gospels because it has a completely different plot line and focus from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Although the synoptic Gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, most scholars agree these people most likely did not actually write the Gospels attributed to them. The Gospel of Mark is most likely not written by someone named Mark.
There are other Gospels which didn't get included in the Bible, but they have the same problems as those included in the Bible. They were written long after Jesus was gone, and they follow the basic story found in Mark. There was the Gospel of Thomas, and there were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
One source is non-Christian, a historian named Josephus. He appears to have mentioned Jesus, but these could have been doctored additions to the text. All of these sources were in the hands of Christians for about a thousand years.
There are also many pagan myths which have stories similar to that of Jesus. The story of Jesus could have been a compilation of these.
Even according to Josephus, crucifixion of robbers, highway men, was common, and many of these highway robbers were Robin Hood types who had the sympathy of poor villagers. Some robbers also had hopes of becoming king, i.e., messiah.
However, Jesus, if he did actually exist, was not one of these robbers. He was most likely a traveling faith-healer who, with his followers, healed people in exchange for food, which was shared with all, and he told cryptic parables and preached of Jewish prophecy, the coming of a Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven. This would threaten and insult the Roman rule which thought it should be enough and wouldn't want the Jewish people thinking it was not.
If we accept that Jesus did exist, this is what may have happened:
In the days when Herod was king of Judea, around 4 BCE, Jesus of Nazareth was born. Not until thirty years later was he baptized by John, the son of his mother’s cousin. John spoke of Jewish prophecy and made an impression on Jesus. When John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded, because of a conflict with Herod, Jesus continued John’s teachings.
Jesus entered the synagogues of Galilee and demonstrated such remarkable talent that many who heard him thought he could be John rose from the dead. Friends of his family talked about how surprised they were to find that a carpenter’s son could perform so authoritatively in front of a crowd. His mother, however, was both proud and concerned, worried that he was receiving too much attention.
Although he retained many dedicated followers, some of his teachings were threatening and cold. He talked about hell fire for sinners and unbelievers. He told others to “Judge not, …,” but he cursed a fig tree which did not bear fruit out of season. He seemed unconcerned with ending poverty, “The poor ye have always with you,”; and he said that a slave’s duty was to serve his master well, “Blessed is the slave whom his master returning, finds performing his charge.”
On one occasion, Jesus was told that his mother, brothers, and sisters were waiting for him while he was busy talking to a group of listeners. He allowed his family to wait saying that any strangers with whom he speaks are part of his family.
Stories circulated that attributed miraculous powers to Jesus. He is said to have cured lepers and cripples and even to have brought certain dead people back to life. These were, perhaps, faith healing episodes which became exaggerated through rumor. Jesus could not perform these miracles in the area of his own home, where people knew him as the carpenter’s son. “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house,” said Jesus.
With his unconventional lifestyle and anti-establishment attitude, Jesus offended many of the respected Jews of the Roman province of Judea. He associated with prostitutes, tax collectors, beggars, and other low life; and he deliberately broke the laws concerning diet and working on Sundays.
Even though he tried to stay out of government business, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars’ unto God what is God’s, his talk of a Kingdom in Heaven caused some government officials to suspect he was plotting a revolution. He became a problem which had to be eliminated.
Then, not long after a Passover supper on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan, Mary’s worst fears were realized. Jesus was arrested, convicted, and crucified. His mother witnessed it all. She wondered at his teachings and claims, and she heard him say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
A story was soon told that the body was missing and that Jesus had been seen, alive, by certain of his followers. This was taken as confirmation that he was more than mere man, that there was a Kingdom of Heaven, and that prophecy had been fulfilled; that Jesus was the Anointed One – ‘Messiah’ in Hebrew, ‘Christos’ in Greek.
At his time of greatest need, most of his closest disciples denied having anything to do with him. However, when rumors of his resurrection spread, some people became believers. They became known as Christians.
The early Christians were few, but they were driven to make converts out of all people, even non-Jews. They brought persecution upon themselves from the citizens they annoyed. They would probably have become extinct, from being stoned to death, if not for the efforts of a converted Christen-killer named Paul.
Paul was a member of Rome’s privileged class. Prior to his conversion, he hunted Christians and stoned them to death, but one day he had a vision or dream that turned his life around. He became a great teacher, on behalf of Jesus, and told his listener’s to “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit.” It soon became a sin for any person to wonder and doubt. The Christian doctrine was to be accepted entirely on faith, based on the authority of prophets such as Paul who claimed that truth was revealed to them. Too much thinking and questioning was condemned and considered proof of the questioner’s depravity.
Christianity, then, flourished from the problems of Rome. It became a movement which was anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, and anti-this-worldly. Christians were dropouts who no-longer cared about life on this planet. The Roman Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, and Constantine, when he found he couldn’t fight it, made Christianity the official religion. The next decade saw the fall of Rome and the beginning of a period known as the dark ages, a period which would last for a thousand years.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2007, 11:23 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
I think a more careful sifting of the Gospels, with an eye for sieving out the likely actual thought and activity of Jesus, as opposed to additions by later generations, gets one closest to the truth of it. A picture emerges of an advocate of radical loving kindness, a POV with many analogs to Buddism. Thomas Jefferson did a cut at this, and it's probably just about as good as later efforts.
May I suggest a closer look at the timeline of Roman history? One should note that Constantine's personl conversion to Christianity in 312 AD preceeded his formal legalization of the religion, in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. The latest date that can be taken for making Chirstianity the 'official religion' would be 391 AD, when Theodosius finally outlawed paganism. The earliest date for the 'fall' of Rome is Alaric's capture and sack of the city in 410 AD. This is 19 years from the final displacement of paganism, and nearly a hundred years from Constantine's conversion.
I would think the 'dark ages' of the West, characterized by the loss of technology, and of cultural knowledge of all kinds, and of trade and economic production of all sorts, along with steep population declines, were caused much more by the dismemberment of the Roman state by repeated incursions of barbarian conquerors, than by the change of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2007, 11:42 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
| I would think the 'dark ages' of the West, characterized by the loss of technology, and of cultural knowledge of all kinds, and of trade and economic production of all sorts, along with steep population declines, were caused much more by the dismemberment of the Roman state by repeated incursions of barbarian conquerors, than by the change of religion. |
|
One day, in 415 AD, the beautiful female, Hypatia, who taught the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle in Alexandria, was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, and inhumanly butchered by a mob of Christian fanatics. They threw her severed limbs into a large fire.
This event drove home the beginning of the dark ages in the West.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 12:15 AM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
I suspect barbarian 'hordes' were responsible for multitudes more outrages than Christian mobs. Don't let the emotional power of one colored account of one incident blind you to the 'big' picture. The destruction of the West was not accomplished by mobs of rioters. Most of the time, an invasion is a much bigger event than a riot, with much more profound consequences.
To be clear, pulling out one story of one bloody riot proves nothing. I think human nature is a constant over time, and all cultures are capable of producing bloody riots at least sometimes. And one should recognize the manipulative power of outrage stories, and view them with at least a dash of cynicism, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 10:35 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
I suspect barbarian 'hordes' were responsible for multitudes more outrages than Christian mobs. Don't let the emotional power of one colored account of one incident blind you to the 'big' picture. The destruction of the West was not accomplished by mobs of rioters. Most of the time, an invasion is a much bigger event than a riot, with much more profound consequences.
To be clear, pulling out one story of one bloody riot proves nothing. I think human nature is a constant over time, and all cultures are capable of producing bloody riots at least sometimes. And one should recognize the manipulative power of outrage stories, and view them with at least a dash of cynicism, I think. |
|
This one story of one bloody riot may be taken as marking the effective end of philosophy in Alexandria. The schools in Athens continued for awhile longer. Still, from the death of Augustine, in 430, to Anselm, 1033-1109, only one philosopher of major stature arose, John Scotus Erigena.
Yes, there were invasions by barbarian hordes, but the Church had the power and restricted learning to priests, and they could only advocate certain things, at the risk of being branded heretics and burned at the stake. The Spanish Inquisition was yet to come, and things did not improve much for philosophy until the church started losing its power, until Galileo and Descartes and Bacon and Spinoza, and still, these early independent thinkers had to be careful.
I wonder, DonQuixote99, is this persecution of non-Christians an example of the radical love you say Jesus taught?
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 2:22 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
Nick, I am not arguing that the dark ages weren't at least dusky. But Western philosophy was the invention of the Greeks, and a unique and special thing. The wonder is not that the barbarianized West didn't do it. The wonder is that the Greeks did.
Given how far the West fell, if the church hadn't preserved as much literature and learning as it did, I wonder who would have? That monopoly you speak of was not altogether a bad thing I don't think.
I never asserted that the radical loving kindness I say Jesus taught has been very strongly expressed in the religion Christainity. It's been more of an background influence, I would say, coming to the fore only occasionally in certain times, with certain groups and individuals. A recent well-publicized example was the ability of a U.S. Amish community, victimized by a mass murderer, to reach out with understanding and comfort to the murderer's family.
Now tell me this, NickOtani: how does the story of the terroristic death of Hypatia make you feel? Does your feeling for the tragic death of this 'beautiful female' color your attitude towards individuals seperated from the event by around 16 centuries?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 4:34 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
| Now tell me this, NickOtani: how does the story of the terroristic death of Hypatia make you feel? Does your feeling for the tragic death of this 'beautiful female' color your attitude towards individuals seperated from the event by around 16 centuries? |
|
To say this tragic event proves nothing about the beginning of the dark ages and what caused it is inacurate. It did have a chilling effect on the teaching of philosophy which didn't agree with the accepted Christian dogma. The preservation of Greek philosophy should be credited to the Moslems, who later shared documents with the early scholastics. The Early Christians destroyed as much pagan literature as they could and would have destroyed it all if they could. Then, they kept people in the dark until the Reformation, the printing press, and the abilities of people to read Greek and get it translated to languages they could read. That's when the Church began losing power and the scientific revolution began.
The tragic event with Hypatia pales in comparison to the tragic events of the Crusades, the Reformation, and the Spanish Inquisition. It is noteworthy for having helped to started the dark ages.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 9:17 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
Nick, I'll quote your previous message in parts to organize my reply this time:
To say this tragic event proves nothing about the beginning of the dark ages and what caused it is inacurate. It did have a chilling effect on the teaching of philosophy which didn't agree with the accepted Christian dogma. |
|
Well, I'll keep your hypothesis in mind. I hope you will keep in mind that barbarian armies marching back and forth over what used to be the Roman empire for several centuries also tended to make life nasty, brutish and short, with all that implied for the wastage of capital, technology, and culture, and life.
| The preservation of Greek philosophy should be credited to the Moslems, who later shared documents with the early scholastics. The Early Christians destroyed as much pagan literature as they could and would have destroyed it all if they could. Then, they kept people in the dark until the Reformation, the printing press, and the abilities of people to read Greek and get it translated to languages they could read. That's when the Church began losing power and the scientific revolution began. |
|
Of what you say of both Christians and Moslems, I think the correct view is "some did, some didn't." Some Christians burned pagan books, some worked to preserve them. Here's a reference, see the heading "The Preservation of Knowledge," about 2/3 down the page. Likewise, in the case of Moslems, they preserved many things, transmitting them back to European scholars later. They also famously burned the Library of Alexandria, an act of typical fundementalism by a leader who said the Koran was all anyone needed.
| The tragic event with Hypatia pales in comparison to the tragic events of the Crusades, the Reformation, and the Spanish Inquisition. It is noteworthy for having helped to started the dark ages. |
|
Nick, is it your belief that the Crusades were worse things than the offensive wars carried out by other cultures, such as the Goths, the Mongols, the Arabs, or the Turks, from time to time? Is it your belief that Christian cultures have, on the whole, all things considered, been exceptionally bloody and cruel compared to most human groups?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 9:43 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
| Nick, is it your belief that the Crusades were worse things than the offensive wars carried out by other cultures, such as the Goths, the Mongols, the Arabs, or the Turks, from time to time? Is it your belief that Christian cultures have, on the whole, all things considered, been exceptionally bloody and cruel compared to most human groups? |
|
Yes, I think it can be argued that the Crusades were worse than these other groups. They were worse than the Islamic groups they were contracted to protect Christian groups from. Moslem conquors allowed their captives to live, but the Crusades killed everybody. They killed other Christians. It didn't matter to them. And, they ultimately did much more harm than good. They were terrible!
If you'd like to really get into this subject on a board that is much more open to non-Objectivist topics, please feel free to debate with me on my board, here:
http://p081.ezboard.com/bnickotanisneoobjectivism
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-28-2007, 11:21 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
Thank-you. I'll see what info I can dig up in that regard. In follow-up, is it your belief that the Crusades were worse because of the nature of the Crusader's religion?
You didn't answer my other question, which was "Is it your belief that Christian cultures have, on the whole, all
things considered, been exceptionally bloody and cruel compared to most
human groups?" Would you care to?
I like to continue the conversation here, if the board management is agreeable. BTW, if they are not open to rational debate on topics of legitmate intellectual interest, to Objectivists as much as anyone, I'll happily leave the joint to the lurkers. In such case, we'd of course need another venue.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2007, 9:29 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
|
The pope tried to justify killing as long as those being killed were not Christians. As the first Crusades were on their way south, they killed off thousands of Jews in Worms. Then, after they walked for thousands of miles and needed to eat, they plundered villages, even if the villiagers were Christian. It didn't matter. By the time they got to Constantinople, the king just wanted to get rid of them. He wasn't expecting so many thousands of Crusaders. He requested only a handful of professional soldiers to help out in Jerusalem. And, when the Crusades finally got to Jerusalem, things had changed. They were no longer needed. The Turks had left and the Muslims, Christians, and Jews were co-existing in harmony. The Crusades attacked anyway and killed several Muslims after having promised to save their lives. When they left, the Muslims just took over again. Yes, the Crusades won a few battles and held a few gated towns for awhile, but Muslims also won a few battles, rightly so. Richard the Lion-hearted, in about the fourth Crusade, killed women and children in a town he captured. On their way back to Europe, they took over Constantinople, the plce that originally hired them, and killed off all the religious leaders until they were ankle deep in blood. Later, when Constantinople was weak and unable to defend itself, the Turks moved in. This is what the Crusades were suppose to prevent in the beginning. What a fisco!
Yes, some Muslim bands were brutal, but not as brutal as the Crusades. And, the Quran forbids aggression against innocent people, and non-Muslims can be protected if they pay a protection tax. They do not usually leave people dead, as the Crusades left them.
Here is a link which might help get one started on the research of the Crusades:
http://www.medievalcrusades.com/crusadesbegin.htm
I can't answer general questions such as if Christian cultures are, by their nature, more bloody than other cultures, because of something in their Christianity. I don't know the answers to everything, and there are many varieties of Christianity. This is one of their defenses, that those bad Christians were not really Christians. It is ironic, though, that all so-called Christians have peace and love in their creed. I do think subjugation to supernatural entities is not good philosophy for the flourishing survival of humans, and this includes more than Christianity.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2007, 3:16 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
| They also famously burned the Library of Alexandria, an act of typical fundementalism by a leader who said the Koran was all anyone needed. |
|
This is not an undisputed fact. First, Mohammed wasn't even around to establish the Muslim religion until after 600 C.E., and the Library of Alexandria was probably destroyed before then, probably around the same time Hypathia was killed, in 415. Also, later Muslim conquests typically left libraries alone, even though they destroyed symbols of other religions.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2007, 9:57 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
I've done a little searching about it, and I am amazed to find that a thing long established in my mind as fact, the Moslem destruction of the library of Alexandria, is insupportable. I just goes to show how easily popular opinion can be convinced by 'facts' that fit cultural needs and stereotypes, and how easily such ideas are to perpetuate. I have no idea where I got the "Moslems burned it" idea--probably from numerous incidental mentions going back to childhood. I did look at my old World Book encyclopedia, that I used as a child, and it does NOT report the Moslems did it. It says the most likely source of the greatest amount of damage was Julius Ceasar's fighting in the city in 47 AD. That is also the conclusion of what seems to be a reasonable web treatment of this and related topics:
The verdict on Caesar
Taken together we can conclude a number of things from these sources:
* The earliest descriptions of the Alexandrine War, written by Caesar or his crony, deliberately cover up anything that reflects badly on the great man. Their silence about burning down the world's greatest library, even by accident, is not surprising.
* The library as a separate building did not exist by the time of Strabo's visit in 20BC.
* The belief that Caesar had destroyed the library was widespread by the time his family no longer occupied the throne of the emperors in the late first century AD. Plutarch, Gellius and Seneca are all evidence for this. We must therefore assume that the library did not exist at this time. Plutarch, a Greek, would certainly have known if it did.
Although we cannot prove his guilt with first hand evidence, it seems justified to claim that the book stacks of the Royal Library were burnt down by Julius Caesar. Perhaps the reading rooms, which in any case were part of the Museum, survived but, as Seneca and all the other sources tell us, the books themselves perished. That scholarship continued in Alexandria after this time cannot be doubted but I can find no explicit mention of the Royal Library after Caesar's ill-fated visit. Indeed as Athenaeus of Naucratis (died after 200AD) mournfully wrote in the Deipnosophistai "And concerning the number of books and the establishment of libraries and the collection in the Museum, why need I even speak when they are all the the memory of men."
James Hannam, http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm |
|
This source also looks at the claims that the library was burned either by Christians in the 5th century, or by Moslems in 7th, and finds both to lack any credible evidence.
I also recommend the same source for a skeptical look at the claim that early Christians were great and systematic burners of Pagan books: http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2007, 10:08 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
| I can't answer general questions such as if Christian cultures are, by their nature, more bloody than other cultures.... |
|
Fair enough. I was just seeking to map out the 'limits' of your position. A claim that Christians are "by nature" more bloodly would have struck me as intutitvely dubious, in need of considerable support. I think it's fair to observe that the circumstances of history have led to notable bloody episodes, and I certainly think these are not in keeping with what I regard as the actual core message of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-30-2007, 7:17 AM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
| To say this tragic event proves nothing about the beginning of the dark
ages and what caused it is inacurate. It did have a chilling effect on
the teaching of philosophy which didn't agree with the accepted
Christian dogma. |
|
I want to go back to this point. I think your use of the word 'proves'
in this context is so far quite unwarranted. To support your
hypothesis you need evidence; to prove you need conclusive evidence.
So far all you've offered is the account of the mob action. The
horrific impact of the story of the beautiful woman dismembered lends
plausibility to your second sentence quoted above, but plausibility is
not evidence. One can think up plausible things all day. Evidence, in
this case, would be ancient sources describing how pagan scholars in
many places were actually intimidated and curtailed their activities,
after hearing of this incident.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 (57 items)
|
1 2 3 4 > |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Jesus
|
|
|
|