Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The first antichrist taught a mythical Jesus


eight bits

Recommended Posts

More 'rude' awakenings ...

~

 

Quote

 

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

***

Weatherford attributes the following to Genghis Khan's rule:

  • Unprecedented religious tolerance
  • Low level of discrimination toward other races
  • Low level of meddling with local customs and culture
  • The idea of rule by consensus within Mongol tribes
  • Culture of meritocracy
  • Culture that believed in the rule of law
  • Strong sponsorship of Eurasian trade
  • Building of roads to support trade
  • First culture to promote universal literacy
  • First international postal system
  • First widespread use of paper money
  • Reduction of the use of torture in the penal system
  • Belief in diplomatic immunity for ambassadors/envoys

***

 

~

Quote


Genghis Khan and the Making of The Modern World, by Jack Weatherford (2004)

***

Weatherford does a thorough job demonstrating that the Mongols made great contributions to civilization and that their brutality was exaggerated. Nevertheless, his argument is not without its weaknesses. He does not give any figures as to how many died at the hands of the Mongols due to indirect causes. The laborers who the Mongols impressed likely died in great numbers. The Mongol army was highly mobile and did not contain the vast wagon trains which a vast slave labor force required. An incident noted by Weatherford in which the Mongols destroyed the farmland in a large part of northern China likely led to great starvation amongst the Chinese peasants who depended on that land for sustenance. Genghis Khan and his successors may have created a vast glittering empire, but it came at a price.

Jack Weatherford, Khan and the Making of The Modern World (Crown Publishing, 2004)

***

 

  • not even past org link

~
Not saying its one way or the other regarding little ol'Genghiz but it is a very crucial part of that link that left us the variants of Christianity and Islam that we have to endure today ... for better or worse it is part of that tangled mess ... at least this gives a multi dimensional understanding of the critical issues instead of that simplistic 'we good they evil' stupidity that causes greater misunderstanding on top of the perpetuating inherited distrusts that is never helpful ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Gnostics where the first that I know of to refere to a symbolic Christ that exists in the heart of the initiated. They referred to it as "Christ Consciousness". The only problem is that they predate historical Christianity. They were killed by the early Roman church as heretics for not adding that Jesus was the physical manifestation of that consciousness born of the Virgin Isis. You know the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Elsupremo said:

The Gnostics where the first that I know of to refere to a symbolic Christ that exists in the heart of the initiated. They referred to it as "Christ Consciousness". The only problem is that they predate historical Christianity. They were killed by the early Roman church as heretics for not adding that Jesus was the physical manifestation of that consciousness born of the Virgin Isis. You know the rest.

Look into "Philo's Logos".

"The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#SH11d

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

El and davros

It's difficult to date the Gnostics. They didn't call themselves that, and they were different from one another in ideas and organization. What we the living call "Gnostics" from the ancient world are all Christian groups. Our earliest descriptions of them are late First Century, and more usually later than that, written by what seem to be proto-orthodox Christians. Nag Hammadi is great, but it's also Fourth Century; mature Gnosticism is on display, not anything that much helps dating its earliest forms.

The ideas involved are perennial, and Hellenistic culture loved syncretism. There's no compelling reason why there couldn't have been "Jewish gnostics," but we don't know of any for sure. (Philo was a Hellenized and Hellenizing Jew, but a Jew in good standing all the same.)

Although the "official story" from Team Jesus leaves the door open for the Simonians to be as old as Christianity and at least possibly the original form of Christianity, the rest of the story is that all other Gnostic groups are younger than the Simonians. Most Gnosticism, then, is derivative of the original form of Christianity (either way), assuming holy people don't fib.

3ye

Genghis Khan? Not that I don't love that stuff, but he's way too late to help with Christian origins.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eight bits

Apologies ol'chap ... what I wanted to stress was some veins of 'Christianity' as it is in some regions that may still hold practices closer to its 'original' forms :

Quote

 

It was because of Sorghaghtani that her sons all became known for their religious tolerance. Sorghaghtani was a Nestorian Christian who patronized a variety of foreign religions. For example, she supported Islam with alms. Buddhists and Confucainists were also supported. When Khubilai Khan was in China, it was his mother's Christian faith that prompted him to assist the small Nestorian community there. He also recruited numerous Muslims for his government, and through the influence of his wife Chabi courted even the Song imperial family rather than destroy and discredit them.

Hulagu married Doquez-khatum, a Nestorian princess like his mother. When Hulagu sacked Baghdad, Doquez-khatum interceded to save the lives of all the Christians. Hulagu's brother Mongke was impressed. "You would do well to consult her in all his affairs," he told Hulagu. To please his wife, Hulagu favored the Christians, and all over his realm new churches sprung up.

 

  • women in world history link

~

Quote


Sorghaghtani Beki was a Christian, specifically a member of the Church of the East (often referred to as "Nestorian Christianity"). As a moving spirit behind the Mongol Empire, Sorghaghtani is responsible for much of the trade openings and intellectual exchange made possible by this, the largest contiguous empire in world history.[1]

 

~

THere is a lot to wade through on what went on in the West and the East that were independent of each other in the CHristian historical sense and what remained intact from the origins of Christian thought ~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3ye

Ah. I see. But even Nestorius is a long way from origins (he was orthodox - an adherent of Nicaea-Constantinople creedal dogma - but heretical by not accepting the Chaldean Council's dogma).

There is a funny story, though, about the Assyrian Church of the East, which is (as the name retains) descended from the Nestorian church.

Back around 1960, the Roman Catholic Church was drawing up the invitation list for the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Somebody asked about the AC of E. "Oh, no, the Pope and their Patriarch excommunicated each other back in the Fifth Century."

Apparently, some diligent bureaucrat went to the archives to check, and couldn't find any record of this excommunication. I imagine Rome sheepishly inquired of the AC of E whether they had a record. I imagine further that the AC of E had the presence of mind to answer No.

That led to a practical problem, because the two churches are not in communion, but there's no actual record of why they aren't. It is also a moral certainty that once upon a time, they must have been in full communion.

So, Rome compromised, and sat a delegation from AC of E as observers to the Council without voting rights. They had the best seats in the house, supposedly. The people whom AC of E sent were impressive, and while they had no vote, they could speak (and lobby and politic ... and party).

The net result is that (allowing for the glacial pace at which God does his business), AC of E may be in full communion with Rome some day. They are in substantial partial communion today. The urgent christological problems turn out to be just a matter of word play after all (wow, what were the odds of that?).

Another factor was that the AC of E used to be in direct geographic competition with Chaldean Catholic Church, which is in full communion with Rome. However, after Bush I and II's civic improvement projects in Iraq, it's a dangerous business to be any kind of Christian over there.

Under the pressure, the two churches, while distinct, have been noticeably cooperative. (That may have been a factor in the early churches' response to persecuton... hey, those heretics may be scum, but we need to stick together, etc.).

On a matter of genuine inside baseball, Rome has recognized the validity of the AC of E Eucharist, despite its not conforming to what had for centuries been a non-negotiable (Council of Trent) matter of form.

Embarrassingly enough, the AC of E eucharistic liturgy could easily be older than the Roman one.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

There are probably several morals to this story, starting with the inability to find a Fifth Century document that "everybody knew" must have existed. And here we are, trying to figure out what happened in the First Century.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eight bits

Thanks a ton ... I think I fell into that lack of academic training slush of over information ... I thought the Far East / Central Asia lines had their sources from John/Johan and James/Yaakub/Jacob

~

 

Quote

 

The Nestorian Controversy

Dan Graves, MSL

***

Nestorius' followers did not go down without a fight. In regions controlled by Persia they formed their own church. At the beginning, it was a strong body which evangelized as far East as China. Nestorian churches appeared in Arabia, India, Tibet, Malabar, Turkostan and Cyprus. Many exist to this day, especially in Iraq, although the level of spirituality is often low. Some units reunited with the Roman Catholic church around the sixteenth century.

In part because of the Nestorian controversy, the church created a formula to describe Christ's person at the Council of Chalcedon in 433. The assembled bishops declared Christ was two natures in one person. "We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, at once complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, of one substance with us as regards his manhood, like us in all things, apart from sin..."

***

 

  • christianity com link

~

Too lazy and disappointed to wade into the controversies again but I guess sometimes with dates of claims such as the following are presented it does throw layman readers like myself off on the smallest bend ...
 

Quote

 

From about 280 A.D. Mar Papa organized this church, thus Metropolitan seat of Seleucia became the headquarters. Now the city is in ruins, known as SalmanPark, 30 miles from Baghdad.

Mar Aprim the Assyrian, the representative of the Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., played a great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. That is the reason he is recogniz­ed by the Roman Catholic Church which declared Saint Aprim as the doc­tor of the UniversalChurch.

In the fifth century, the Nestorian controversy concerning the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ had far reaching consequences. At this time, the Church of the East was not involved in this controversy. It was a theological dispute within the Roman Empire.

John Nestorius was not an Assyrian nor did he know Syriac language. He was a native of Antioch and Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431 A.D. His rival Cyril was Patriarch of Alexandria. Therefore, the members of the Church say that they do not have anything to do with the Nestorian controversy. It was several years later and even after the death of Nestorius in 451 A.D. that the Christians of the Persian Empire heard about the controversy. They decreed that the stand taken by Nestorius was in agreement with the view always maintained by the Church of the East.

 

  • nestorian org link

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eight bits

Here's an older article by Richard Carrier outlining the possibility of Luke sourcing Josephus (which I believe he did).

 

"There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work."

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

davros

Well, as you can see from my left-sidebar quote, I'm OK with Steve Mason as a serious historian, and I'm OK with late estimated possible dates for Luke. And I do grok how Luke-Acts "seems to suggest" that it profited from Josephus as a not always precisely remembered or understood source. However, that's about as far down that road as I get.

Quote

... to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.

Or, to put it another way, Luke is the earliest Christian writer to claim that anybody cared whether or not any of this stuff really happened. That's an amzing admission when you think about it, whether the date is 80 CE or 130 CE.

3ye

It is a mess. Nestorius' works were condemned to the flames, and until the early 20th Century, very little from him was known to have survived. Based on the rediscovered work (Book of Heraclides) it is entirely possible that Nestorius taught orthodoxy, plain and simple. He did advocate denying the term "God-bearer" (theotokos) to Mary. In Greek, that's a coined word, usually translated into English as "Mother of God." Apparently Nestorius preferred something like "Christ-bearer" instead.

I wonder whether Jesus, if he existed, whiled away those hours hanging on the cross debating with himself which of the two titles he'd rather call his Mom.

The position of the living Church of the East is historically correct: the controversy was an Imperial Roman affair, and the churches outside the Empire had nothing to do with it. They  tended not to "accept" Nestorius' condemnation, about which they had had no vote, but Nestorius wasn't an especially favored teacher in their churches, either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eight bits

My OS does not let me see sigs, or side qoutes since the sites upgrades.

Luke Acts is propaganda set as historical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

davros

Quote

If suspicion were not necessary, we would not need history; tradition would bring its versions of the past to our door. - Steve Mason

That's from his "What is history? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War." The whole article is available in pdf from his website, along with other goodies:

http://www.stevemason.eu/page0/index.html

The guy is a breath of fresh air.

On the merits of Luke-Acts, propaganda can be revealing. Even that famous opening,

Quote

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

That is the earliest known acknowledgment of one of the most durable counterapologetic arguments there is: that the several gospels contradict one another. Whatever else may be inferred from contradictory testimonies, you must conclude that certainty about what really happened based on these books is impossible. Ancient critics said as much.

Luke is not an idiot. He knows that he cannot decrease the amount of contradiction by adding additional testimony. New material can only decrease the level of contradiction if it replaces the old collection of stories.

That is the job of Orwell's Ministry of Truth (the name even sounds like something religious, doesn't it?

http://jsh.christianscience.com/collections/1900s/the-ministry-of-truth

I digress). So, Luke-Acts is propaganda, but it is not just propaganda. It is the cutting edge of a conscious attempt to rewrite history.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. Thanks eight bits.

Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.pn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.