Did Jesus Exist Debate: Carrier VS MacDonald

[Davros of Skaro]

Two scholars debate Jesus historicity.

 

[Will Due]

 

Davros,

Isn't that a bit like listening to eight bits and Jay explain the historicity of Mr Walker's dog?

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

8 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

Davros,

Isn't that a bit like listening to eight bits and Jay explain the historicity of Mr Walker's dog?

Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES

"XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God."

"XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..."

Hebrews 13:20

"20 Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,"

[Will Due]

35 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES

 

 

Okay Davros

 

Quote

The Christian concept of God is an attempt to combine three separate teachings:

5:4.11

1. The Hebrew concept—God as a vindicator of moral values, a righteous God.

5:4.12

2. The Greek concept—God as a unifier, a God of wisdom.

5:4.13

3. Jesus’ concept—God as a living friend, a loving Father, the divine presence.

5:4.14

It must therefore be evident that composite Christian theology encounters great difficulty in attaining consistency. This difficulty is further aggravated by the fact that the doctrines of early Christianity were generally based on the personal religious experience of three different persons: Philo of Alexandria, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus.

 

Not to distract from the premise of your thread Davros but it appears that to the way people think in the west, Philo was probably a very significant person. Yet besides Paul and Jesus, Philo is certainly a lot less recognized as such.

Who was this Philo?

And what's the significance of his name getting tied up in the term 'Philosophy'?

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Will Do

[Davros of Skaro]

24 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

Okay Davros

 

 

Not to distract from the premise of your thread Davros but it appears that to the way people think in the west, Philo was probably a very significant person. Yet besides Paul and Jesus, Philo is certainly a lot less recognized as such.

Who was this Philo?

And what's the significance of his name getting tied up in the term 'philosophy'?

Philo believed that the OT is philosophy that rivals the ancient Greek philosophers, and used the latter in it's interpretation.

Purification, forgiveness of sins & glorification

Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II

"XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..."

ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I

"XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..."

Note: Is Philo saying *(“that man who has stood the test”)* that the Divine Word was tested (Heb. 2:18)? If so it obviously passed the test.

1 Corinthians 6:11

"11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:6

"18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit."

"6 For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," (Gen. 1:3) who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Exodus 34:29

"29 Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God."

[Will Due]

56 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Philo believed that the OT is philosophy that rivals the ancient Greek philosophers, and used the latter in it's interpretation.

Purification, forgiveness of sins & glorification

 

About Philo:

 

Quote 

"The Christian religion is the religion about the life and teachings of Christ based upon the theology of Judaism, modified further through the assimilation of certain Zoroastrian teachings and Greek philosophy, and formulated primarily by three individuals: Philo, Peter, and Paul. It has passed through many phases of evolution since the time of Paul and has become so thoroughly Occidentalized that many non-European peoples very naturally look upon Christianity as a strange revelation of a strange God and for strangers.

"This wise man of the Nile [Amenemope] taught that "riches take themselves wings and fly away"—that all things earthly are evanescent. His great prayer was to be "saved from fear." He exhorted all to turn away from "the words of men" to "the acts of God." In substance he taught: Man proposes but God disposes. His teachings, translated into Hebrew determined the philosophy of the Old Testament Book of Proverbs. Translated into Greek, they gave color to all subsequent Hellenic religious philosophy. The later Alexandrian philosopher, Philo, possessed a copy of the Book of Wisdom.

"Though the Hellenized Jewish beliefs were very little influenced by the teachings of the Epicureans, they were very materially affected by the philosophy of Plato and the self-abnegation doctrines of the Stoics. The great inroad of Stoicism is exemplified by the Fourth Book of Maccabees the penetration of both Platonic philosophy and Stoic doctrines is exhibited in the Wisdom of Solomon. The Hellenized Jews brought to the Hebrew scriptures such an allegorical interpretation that they found no difficulty in conforming Hebrew theology with their revered Aristotlelian philosophy. But this all led to disastrous confusion until these problems were taken in hand by Philo of Alexandria, who proceeded to harmonize and systemize Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology into a compact and fairly consistent system of religious belief and practice. And it was this later teaching of combined Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology that prevailed in Palestine when Jesus lived and taught, and which Paul utilized as the foundation on which to build his more advanced and enlightening cult of Christianity.
 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Will Do

[Davros of Skaro]

32 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

About Philo:

 

Quote 

"The Christian religion is the religion about the life and teachings of Christ based upon the theology of Judaism, modified further through the assimilation of certain Zoroastrian teachings and Greek philosophy, and formulated primarily by three individuals: Philo, Peter, and Paul. It has passed through many phases of evolution since the time of Paul and has become so thoroughly Occidentalized that many non-European peoples very naturally look upon Christianity as a strange revelation of a strange God and for strangers.

"This wise man of the Nile [Amenemope] taught that "riches take themselves wings and fly away"—that all things earthly are evanescent. His great prayer was to be "saved from fear." He exhorted all to turn away from "the words of men" to "the acts of God." In substance he taught: Man proposes but God disposes. His teachings, translated into Hebrew determined the philosophy of the Old Testament Book of Proverbs. Translated into Greek, they gave color to all subsequent Hellenic religious philosophy. The later Alexandrian philosopher, Philo, possessed a copy of the Book of Wisdom.

"Though the Hellenized Jewish beliefs were very little influenced by the teachings of the Epicureans, they were very materially affected by the philosophy of Plato and the self-abnegation doctrines of the Stoics. The great inroad of Stoicism is exemplified by the Fourth Book of Maccabees the penetration of both Platonic philosophy and Stoic doctrines is exhibited in the Wisdom of Solomon. The Hellenized Jews brought to the Hebrew scriptures such an allegorical interpretation that they found no difficulty in conforming Hebrew theology with their revered Aristotlelian philosophy. But this all led to disastrous confusion until these problems were taken in hand by Philo of Alexandria, who proceeded to harmonize and systemize Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology into a compact and fairly consistent system of religious belief and practice. And it was this later teaching of combined Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology that prevailed in Palestine when Jesus lived and taught, and which Paul utilized as the foundation on which to build his more advanced and enlightening cult of Christianity.

The Word's sacrificial blood 

WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS

"XXXVIII Moreover, the equal division of the sacrifices of blood is certainly calculated to excite our admiration: which division the chief priest Moses, having nature for his teacher, made; for, says the scripture, “He, taking the half of the blood, poured it into the bowls; and the other half he poured out upon the Altar.” (Exo. 24:6-8) In order to show that the sacred genus of wisdom is of a twofold nature, the one kind being divine, and the other human: and the divine kind is unmingled and unadulterated, on which account it sacrifices to the pure, and unalloyed, and only God existing in unity; but the human kind is of a mixed and alloyed nature, and therefore dissipates the unanimity and community of our mixed, and combined, and compound race, and effects any thing rather than a proper harmony of either melodies or morals. But the unmixed and unadulterated portion of the soul is the pure mind, which, being inspired by heaven from above, when it is preserved in a state free from all disease and from all mishap is very suitably all poured forth and resolved into the elements of a sacred libation, and so restored in a fitting manner to God, who inspired it and preserved it free from any infliction of evil; but the mixed portion is entirely that of the outward senses, and for this part nature has made suitable craters. Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it."

Hebrews 12:24

"24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

[Will Due]

32 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

The Word's sacrificial blood 

 

Yes it's true. "Philo taught deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness only by the shedding of blood.

And so did Paul. But what's really interesting is that Jesus never did, he taught that a person's salvation is secured only through their "faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of God—to be like God.

It's all a lot simpler that way. And a lot less messy lol.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Will Do

[Davros of Skaro]

12 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

Yes it's true. "Philo taught deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness only by the shedding of blood.

And so did Paul. But what's really interesting is that Jesus never did.

Jesus taught that a person's salvation is secured only through their "faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of God—to be like God.

It's all a lot simpler that way. And a lot less messy lol.

Regulator of excess sin 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III

"(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the divine word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (Paul's morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."

Romans 6:12-23, 7:21-25, 8:1-17

"12 Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18 and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. 

 20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

"21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

"1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law — indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 

 9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. 

 12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh — 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ — if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him."

 

[eight bits]

11 hours ago, Will Do said:

Isn't that a bit like listening to eight bits and Jay explain the historicity of Mr Walker's dog?

I know. It's a joke and a good one. But it's funny in part because uncertainty really has been discussed here at UM both about Mr W having any dog, and also if so, how accurate are the stories Mr W tells about his dogs.

Why? There's nothing unusual about an adult having a companion dog, even a few companion dogs. It's inherently plausible that Mr W might have dogs. The hitch is the role the dogs play in fairy tales: they are his silent witnesses to things that maybe didn't happen, or didn't happen as reported because what's reported never really happens.

Plus, there's something unrealistic about the character of the dogs. Maybe it's Mr W, but given his highly trained prose style, special insight into all things psychological and his depth of empathy, that really can't be it. Somehow, the character of the dogs is like those "robot" dogs the Japanese seem so fond of, not like living beings with minds of their own. For example, they're not aware of themselves. Umm... anybody who's ever walked a real dog on a leash knows what that's a pile of.

I conclude that it is very possible that Mr W's dogs don't really exist, and if they do, I know nothing about them.

If that has a familiar ring to it, that's because it's more-or-less what Bertarnd Russell said about the historical Jesus (in his talk, later published as an essay, "Why I am not a Christian," searchable and available in many places online).

In the OP video, I note with approval that Dr Carrier has moved closer to his ideological ally Raphael Lataster and emphasized that there is reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus (actually restating the subtitle of one of his own books on the subject). This is a strong position compared with the guild's oft-professed certainty that Jesus was a historical person. Combined with Dr MacDonald's near agreement with Carrier about the poor state of the evidence for particular facts about Jesus, the guild should be on the ropes, and willing to settle for the Russell position.

One last thing: For Mr W's dogs we have eyewitness testimony, publsihed during the dogs' lifetimes, written, and written by somebody who isn't a fanboy of those dogs (as mentioned, the Walker doctrine is that the dogs lack minds of their own). Yet, we can still have doubt and still feel the lack of reliable factual information.

We have nothing like that for Jesus, but supposed experts will insist that there is no basis for doubt about Jesus, and happily list the facts of his life which we can know. That comes down to his baptism, crucifixion and having a few friends - anything more than that and these lists of what "we" know strangely disagree with one another.

This is baloney Will.

 

 

 

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

This is baloney Will.

 

One man's baloney eight, is another man's filet mignon.  There's historicity to it. 

 

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Somehow, the character of the dogs is like those "robot" dogs the Japanese seem so fond of, not like living beings with minds of their own. For example, they're not aware of themselves. Umm... anybody who's ever walked a real dog on a leash knows what that's a pile of.

 

No. No their not.

A dog, like all animals, are conscious. Conscious of many things like their surroundings. And like how they're treated by people.

But unlike humans, dogs and animals are not conscious of their consciousness. That's the difference between us and animals. But I'll let you bark that one out with Mr Walker.

 

Anyways, I'll post later about the historicity of Jesus. Got to go

 

 

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, Will Do said:

But unlike humans, dogs and animals are not conscious of their consciousness. That's the difference between us and animals. But I'll let you bark that one out with Mr Walker.

Well, the three of us together can take it to Jay's thread, but I would need an explanation from you there of being "conscious of [one's own] consciousness." I understand the phrase literally, but

(1) Only rarely am I conscious of my own consciousness (I think I can "do it as an exercise," but i rarely do that IRL)
(2) I doubt you could distinguish between when I am concscious of my own consciousness and when I am not, and
(3) How could you possibly make that distinction across species?

I'm not sure that your position is the same as Mr W's anyway.

The on-topic point in this thread is that Mr W's posts about his dogs viewed as texts support my doubt that he is describing a real dog. Both Saint Paul and Mr W acknowledge having visionary experiences. They both claim to acquire reliable information from such episodes, and they themselves profess belief in the reliability of those episodes.

Both of them have admitted to behaving in certain ways for the purpose of eliciting the response they want from people with whom they are dealing. Both view themselves as the bearers of a message critical to their audience's well-being, and both view themselves are especially well qualified to deliver that message.

Finally, historicity: Each of them discusses somebody who might be a flesh-and-blood being, but their descriptions of the sombeody are odd in various ways, In each case, i might think (to name just one hypothesis) "Paul/Walker is describing a character who appears only in his visionary episodes/lucid dreams."

Doubt can be justified about Mr W's dogs and Paul's Jesus Messiah. The reasons for doubt are even somewhat similar. I suspect even the most devoted guild member would readily understand my doubts about the dogs. Why not about Jesus?

What? Jesus is somebody special or something?

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by eight bits

[Will Due]

 

Damn right he is! 

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

@Will Do

Just to be clear, and for you to understand (might understand?) even though you will not accept it. To borrow from Carrier we do have reason to doubt.

Basicly the earliest evidences for Jesus are the nonpseudographical writings of Paul, and the Gospels. The Gospels show signs of literary fabrication, but that does not rule out historicity. Paul being the earliest writings are very fishy, and lack biographical details for Jesus which still does not rule out historicity. According to Paul he and the what seems to be the founders of Christianity only know a Jesus through visions/dreams, revelations from scripture (OT and maybe lost to us writings), and this Jesus is from outer space (we have a modern concept of Heaven because we know outer space more, and the possibility of other dimensions). 

Now as I have shown you a sampling of is that Philo a contemporary of Paul believes in a deity very simular to Paul's Jesus. The difference is there is no story written about Philo's deity set on Earth, and though this deity acts like a " Savior" for mankind of sorts, it does not technically perform an atonment sacrifice like Paul's Jesus (thought it kind of does in a metaphysical sense). 

It's of my opinion (which I can make a case for with evidence) that the Gospels started out as a sacred allegory to get the less spiritually and philosophically inclined to understand in order to receive the spirit of Wisdom (to accept it to be saved). Philo's deity, and Paul's Jesus are the same thing. But the earliest Christians read further into scripture seeing Jesus take on human flesh (emptying his powers instead of being prideful to equality to God), tricking Satan into destroying his flesh, and God exalted him (all in outer space). Jesus's example is liken to ancient Greek philosophy in proper behaviour so as not to enslave oneself to the flesh with it's passions to weigh the soul down. 

I cannot with 100% certainty prove this, but I can show that "100% certainty he existed" is fallacious. As for other later evidences I can show that they have their problems too.

I know your UB quagmired brain is making farting sounds right now if you read all this, but this is reality.

[Will Due]

 

@Davros of Skaro

Who ever said you can't doubt?

But that doesn't mean you're passing the test. 

I know I know, what test? 

 

 

[Will Due]

46 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

It's of my opinion (which I can make a case for with evidence) that the Gospels started out as a sacred allegory to get the less spiritually and philosophically inclined to understand in order to receive the spirit of Wisdom (to accept it to be saved). Philo's deity, and Paul's Jesus are the same thing. But the earliest Christians read further into scripture seeing Jesus take on human flesh (emptying his powers instead of being prideful to equality to God), tricking Satan into destroying his flesh, and God exalted him (all in outer space). Jesus's example is liken to ancient Greek philosophy in proper behaviour so as not to enslave oneself to the flesh with it's passions to weigh the soul down. 

 

That's an interesting opinion Davros. Farts and all. No doubt it makes sense to you.

But here, read all of this. It might help you to alleviate some of that intestinal historicity gas. 

 

Quote

The Romans bodily took over Greek culture, putting representative government in the place of government by lot. And presently this change favored Christianity in that Rome brought into the whole Western world a new tolerance for strange languages, peoples, and even religions.

Much of the early persecution of Christians in Rome was due solely to their unfortunate use of the term “kingdom” in their preaching. The Romans were tolerant of any and all religions but very resentful of anything that savored of political rivalry. And so, when these early persecutions, due so largely to misunderstanding, died out, the field for religious propaganda was wide open. The Roman was interested in political administration; he cared little for either art or religion, but he was unusually tolerant of both.

Oriental law was stern and arbitrary; Greek law was fluid and artistic; Roman law was dignified and respect-breeding. Roman education bred an unheard-of and stolid loyalty. The early Romans were politically devoted and sublimely consecrated individuals. They were honest, zealous, and dedicated to their ideals, but without a religion worthy of the name. Small wonder that their Greek teachers were able to persuade them to accept Paul's Christianity.

And these Romans were a great people. They could govern the Occident because they did govern themselves. Such unparalleled honesty, devotion, and stalwart self-control was ideal soil for the reception and growth of Christianity.

It was easy for these Greco-Romans to become just as spiritually devoted to an institutional church as they were politically devoted to the state. The Romans fought the church only when they feared it as a competitor of the state. Rome, having little national philosophy or native culture, took over Greek culture for its own and boldly adopted Christ as its moral philosophy. Christianity became the moral culture of Rome but hardly its religion in the sense of being the individual experience in spiritual growth of those who embraced the new religion in such a wholesale manner. True, indeed, many individuals did penetrate beneath the surface of all this state religion and found for the nourishment of their souls the real values of the hidden meanings held within the latent truths of Hellenized and paganized Christianity.

The Stoic and his sturdy appeal to “nature and conscience" had only the better prepared all Rome to receive Christ, at least in an intellectual sense. The Roman was by nature and training a lawyer; he revered even the laws of nature. And now, in Christianity, he discerned in the laws of nature the laws of God. A people that could produce Cicero and Vergil were ripe for Paul's Hellenized Christianity.

And so did these Romanized Greeks force both Jews and Christians to philosophize their religion, to co-ordinate its ideas and systematize its ideals, to adapt religious practices to the existing current of life. And all this was enormously helped by translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and by the later recording of the New Testament in the Greek tongue.

The Greeks, in contrast with the Jews and many other peoples, had long provisionally believed in immortality, some sort of survival after death, and since this was the very heart of Jesus' teaching, it was certain that Christianity would make a strong appeal to them.

A succession of Greek-cultural and Roman-political victories had consolidated the Mediterranean lands into one empire, with one language and one culture, and had made the Western world ready for one God. Judaism provided this God, but Judaism was not acceptable as a religion to these Romanized Greeks. Philo helped some to mitigate their objections, but Christianity revealed to them an even better concept of one God, and they embraced it readily.
 

 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Philo's deity, and Paul's Jesus are the same thing.

 

And Peter's Jesus was a real friend who instilled in Peter the courage, like it was in Jesus, to lay down his life when the time came, for his friends.

And so did thousands more.

Pretty good for a "fairytale character". 

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

35 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

@Davros of Skaro

Who ever said you can't doubt?

But that doesn't mean you're passing the test. 

I know I know, what test? 

Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES

"XX ...cry out to God, the only Saviour, that he would lighten their labours, and pay a ransom and price for the salvation of the soul, so as to emancipate and deliver it? What, then, is the surest freedom? The service of the only wise God, as the scriptures testify, in which it is said, “Send forth the people, that they may serve Me.” (Exo. 8:1) ...For it is very suitable for those who have made an association for the purpose of learning to desire to see him; and, if they are unable to do that, at least to see his image, the most sacred word, ..."

12 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

That's an interesting opinion Davros. Farts and all. No doubt it makes sense to you.

But here, read all of this. It might help you to alleviate some of that intestinal historicity gas. 

 

Quote

The Romans bodily took over Greek culture, putting representative government in the place of government by lot. And presently this change favored Christianity in that Rome brought into the whole Western world a new tolerance for strange languages, peoples, and even religions.

Much of the early persecution of Christians in Rome was due solely to their unfortunate use of the term “kingdom” in their preaching. The Romans were tolerant of any and all religions but very resentful of anything that savored of political rivalry. And so, when these early persecutions, due so largely to misunderstanding, died out, the field for religious propaganda was wide open. The Roman was interested in political administration; he cared little for either art or religion, but he was unusually tolerant of both.

Oriental law was stern and arbitrary; Greek law was fluid and artistic; Roman law was dignified and respect-breeding. Roman education bred an unheard-of and stolid loyalty. The early Romans were politically devoted and sublimely consecrated individuals. They were honest, zealous, and dedicated to their ideals, but without a religion worthy of the name. Small wonder that their Greek teachers were able to persuade them to accept Paul's Christianity.

And these Romans were a great people. They could govern the Occident because they did govern themselves. Such unparalleled honesty, devotion, and stalwart self-control was ideal soil for the reception and growth of Christianity.

It was easy for these Greco-Romans to become just as spiritually devoted to an institutional church as they were politically devoted to the state. The Romans fought the church only when they feared it as a competitor of the state. Rome, having little national philosophy or native culture, took over Greek culture for its own and boldly adopted Christ as its moral philosophy. Christianity became the moral culture of Rome but hardly its religion in the sense of being the individual experience in spiritual growth of those who embraced the new religion in such a wholesale manner. True, indeed, many individuals did penetrate beneath the surface of all this state religion and found for the nourishment of their souls the real values of the hidden meanings held within the latent truths of Hellenized and paganized Christianity.

The Stoic and his sturdy appeal to “nature and conscience" had only the better prepared all Rome to receive Christ, at least in an intellectual sense. The Roman was by nature and training a lawyer; he revered even the laws of nature. And now, in Christianity, he discerned in the laws of nature the laws of God. A people that could produce Cicero and Vergil were ripe for Paul's Hellenized Christianity.

And so did these Romanized Greeks force both Jews and Christians to philosophize their religion, to co-ordinate its ideas and systematize its ideals, to adapt religious practices to the existing current of life. And all this was enormously helped by translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and by the later recording of the New Testament in the Greek tongue.

The Greeks, in contrast with the Jews and many other peoples, had long provisionally believed in immortality, some sort of survival after death, and since this was the very heart of Jesus' teaching, it was certain that Christianity would make a strong appeal to them.

A succession of Greek-cultural and Roman-political victories had consolidated the Mediterranean lands into one empire, with one language and one culture, and had made the Western world ready for one God. Judaism provided this God, but Judaism was not acceptable as a religion to these Romanized Greeks. Philo helped some to mitigate their objections, but Christianity revealed to them an even better concept of one God, and they embraced it readily.

Source? A book that mysteriously wrote it's self? Interesting.

[Davros of Skaro]

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

And Peter's Jesus was a real friend who instilled in Peter the courage, like it was in Jesus, to lay down his life when the time came, for his friends.

And so did thousands more.

Pretty good for a "fairytale character". 

We have no writings from Peter.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Davros of Skaro said:

We have no writings from Peter.

 

But we have writings that recorded thousands died.

What's one more?

 

 

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Source? A book 

 

Yes it is.

And it is interesting what it says.

No doubt. 

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

But we have writings that recorded thousands died.

What writings are you talking about besides the UB.

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

What's one more?

Depends on the reliability.

[Davros of Skaro]

Just now, Will Do said:

 

Yes it is.

And it is interesting what it says.

No doubt. 

To you. 

How many here on UM have you converted to see what you see?

How about writing a short story inspired by the UB, and when people are elated by it. Show them the source of the elation.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Davros of Skaro said:

What writings are you talking about besides the UB.

 

The writings besides the UB that recorded that thousands died. 

 

1 minute ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Depends on the reliability.

 

That's the test. 

There's always room for doubt lol.

 

 

[Will Due]

Just now, Davros of Skaro said:

To you. 

 

There are others. 

 

Just now, Davros of Skaro said:

How many here on UM have you converted to see what you see?

 

Others just not on UM

 

Just now, Davros of Skaro said:

How about writing a short story inspired by the UB, and when people are elated by it. Show them the source of the elation.

 

Davros,

You need to work on your sense of humor. You're too serious. Philo did many things in the shadows. However, they still ended up naming 'Philosophy' after him.

That's definitely interesting.