Romulus, Mithras And Jesus

[Minimalist]

In 2 Cor. 11  the alleged "paul" writes:

32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.

There were two Nabatean kings named Aretas who are relevant to the discussion.  Aretas IV attacked Herod Antipas and was last seen in history being chased back to Nabatea by Roman Governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius.  Vitellius suspended his campaign upon the death of Tiberius awaiting new orders from Caligula.  Aretas IV never controlled Damascus.

Aretas III did control Damascus for about 20 years according to Josephus.  He lost it to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 64 BC.  This fact is almost never discussed by jesus freaks for obvious reasons.


BTW, there are very few historical markers in what are considered the "authentic" epistles of "paul," of which 2 Corinthians is considered to be one.

[stromboli]

BTW, there are very few historical markers in what are considered the "authentic" epistles of "paul," of which 2 Corinthians is considered to be one.

This^ And complete lack of, as I said, complimentary letters that Paul was supposedly answering, along with no details of any of the people which he supposedly knew and was writing to.

[Minimalist]

Here is a site containing the works of Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD).

http://earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html


I've gone through them with a search feature and guess what?  Even in 160 Justin never heard of any "paul" in spite of the claim that it was paul who brought xtianity to Rome over a century before.  Justin also does not know anything about any gospels named for mark, matthew, luke or john indicating that this bit of the bullshit story had not been written by 160, either.

Methinks that jesusism is late 2d century bullshit.

[Mike Cl]

Here is a site containing the works of Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD).

http://earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html


I've gone through them with a search feature and guess what?  Even in 160 Justin never heard of any "paul" in spite of the claim that it was paul who brought xtianity to Rome over a century before.  Justin also does not know anything about any gospels named for mark, matthew, luke or john indicating that this bit of the bullshit story had not been written by 160, either.

Methinks that jesusism is late 2d century bullshit.

Minimalist your statement jogged my memory a bit about this guy--Marcion.  He was a huge proponent of Paul (inventor of????) and was alive around the time-frame of Justin.  Here is a snippet about him:

Study of the Jewish Scriptures, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. Marcion responded by developing a di-theistic system of belief around the year 144.[6] This notion of two godsâ€"a higher transcendent one and a lower world creator and rulerâ€"allowed Marcion to reconcile contradictions between Old Covenant theology and the Gospel message proclaimed by Jesus.
Marcion affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as his chief apostle. In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the Old Testament message. Marcion did not claim that the Jewish Scriptures were false. Instead, Marcion asserted that they were to be read in an absolutely literal manner, thereby developing an understanding that YHWH was not the same god spoken of by Jesus. For example, Marcion argued that the Genesis account of YHWH walking through the Garden of Eden asking where Adam was proved YHWH inhabited a physical body and was without universal knowledge (omniscience), attributes wholly incompatible with the Heavenly Father professed by Jesus.
According to Marcion, the god of the Old Testament, whom he called the Demiurge, the creator of the material universe, is a jealous tribal deity of the Jews, whose law represents legalistic reciprocal justice and who punishes mankind for its sins through suffering and death. Contrastingly, the god that Jesus professed is an altogether different being, a universal god of compassion and love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy. Marcion also produced his Antitheses contrasting the Demiurge of the Old Testament with the Heavenly Father of the New Testament.
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of still only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, being a shorter and earlier version of the gospel which later became known as the Gospel of Luke,[7] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.

[Minimalist]

Yes, Mike.  Marcion is the key....and Justin did know of Marcion unlike all the others.  Somehow, all this happy horseshit got merged but until Marcion came around no one seems to know of any 'paul.' 

It is also true that we have no idea what Marcion's original epistles said.  WE only know what emerged on the other side after the proto-orthodox (to borrow Bart Ehrman's terminology) got finished massaging the message.

Then there is the whole chrestus/christos thing.  That's another part of this whole story.

[stromboli]

Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.

I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.

[Mike Cl]

Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.

I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.

As a newbie on the board, I did not quite know what to expect.  Stromboli, yours was the first post I read and it was your intro to Carrier's latest.  That rekindled some long smoldering embers in my mind.  In the 2000-2005 time frame I did a hobby like study of the history of Jesus.  Robert M. Price, especially his Incredible Shrinking Man (Jesus, of course) book, became my guru.  Scoured the net for others like him and came across Carrier, who had not written a book about Jesus yet.  But he did have a book-like essay tackling all of the known references to a historical Jesus.  I loved and was so impressed I hard copied it from his site (about 120 pages I think.) He has since taken it down and I've looked all over the net for a copy and can't find one.  Wish I could give more details, but my granddaughter has it and is reading it.  When I get it back I can give more details.  I can't wait to get my hands on his new book!
Anyway, I feel myself being pulled back into that urge to study the issue much more closely again.  I'll have to pull out all my old references and start filling in the gap of stuff published from 2005 to now. 

[Minimalist]

This is too much to recap so I'll just post the link to a discussion at AF.org.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-21103.html

There is a derail attempt by one jesus freak moron and a little banter but in general it stays on topic for 3 pages.


BTW, I just ordered Carrier's book.

[Mike Cl]

Thanks, Minimalist.  I read thru the 7 pages of material, was sent to several websites and bookmarked several.  Starting to create another set of ahistorical Jesus sites.  Thanks again.

[Minimalist]

De nada.

[Minimalist]

The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas.

At least xtians rarely throw rocks at apostates, Strom.  Got to give them that much....at least in this century.

[Lachish]

Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.

I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.

The Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian. It's really so easy to say you're a Christian but it have really no meaning. Just look at the Catholics in France, a Christian study showed that half of them didn't even believe in God....France is one of the nations where missionaries go to fail (at least according to what the missionaries themselves have said).

[stromboli]

The Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian. It's really so easy to say you're a Christian but it have really no meaning. Just look at the Catholics in France, a Christian study showed that half of them didn't even believe in God....France is one of the nations where missionaries go to fail (at least according to what the missionaries themselves have said).

By that same logic a criminal who recants his crime was never really a criminal. So much for forgiveness of sins.

[Poison Tree]

The Christian viewpoint

You speak for all Christianity?

[Hydra009]

The Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian.

*shoots a basketball at a hoop*
*misses*
That wasn't a real throw.
*misses again*
That was just practice.
*nothing but net*
1 for 1!  I'm amazing!