Holy Blood, Holy Grail

[EusebioScrib]

So I recently saw Da Vinci code in the theatres. I found it very good not only as a fiction story but also as a very practical conspiracy theory.

I'm interested in reading the book which sparked Da Vinci Code, Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is the more academic form of the book.

Looking at what I know about history and the way things work, I wouldn't doubt a thing they say (except that the Grail still exists, I personally think it's been killed off).

What's everyone think of these theories?

[Cult of Reason]

Who cares? Jesus probably never existed, probably not even "historically".

[More Fire for the People]

I have yet to the see the movie, but I sure like this (http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth.htm) critique.

[EusebioScrib]

No he certainly existed. Numerous pagan historians mentioned him. That is no doubt.

I think it's something we really should look into as it can give us a great inquiry to the transition from slavery to feudalism. Something we should be concerned with in study.

There is something strikingly similar about the Roman Empire and the U.S. and Christians and the Communist movement that I think deserves some important study by Marxists. Hell, Rome was a quasi-industrial society. It produced all it's own food and it had many types of mechanical devices. It constantly expanded so as to maintain power, and when it could no longer do so it collapsed. Sounds awfully similar to capital, no? Proletariat comes from the name for the Roman landless class proles.

Hmmm....

[Cult of Reason]

No he certainly existed. Numerous pagan historians mentioned him. That is no doubt.

Historians, eh? Who, and when?

[LSD]

No he certainly existed. Numerous pagan historians mentioned him.

Actually, there is not a single contemporary account of Jesus' existance. Not Christian, not Jewish, not Pagan, nothing.

In fact, nobody even mentions a "Jesus Christ" until decades after his supposed death. So while it is certainly possible that there was real flesh and blood preacher on whom the "Jesus" myth is based, it is equally possible that the entire idea is merely co-opted Mithraism.

Like with "Adam" and "Noah" and "Abraham", there need not be actual historical people behind religious figures.

Most of the time, the myth sells itself.


I think it's something we really should look into as it can give us a great inquiry to the transition from slavery to feudalism

What on earth does "Jesus" have to do with economic transition? The reason that post-antiquity society shifted into feudal production was due to technological change, not religious convictions.

[EusebioScrib]

Tacitus and Josephus to name the more popular ones. Tacitus wrote his in around 84 and Josephus I believe was in the 60's. It is estimated that Christ died sometime around 32-27.

[Cult of Reason]

Where did they get their information from?

[EusebioScrib]

What on earth does "Jesus" have to do with economic transition? The reason that post-antiquity society shifted into feudal production was due to technological change, not religious convictions.

Yes, because I specificly said "Jesus." Read what I wrote asshole.

Christians were what caused the transition. They were the "progressive" movement of their day, yet I believe their movement was hijacked by the state in a last minute attempt to hold onto power.


Actually, there is not a single contemporary account of Jesus' existance. Not Christian, not Jewish, not Pagan, nothing.

Oh RLY? Ever hear of Tacitus and Josephus? Oh that's right, I forgot, you had your head up your ass so how the fuck could you hear?

[Cult of Reason]

You yourself said that Tacitus and Josephus were not contemporary.

[EusebioScrib]

Where did they get their information from?

Josephus was a Jew, so he knew what was going on in his back yard. Surely, he knew what happened 30 years ago, as he was in his 60's or 70's when he wrote his works.

Tacitus travelled a lot and wrote many histories of the ancient world. He was in cahoots with the Imperial family and it's said Pilate discussed with Tiberius about Jesus. But that is speculated if he was even crucified.

[EusebioScrib]

You yourself said that Tacitus and Josephus were not contemporary.

Where?

Contemporary to who? Us or Jesus? They most definily were contemporary to the time of Christ. Josephus was alive when Christ was doing his shit.

[Cult of Reason]

So this is hearsay 30-50 years after the event? Very convincing.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:29 AM

You yourself said that Tacitus and Josephus were not contemporary.

Where?

Contemporary to who? Us or Jesus? They most definily were contemporary to the time of Christ. Josephus was alive when Christ was doing his shit.
Then why write about it 30 years after the event? It is not as if it was a diary entry!

[LSD]

Tacitus and Josephus to name the more popular ones. Tacitus wrote his in around 84 and Josephus I believe was in the 60's.

Both of those dates are at least three decades past the usually given date for Jesus' crucifixtion, not to mention that neither are remotely credible sources.

Tacitus does briefly mention a "Chretus", but he doesn't elaborate on who or what he was. He also does not provide any new or contemporary information and had a general tendency to speak of mythological figures.

He devotes a significant amount of words, for instance, relaying the "life of Hercules"!

Josephus, for his part, probably didn't even write about Jesus at all! Rather the relevant sections were almost certainly later interpolations by Church officials, probably Eusebius.

The "Jesus passages" are entirely out of context, break up the narrative flow, and speak of Jesus in overly reverential terms not appropriate for a non-Christian Jew of the first century.


Christians were what caused the transition.

Bullshit.

Again, technological change is what caused the transition. Had Christianity never been invented, feudalism still would have been.

It is pure idealism to think that "religion determines being"! :lol:

[EusebioScrib]

So this is hearsay 30-50 years after the event? Very convincing.

Ah yes, 30-50 years after his death. Surely that entire generation was dead and no one could answer to the validity of his existance.


Then why write about it 30 years after the event? It is not as if it was a diary entry!

Oh, so I guess we can't take Engels' words on the Origin of Private Property because it was thousands of years after.

What of those historians who write of WWII or Vietnam today? Or Howard Zinn writing People's History of the U.S.? Surely we can't accept them either because they weren't alive.

Stop trying to act all cool and anti-religion when this debate isn't even about religion. I'm discussing historical facts but I guess you felt like getting a hard-on so you hoped on it and tried to slap me in the face with it. Well, sorry, looks like I'm holding a knife, dickhead.

[LSD]

What of those historians who write of WWII or Vietnam today? Or Howard Zinn writing People's History of the U.S.? Surely we can't accept them either because they weren't alive.

Those historians utilized primary sources to compile their respective histories.

Look, this is just basic historiography; while occasionaly secondary sources alone are used to defend a conjecture, in those cases, overwhelming evidence is needed.

In the case of "Jesus", we barely have any "evidence" at all.

Indeed, other than a few scattered references, all of which refer more to "his" followers" than to "him", his name just doesn't come up. This despite the fact that the first century was a time of great schollarship, especially chonicle-keeping.

There are several accounts of Gallillee and Judae in the supposed "time of Christ" and yet not one of them even so much as mentions a "Jesus" or a "Christ".

So either an historical Jesus was so marginal and unimportant that his myth might as well be fiction; or its fiction. Either way the brilliant, witty, influential, and widely-admired "Jesus" of the Gospels is pure invention.

[Sentinel]

Josephus was jewish dissident captured and taken hostage by the roman general Vespasian, who later became the first emperor of the Flavian dynasty.

He might have written down some of his stories earlier, perhaps they first got "known" after he sold out and became Vespasians advisor of sorts. I'm merely speculating here though, it was a while ago a read about Josephus.

I'm personally not convinced at all Jesus existed, and frankly I don't see how it's relevant to anything. It's not like he actually was the "son of god" or anything.

Propably just a pointless, by todays standards extremely reactionary, preacher whose teachings were used by criminals to forge one of the most massive mental prisons the world has seen.

[EusebioScrib]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"


Josephus, for his part, probably didn't even write about Jesus at all! Rather the relevant sections were almost certainly later interpolations by Church officials, probably Eusebius.

Yea, he (Josephus) NEVER mentions the existance of Jesus...ever... :rolleyes:

And you know that they are frauds why? :lol:


Both of those dates are at least three decades past the usually given date for Jesus' crucifixtion, not to mention that neither are remotely credible sources.

Oh henny penny the sky is falling! Three decades!



The "Jesus passages" are entirely out of context, break up the narrative flow, and speak of Jesus in overly reverential terms not appropriate for a non-Christian Jew of the first century.


Damn those people! Taking "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man," to mean that there was a guy named Jesus! Assholes!

ROFL! :lol: :lol:


Bullshit.

Again, technological change is what caused the transition.

Oh and what caused the change in the means of production? Surely humans are incapable of changing the "laws of motion" :lol: :lol: :lol:


Had Christianity never been invented, feudalism still would have been.

Err, okay?


It is pure idealism to think that "religion determines being"

Did I say that? I don't recall.


For those who are willing to take my discussion seriously this is what I meant (this time I'll cross the o's and dot the m's so assholes don't fuck it up again:

Man is what caused a change in the mode of production, not some magical forces. The forces which were challanging the status quo at that time were Christians. They were the self-delcared enemies of the Roman Empire and "prmitive Roman capital." Just like the bourgeoisie were the driving force against feualism and just like we are the driving force against capital.

How this is idealism, I dunno. I guess using fancy words makes people get a rock-hard man handle, so I guess it's cool.


Those historians utilized primary sources to compile their respective histories.

Look, this is just basic historiography; while occasionaly secondary sources alone are used to defend a conjecture, in those cases, overwhelming evidence is needed.

In the case of "Jesus", we barely have any "evidence" at all.

Oh, did you call Josephus and ask him if he used primary source? I musta missed the memo. I'd like to know how you know?

I think it's highly probable that Josephus used primary sources BECAUSE HE WAS APART OF THE SAME GENERATION THAT LIVED DURING CHRIST'S LIFE!


So either an historical Jesus was so marginal and unimportant that his myth might as well be fiction; or its fiction. Either way the brilliant, witty, influential, and widely-admired "Jesus" of the Gospels is pure invention.

It was so "uimportant" because why would historians care of a single Jewish preacher? Christianity never blossumed until alteast a century later.


Who elses' ass do I have to woop before I can have an intelligent discussion with someone?

I'm going to bed now. Exams in the morning. I'll see you fella's maybe tomorrow, if not, then Thursday.

[FinnMacCool]

I remember reading about a historian who plotted that there was a man named Jesus who was executed for treason or something like that.

I think its very likely that JEsus did exist even if there are hardly any written records because something must have set off that movement.

[KGB5097]

Its unfortunate that some folks are so opposed to evidence supporting religion that they'd reform history in a way which denies historical evidence (in this case, the accounts of Josephus as described by EusebioScrib).

Really, its sad to watch...

[LSD]

Yea, he (Josephus) NEVER mentions the existance of Jesus...ever...

If you'd care to re-read what I posted, I specifically acknowledged the oft-quoted "Jesus passages" of Josephus, but then proceded to explain how they are almost certainly fabrications.


And you know that they are frauds why?

Because that's what the preponderance of evidence (http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html) suggests.

The passages are out of context, inconsistant with Josephus' person and manner, overly Christian, never mentioned until the fourth century, and remarkably convienient.

And considering that Eusebius was the first to "discover" them and given his open endorsement of historical interpolation, the legitimacy of Josephus as a source cannot help but be in doubt.

Logically, it doesn't even make sense. Why would Josephus alone record the existance of a man which none of his contemporaries even mentioned. Why would he, as a Jew, praise a man who's followers specifically condemned his faith?

Perhaps even more damningly, why would he proclaim "Jesus" as an answer to prophecy when such a statement is in direct contradiction with non-Christian Judaism. If one considers "Jesus" to be the Messiah, one is by definition a Christian ...and Josephus died a Jew.

No matter which way you look at it, something doesn't make sense!


Oh, did you call Josephus and ask him if he used primary source?

um...I think you're missing the point.

The reason that we do not believe in an historical hercules is because there are no surviving primary accounts of his existance. Like with "Jesus", he was written about by many self-described "historians", but always in the past tense and never with cited references.

None of us can know what "sources" ancient historians relied upon, but that itself is the reason why we do not rely on secondary sources alone!


It was so "uimportant" because why would historians care of a single Jewish preacher?

Because at that time, they were writing about everything.

There is a surviving account of early first century Jewish life which literaly records ever insignificant detail of the region. In volume after volume, it describes influential people, events, and communities. If "Jesus" had even a tenth of the influence of popularity the Gospels claim he did, his name would have at the very least come up once.

It doesn't.


Oh and what caused the change in the means of production?

That's a complicated issue having a lot more to do with politics and technology than religion and theology.

Put simply though, the increased fracturization of Europe following the fall of the Western empire, although destructive in the short run, ultimately lead to a rapid increase in the rate of military technological improvement.

The various wars between the new European nations meant that pretty much the only science to improve during the "dark ages" was the science of killing. This, in turn, lead to a re-ordering of the military structure and, accordingly, the class structure of society in general.

Feudal production models emerged due to economic need, not ideological preference; and early feudalism was almost solely a result of post-Roman political disunity.

Following the Mongolian defeat of the Islamic empire, however, the great Baghdad library was thrust back into the western world. All of the classical knowledge which had been lost by the Church was once again available.

This lead, of course, to the rise of early humanism and the emergence of late or secondary feudalism; the development of the proto-bourgeois class; and the laying of the roots for market capitalism.

The entire story is, obviously, more complex than that; but all in all, the role of Christianity was minor at best and even then, it was generally reactionary.


Man is what caused a change in the mode of production, not some magical forces. The forces which were challanging the status quo at that time were Christians. They were the self-delcared enemies of the Roman Empire and "prmitive Roman capital."

That's simply historically untrue.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire centuries before the advent of feudalism. Indeed, if anything, Christianity, like all religions, served as an obstacle to sociopolitical change. It's support for slavery and it's tacit endorsement of primative production were both

When feudalism finally took hold, it did so in spite of the Church, not because of it.

[CCCPneubauten]

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275

Some one on Atheist Network seemed to do all the work for us.

[Publius]

Tacitus and Josephus to name the more popular ones. Tacitus wrote his in around 84 and Josephus I believe was in the 60's. It is estimated that Christ died sometime around 32-27.

Josephus' account wasn't real and Tacitus only, supposedly, mentions 'the Christ', and even that interpretation is challenged.

He mentions him, I think, in 1 paragraph.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:06 PM
No he certainly existed. Numerous pagan historians mentioned him. That is no doubt.

I think it's something we really should look into as it can give us a great inquiry to the transition from slavery to feudalism. Something we should be concerned with in study.

There is something strikingly similar about the Roman Empire and the U.S. and Christians and the Communist movement that I think deserves some important study by Marxists. Hell, Rome was a quasi-industrial society. It produced all it's own food and it had many types of mechanical devices. It constantly expanded so as to maintain power, and when it could no longer do so it collapsed. Sounds awfully similar to capital, no? Proletariat comes from the name for the Roman landless class proles.

Hmmm....
No, Rome never made it to "quasi-industrial". The crisis of the Roman economy, as I understand it, came from the tax burden of an unsuccessful professional army. The Roman economy depended on a plentiful supply of slave labor...people captured in battle. When the Roman army stopped winning battles and collecting new slaves, production suffered.

Christianity had no problems with slavery; nowhere in the New Testament can you find any "spiritual" criticism of slavery as an institution. In no sense were the Christians "progressive" -- they were most powerful in the Eastern Roman Empire and completely endorsed the despotic character of Byzantium.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[EusebioScrib]

Its unfortunate that some folks are so opposed to evidence supporting religion that they'd reform history in a way which denies historical evidence (in this case, the accounts of Josephus as described by EusebioScrib).

Really, its sad to watch...

I'm not sure if this is supporting me or not... :huh:


If you'd care to re-read what I posted, I specifically acknowledged the oft-quoted "Jesus passages" of Josephus, but then proceded to explain how they are almost certainly fabrications.


And I proceeded to royally woop your ass. :P



Because that's what the preponderance of evidence suggests.

I bet you didn't even read that link. :lol: I don't have time to either myself.


The passages are out of context, inconsistant with Josephus' person and manner, overly Christian, never mentioned until the fourth century, and remarkably convienient.


Ah because you sat and had a drink with good ole' Josephuys eh? You don't fit the epitome of a classical scholar (believe me, they're assholes!...well in that case...nvm)

Yes they weren't mentioned until then. He never presented a threat to the Empire until that time. Christianity was still a tiny sect in Judaism at the time of it's writing. Do you think the President is reading reports on groups like RAAN or the CL or something? Of course not. We're really not that much of a threat to them, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing right now. So they don't care to study us or learn of us. It's just more bullshit to deal with!


And considering that Eusebius was the first to "discover" them and given his open endorsement of historical interpolation, the legitimacy of Josephus as a source cannot help but be in doubt.

Uh oh, the bourgeois says art is good too. I guess we better burt down all art then, eh?

Unless you can prove that Eusebius (theif <_< ) fabricated Josephus works, then we have to assume they are correctl, as most scholars in the field aceept his work as valid. The only attemps to discredit him are by over zealous anti-religionists. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I hate religion as much as the next commie, but we can&#39;t choose to "re-write" history because we don&#39;t like it.


Logically, it doesn&#39;t even make sense. Why would Josephus alone record the existance of a man which none of his contemporaries even mentioned. Why would he, as a Jew, praise a man who&#39;s followers specifically condemned his faith?

Perhaps even more damningly, why would he proclaim "Jesus" as an answer to prophecy when such a statement is in direct contradiction with non-Christian Judaism. If one considers "Jesus" to be the Messiah, one is by definition a Christian ...and Josephus died a Jew.


First your forgetting something. Christianity was not a seperate religion at this time. Christians all considered themselves Jews and only accepted Jews until they had the Council of Antioch, I believe, then they allowed gentiles.

So Josephus was writing about a Jew who he very well could have admired (as evident in his work). Ancient scholars always intergected their views into their work and were not afraid to do it. A concept of "un-biasity" did not exist in that time.

Why did no one else mention it? Like I said, nobody gave a fuck, or probably even heard of it. No world leaders feared and wrote of Marx until his ideas became a threat, doesn&#39;t me he didn&#39;t exist.


The reason that we do not believe in an historical hercules is because there are no surviving primary accounts of his existance. Like with "Jesus", he was written about by many self-described "historians", but always in the past tense and never with cited references.


Well, I believe I demonstrated why it was highly probably the Josephus based his works on primary sources (i.e. Christ&#39;s generation was still live and kicking at the time of it&#39;s writing)

But let me hint you in on something else. The self-proclaimed apostles were all killed by the Romans and we certainly know they existed as that is clearly written in various Roman scripts. So let me ask you this: Why would people die for a man who they supposedly believed didn&#39;t exist? Doesn&#39;t make sense, does it?


None of us can know what "sources" ancient historians relied upon, but that itself is the reason why we do not rely on secondary sources alone&#33;

So what do you suggest we do? Forget ancient history then? Leave it in the dumps?

If we go by your logic we may as well just forget everything we were ever told because most things are based on secondary sources.

Do you really know that there is a space? Have you been there? You only read it from other sources, which you don&#39;t know if their primary do you? Have humans ever landed on the moon? Is the world really round? Your logic is flawed.


Because at that time, they were writing about everything.

There is a surviving account of early first century Jewish life which literaly records ever insignificant detail of the region. In volume after volume, it describes influential people, events, and communities. If "Jesus" had even a tenth of the influence of popularity the Gospels claim he did, his name would have at the very least come up once.

It doesn&#39;t.

Really, there is? Show it to me.

I never claimed he had the influence or popularity the Gospel says he had. This is not a debate about religion. I&#39;m discussing wether he existed period. From being a meaningless carpenter to the king of Asia, it doesn&#39;t matter. I&#39;m looking at the form, not the substance (if I just used those two words correctly.)


That&#39;s a complicated issue having a lot more to do with politics and technology than religion and theology.

This is where you show what a fucking philistine you really are.

This debate has nothing to do with religion or theology beyond that fact that the man being discussed was religious or used in religion.

I&#39;m argueing from materialist stand point, not involving religion. The fact that the Chrisitians were religious doesn&#39;t change their role in material reality. Once someone is religious they don&#39;t magically disappear from the material world, their head is just up their ass.


Put simply though, the increased fracturization of Europe following the fall of the Western empire, although destructive in the short run, ultimately lead to a rapid increase in the rate of military technological improvement.

What you fail to answer is why did the Western empire become so fractured? You&#39;re looking at the symptoms, not the problem.


The various wars between the new European nations meant that pretty much the only science to improve during the "dark ages" was the science of killing. This, in turn, lead to a re-ordering of the military structure and, accordingly, the class structure of society in general.

Again, the symptoms.


Feudal production models emerged due to economic need, not ideological preference; and early feudalism was almost solely a result of post-Roman political disunity.

I never claimed otherwise. I don&#39;t know where you are getting my "idealism" from. I never discussed such a thing once in this debate.



The entire story is, obviously, more complex than that; but all in all, the role of Christianity was minor at best and even then, it was generally reactionary.

Christianity from our perspective today is truely reactionary, but things were not always reactionary. For instance Fascism was not reactionary in the 1930&#39;s, the bourgeois were not reactionary in 1789, and slaver masters were not reactionary in 2000 BC.

The Chrisitians were struggling against hegemony of the Roman Empire. It was primarily fought on the battlefield of ideas, however the root of the problem was indeed material in nature.

The Christians wanted to expand and control more means of production so as to expand their church/power. The Romans were opposed to the rise of Chrisitan power as it threatend their own. Hence a struggle. Sloppy, but basically that&#39;s it.


That&#39;s simply historically untrue.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire centuries before the advent of feudalism. Indeed, if anything, Christianity, like all religions, served as an obstacle to sociopolitical change. It&#39;s support for slavery and it&#39;s tacit endorsement of primative production were both

When feudalism finally took hold, it did so in spite of the Church, not because of it.

When was the advent of feudalism? Slavery was abolished I believe sometime in the 5th century, officially, and by that time there weren&#39;t a terrible amount of slaves anyway. So what was the mode of production between the 600&#39;s and whenever feudalism existed?

Feudalism gave birth around the same time. It already existed to minor degrees throughout the Roman World in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, just like Capitalism lived inside Feudalism and Communism inside Capitalism.

The Edict of Milan was only done because Christianity was such a threat to Roman power. The movement was hijacked and the Romans used it to hold onto power for a bit more time.

Christianity is not static. It has not always been this or that way. It changed because of material conditions and power relations. It was a progressive force when it came to battling Roman power, however when the Church became the de facto ruler of Europe it became bitterly conservative and today it is reactionary.



http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275

Some one on Atheist Network seemed to do all the work for us.

Prolly didn&#39;t read that either :lol:


Josephus&#39; account wasn&#39;t real and Tacitus only, supposedly, mentions &#39;the Christ&#39;, and even that interpretation is challenged.

He mentions him, I think, in 1 paragraph.

Ah, damn. You willed it, so it must be true&#33;

Sorry, simply saying random "facts" won&#39;t get you no where. You gotta back yourself up.

Yes Tacitus barely mentioned him, but like I said, he didn&#39;t care? Nobody did. As far as they were concerned he was just some stupid preacher.


Christianity had no problems with slavery; nowhere in the New Testament can you find any "spiritual" criticism of slavery as an institution. In no sense were the Christians "progressive" -- they were most powerful in the Eastern Roman Empire and completely endorsed the despotic character of Byzantium.

Your looking at Christianity during a time when they were in power. By the 400&#39;s or so Christian dominance was supreme in East and West.

Christians were the driving internal social movement bring the Roman Empire down. What else brought it down?

Anyone who wants to roll up saying "internal contradictions" or "change in the means production" I&#39;ll take your head off. Explain these internal contradictions and change in the means of production. What contradictions? What changes? You know what they were: THE CHRISTIANS.




Now let me explain myself for all you tweenies who can&#39;t comprehend what I&#39;m saying.

Everyone is on an anti-religion crusade in this thread because they think I&#39;m supporting religion, the gospels, Jesus, Christianity or whatever.

Well, guess what? You&#39;re wrong&#33; :wub:

My intent is simply to explain that Christ existed and Christianity was the driving force in the change from Slavery to Feudalism.

This is the only Marxist and historical materialist perspective to take.

I&#39;m an athiest. But I&#39;m smart enough to realize that at one point in history the Christians were a progressive movement. Are they today? By no means.

The goal of all social movements is to become obsolete; to accomplish their goal. That&#39;s precisely what they did.

[Janus]

So I recently saw Da Vinci code in the theatres. I found it very good not only as a fiction story but also as a very practical conspiracy theory.
I watched it as well and found it quite interesting.


I&#39;m interested in reading the book which sparked Da Vinci Code, Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is the more academic form of the book.

Looking at what I know about history and the way things work, I wouldn&#39;t doubt a thing they say (except that the Grail still exists, I personally think it&#39;s been killed off).

What&#39;s everyone think of these theories?
Well, it&#39;s simply a theory and as others have said, there ain&#39;t a lot of evidence backing up the fact that Jesus even existed.

I believe that the book was right in stating that Jesus was a man and that his teachings were simply a more simple alternative to that of the orthodox Pharisees at the time.
Certainly, much of the stuff about church oppression is quite true as well.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EusebioScrib
Christians were the driving internal social movement bring the Roman Empire down. What else brought it down?

Astonishing&#33; Where in extant Christian literature is it ever suggested that the Roman Empire was a "bad thing"?

By and large, Christians were "pro-empire" in their sentiments. You know, "render unto Caesar" and all that.

As I noted earlier, most historians seem to agree that the burden of taxation to support Rome&#39;s professional army acted as an enormous drag on the Roman economy.

Epidemics also played a role in the "decline" of the western Empire.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

And I proceeded to royally woop your ass.

Strange, I must have missed that part.

Would you mind linking to this so-called "wooping"?


I bet you didn&#39;t even read that link. I don&#39;t have time to either myself.

I did actually. But if you choose not to read the relevent documentation, you&#39;re hardly in a position to challange my credibility on the subject.


Yes they weren&#39;t mentioned until then. He never presented a threat to the Empire until that time.

:blink:

That makes absolutely no sense. The question of Jesus&#39; life and legitimacy had been relevent for centuries. The Roman empire had had an anti-Christian policy for a long time and the execution of Christians was fairly commonplace.

But all of that is irrelevent to this issue&#33; This has nothing to do with Roman state policy. This is about internal Christian debates and analysis over the life of Jesus.

The simple truth is that, despite the fact that numerous Christians had cited Jospehus, none had ever cited the so-called "Jesus passaages". That is, even while Josephus was used as a reference for 1st century Judea, his "references" to "Jesus" were not.

It wasn&#39;t until Eseubius in the fourth century that suddenly the "Jesus passages" occured and it is only thanks to translations from that time that we "have" it today.

And since Eseubius was legendary for advocating interpolations, we are forced to highly skeptical.

Seriously, read the evidence (http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html)&#33;


Unless you can prove that Eusebius (theif ) fabricated Josephus works, then we have to assume they are correct

Historiograpy does not rely on assumptions&#33; Occasionaly, we are forced to rely on our best judgment, but it&#39;s not an all or nothing game.

If there were other similar references to an historical "Jesus", then there might a credible case to trust Josephus&#39; "account". But since he is virtually alone and the first reference comes from a known liar, we have no choice but to set it aside.

Again, I am not saying that Jesis did not exist, I&#39;m saying that we don&#39;t know. It&#39;s certainly possible that there was an unknown Jewish preacher behind Christian mythology, but it is equally possible that the entire story was a quasi-Mithraic invention.

At this point, we just can&#39;t say.


So Josephus was writing about a Jew who he very well could have admired

This issue isn&#39;t of "admiration", it&#39;s of messianization. The "Jesus passage" doesn&#39;t speak of "Jesus" is admiring tones, it speaks of him in reverential ones; in Christian ones It ascribes "miracles" and supernatural properties to "Jesus" and speaks of him as "the Christ".

None of that is consistant with a first century Jewish writer.


But let me hint you in on something else. The self-proclaimed apostles were all killed by the Romans and we certainly know they existed as that is clearly written in various Roman scripts.

Really? List them.


Really, there is? Show it to me.

The Works of Philo Judaeus (http://www.centuryone.com/7593-1.html).


What you fail to answer is why did the Western empire become so fractured?

There are a number of reasons, but the primary ones seem to be the overburdening and politicization of the Roman army.

There were other causes as well, of course, but I can tell you that despite the considerably debate on this subject in academic circles, there is not a single credible historian who attributes the decline and eventual fall of Rome with "Jesus Christ"&#33; :lol:


When was the advent of feudalism?

That&#39;s a somewhat contentious issue, but generally, historians associate the rise of Feudalism in western Europe with the decline of the Empire in the west.

Although some of Diocletians early reform have a proto-Feudalist tinge to them, it really wasn&#39;t until the fracturization of Europe that feudalism became the dominant economic system; centuries after Christianity had stopped being a an anti-Roman movement.

After Constantine, Christianty ceased to be an "anti-establishment" social force and, politically speaking, became heavily invested in traditionalist converatism. If anything, Christianity would serve as a barrior to political and economic change, not an "agent" of it.

Frankly, this contention of yours is ludicrously ahistorical.


The Edict of Milan was only done because Christianity was such a threat to Roman power. The movement was hijacked and the Romans used it to hold onto power for a bit more time.

How was Christianity a "thread" to Rome? Less than a seventh of the Roman empire had adopted Christianity and, for the most part, were distinctly apolitical.

Christianity, especially early Christianity, was founded on a principle of seperation between the temporal and spiritual worlds. Christians "rendered unto Caesar" and had absolutely in intention of challanging empiric rule.

Furthermore, the Bible specifically endorsed slavery and slave-production and so even from an economic perspective, there was no inconsistancy between Rome and "Christ".

Sure Christians&#39; refusal to abide by contemporary religious standards made them convinient scape-goats for Roman leaders, much as the Jews would become under Roman rule, but in terms of a real political/economic threat ...there was none.

Rather, Constantine saw Christianity as a useful way of combating the real threat to his power, the social disunity of the Roman-ruled peoples. One common monolithic religion was an easy way to graft "nationhood" upon an enormous tract of land and, at the same time, grant him a "spirituality" that would secure his legitimacy as new emperor.

Had Constantine not come to this decision, it is quite likely that Christianity would have gone the way of Mithraism. There is certainly no evidence that it was in any way "challanging" the socioeconomic system of Roman antiquity.


My intent is simply to explain that Christ existed and Christianity was the driving force in the change from Slavery to Feudalism.

I&#39;m afraid you&#39;ve deeply misunderstood Roman history.

There is simply no credibly evidence that Christianity played any role in the abandonment of slavery, let alone a "driving" one. Christianity was not only overtly "pro-slavery", it was also patently pro-empire.

By the time that the 5th century rolled around and the empire in the west was starting to decline, Christianity was one of the more regressive agents, trying deperately to keep it afloat.

The fall of the Roman empire can be attributed to many things, but Christianity was not one of them&#33;


Originally posted by redstar2000
Where in extant Christian literature is it ever suggested that the Roman Empire was a "bad thing"?

Revelations.

Although it must be noted that "John&#39;s" chief objection to the Roman Empire is not its slavery or oppression, but rather its treatment of Christians.

Indeed, once the Roman Empire become a Christian one, suddenly all of the anti-Roman rhetoric of revelations had to be "reinterpreted" so as to mesh with the new pro-Roman line.

From that time on, Christians became the staunchest defenders of Roman Imperialism. Even hundreds of years later, the legacy of the "Christian empire" was still dominating. Charlemagne&#39;s "Holy Roman Empire" was nothing more than an attempt to recapture the "glory" of the "great Christian empire".

[CCCPneubauten]

Fine, Scrib, I&#39;ll bring the information...to you&#33;

Tacitus: "But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.



(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

(2) The phrase "multitudo ingens" which means "a great number" is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 A.D.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later. The idea of so many just 30 years after his supposed death is just a falsehood.

(3) The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.

(4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.

(5) Suetonius says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect?

(6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn&#39;t the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.

(7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. Why would he risk burning these by lighting human fires amidst all these shelters?

(8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.

(9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

(10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.

(11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no "inimitable" style for the clever forger, and the more unususal, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.

(12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.

(13) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians." Christus was a very common name, as was Jesus, in fact Jospehus lists about 20 in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed.

(14) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.

(15) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.

(18) The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a "Christian" could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.

(19) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.

(20) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian&#39;s arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.

(21) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.

(22) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

(23) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

(24) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.

(25) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.

(26) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?

(27) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus

Get it?