• Gus Lamarch
    924
    [My goal with this publication is to defend the argument that there are historical characteristic that can be confirmed about the life of Jesus Christ through the comparative analysis of literary evidence, against @Dharmi claim that everything related to Jesus's historicity is founded on especulativeness]

    [The topic was inspired by the discussion established between me and Dharmi about the historicity of Jesus Christ]

    First Topic: The Context of Early Christianity Theology and Dogma

    Early Christianity was not monolithic in its teachings, and the New Testament's views on Jesus verge on the contradictory: some passages, such as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, emphasize his Davidic descent and take his humanity for granted, while others, such as the prologue to John - "In the beginning was the Word" - point to his divinity. The point is that the Christian premise of the era - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries - was to pre-establish its dogmatic-theological precepts, which were used as a vehicle of transmission through the Roman world, for the propagation and proletiation of its message, focusing only on its "revelational" and "divine" side, transforming the movement in an almost appealing way to the plebeian masses.

    As John Anthony McGuckin, in his book The Life of Origen would state:

    "Christianity was seen by many as merely a folk religion for the illiterate and uneducated. Those who would take its message as an unquestionable fact."

    Its concern - that of Christianity - was, so far, to pass the image of an organization that composed only virtues and principles since its foundation, transforming its leading figure - Jesus - and his followers - family and apostles - into almost mythical beings, so that they could not be argued for having made mistakes in an eventual secular life.

    The withdrawal, of its charismatic figures, of a worldly past, and the approximation of them to a "pure" present was what made the image of Christianity aesthetically attractive to the masses.

    However, this detachment from the potentially negative aspects from Christian rhetoric turned out to be the perfect breach for the Roman pagan intellectuals, who, having the privilege of being able to look at the movement from the outside, together with their availability of information, were able to structure criticisms based on a historical basis of the cult.

    Second Topic: The Context for the Critics

    The Roman world of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries was one made up of freedom and plurality of ideas, values, principles, cultures, and most importantly, of faith. Such a society that had been established by the precepts of theological assimilation, where the Gods of conquered areas were, after a long comparative analysis, assimilated to the Roman Gods who shared their greatest characteristics - such as Apollo and Grannus and Lenus and Mars -, thus maintaining a pluralistic homogeneity of cultures and faiths.

    It is not surprising that, with the birth and growth of the Christian cult, most Roman intellectuals, who were conservative and concerned with the stability of the Roman traditions, would be concerned with refuting it from the inside out; analyzing their statements and their comparisons with the facts extensively. The primary problem that most Roman intellectuals and the Imperial government had regarding the Christians was their adamant refusal to participate in the required sacrifices that were regularly made to the Emperor and the Roman state, sacrifices that were an integral part of Roman politics, religion, and culture. Most Romans could not understand the Christians's insistence on their own superiority and their insistence upon their apparently exclusive path to salvation.

    They could also not understand Christianity's claims that they were a unique religion with a long history reaching back to antiquity, when the Roman philosophers knew that Christianity had broken off from Judaism relatively recently and still used ancient Jewish texts both to formulate their theology and to support their religious claims. These Roman writers, were also troubled by the seeming incoherence of the Christian position toward society and towards the recognized religion of the state.

    Knowing the contradictions inherent in the cult and its history, several philosophers and intellectuals took it upon themselves to demonstrate the hypocrisy established in the Christian affirmations, which were being used to denigrate and derail Roman society. One of those intellectuals was Celsus.

    Third Topic: The Evidence

    Celsus was a 2nd-century Roman-Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity, who went on to write a complete refutation of the Christian argument and justification for its dogmas, through its historical and theological contradictions.

    In his work, "Logos Alēthēs" - On The True Doctrine - Celsus brutally refutes Christian arguments and justifications for its theology and history:

    "Christian theology is based on an amalgamation of false eastern philosophical ideas hastily tied together. Christians are weaving together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources and trumpeting them aloud."

    As Stephen Benko, in his book Pagan Rome and the Early Christians would state:

    "Celsus did not rely on the "rumors and hearsay evidence" that many other Christian detractors of the time period used, but rather drew upon his own observations and displayed knowledge of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament of the Christian Bible, as well as other Jewish and Christian writings and their history."

    With his textual, historical, and theological bases established, Celsus makes the following statement:

    "Jesus, their "Son of God", was the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. How convenient of them - the Christians - to forget that his "holy" mother was convicted of adultery. Even so, they glorify her name in songs in those rotten and desecrated "temples of God". They are the worse of the hypocrites."

    The argument that Jesus was conceived of an unlawful relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier named "Pantera" is supported by the following evidence:

    1 - Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera:

    In October 1859, during the construction of a railroad in Bingerbrück in Germany, tombstones for nine Roman soldiers were accidentally discovered. One of the tombstones was that of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. Pantera was from Sidonia, which is identified with Sidon in Phoenicia, and joined the Cohors I Sagittariorum - first cohort of archers -.

    "Pantera" was not an unusual name, and its use goes back at least to the 1st century. Prior to the end of the 19th century, at various times in history scholars had hypothesized that the name Pantera was an uncommon or even a fabricated name, but in 1891 French archaeologist C. S. Clermont-Ganneau showed that it was a name that was in use in Iudaea - Roman Province of Judea -.

    The names "Tiberius Julius" are acquired names and were probably given to him in recognition of serving in the Roman army as he obtained Roman citizenship. At that time, Roman army enlistments were for 25 years and Pantera served 40 years in the army until his death at 62. The reign of emperor Tiberius was between 14 and 37 and the Cohors I Sagittariorum was stationed in Judaea and then in Bingen.

    Therefore, a Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera was living at Judea at the time of Jesus conception.

    2 - Celsus:

    Celsus is established by most historians of the "Principatus" - Principate - period of the Roman Empire, as being one of the most reliable and truthful sources on early Christianity.

    As previously said, and I will reiterate:

    "Celsus did not rely on the "rumors and hearsay evidence" that many other Christian detractors of the time period used, but rather drew upon his own observations and displayed knowledge of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament of the Christian Bible, as well as other Jewish and Christian writings and their history."

    Throughout his work, Celsus confidently attacks Christianity, putting argument after argument with confidence and even with a tone of irony - to mock Christians that he knew would try to counter him - about Christian claims.

    Using the "Criterion of Embarrassment" - in which an account likely to be embarrassing to its author is presumed to be true as the author would have no reason to invent an account which might embarrass him -, the statement that "Jesus's father was a roman soldier named Pantera", could be considered true, as Celsus was a renowned intellectual. If this information had been false, he would never have put it in his work, as it would go against his principle of refuting Christianity using only the truth against their hypocrisies.

    Some people will argue:

    "Celsus wrote his work 150 years after Jesus' death, so his information could be wrong about his - Jesus's - conception."

    Well, we live 138 years after the death of Karl Marx, and if we search through books, we will easily find information about who his parents were, even though contemporary movements elevate him to a status of "cult of personality". The common masses could easily fall into the argument that he had never had parents, however, an intellectual would know the truth, and more, would write about it.

    Therefore, Jesus was conceived of an adultery between his mother- Mary - and Pantera - his father -.

    3 - The Gospel of James:

    The final evidence that I will present, and therefore, the most substantial, is about the "Gospel of James":

    The Gospel of James is a 2nd-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the holy couple to Bethlehem, and the birth of Jesus. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and it became a widely influential source for Christian doctrine regarding her.

    The Gospel, which deals with the virgin birth of Jesus, was written between 180 and 185 AD, conveniently written 10 years after the publication of Celsus' book, On the True Word - written between 170 to 175 AD -. Book, in which this passage exists:

    "Jesus, their "Son of God", was the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. How convenient of them - the Christians - to forget that his "holy" mother was convicted of adultery. Even so, they glorify her name in songs in those rotten and desecrated "temples of God". They are the worse of the hypocrites."

    Precisely the passage that states that Jesus was not conceived by God, but by Pantera, a Roman soldier.

    The movement, after the publication of the Gospel, was quick to adopt it in its collection of Canons. A movement to rewrite the mundane and"mortal" history of their savior, Jesus Christ. The Gospel of James was well known to Origen - Christian writer - in the early 3rd century.

    In Conclusion:

    By making a comparative analysis of both contexts, which made the criticism to exist - that of the Roman intellectuals - and the gap for the criticism to exist - early Christianity withdraw from its mundane past -, we come to the conclusion that, if the statement "Jesus was conceived of an adulterous affair between Mary, his mother, and Pantera, his father" was not true, the Roman intellectuals would not use that information to criticize Christianity, and neither would Christianity seek to refute it as quickly as it did.

    Therefore, Jesus was conceived by Mary and Pantera.

    And I have just proved a historical characteristic of Jesus:

    "Jesus was not conceived by God in a virgin birth, but by two ordinary humans in a normal sexual act."
  • Dharmi
    264
    So, I'm not going to respond to all of this, only parts.

    The first part about Celsus: you have no way of knowing if Celsus had any sources for Jesus outside of the Gospels. If he didn;t, then there are no sources for Jesus.

    Second: The Proto-Evangelium of James is usually dated much later than the 2nd century from my recollection. Usually 4th century or 3rd. Even so, we know from the study of Christian literature that the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of Christian literature was fabrication, forgery or outright falsification. There's no reason to think that the Protoevangelium is any different.

    Third, there are no sources of Mary's existence prior to the Gospel of Matthew, and more important the Gospel of Luke. There is no Mary in the earliest Gospel, Mark, nor is Mary mentioned a single time in Paul's Epistles. So, Mary likewise, could've been a fabricated character by the Gospel writers.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I was going to respond to your previous thread but as this is your more revised thinking I am doing it here. Also, I can also say that I was brought to to believe in the virgin birth as a concrete fact. I don't believe it now, but I am aware that if was to say that to some people they would be deeply offended or angry as if I was committing blasphemy. I would be perceived as extremely sinful.

    But going back to the whole question of research on early Christianity, it is so difficult to find the most reliable thinking as so much has been written. For some Christians, the Gospels are taken as the main source. I see that as problematic, because of the factors within the Church contribution to that. Also, there are so many people from the last century and this one coming up with certain ideas which may not based on that much evidence. Personally, I try to look at texts and their sources, and even the background of the author. When information is on the internet, I am not sure that can be done so well. I have read a fair amount but don't have access to various books I have read because libraries are not open and, I had books which I don't have any longer because I have moved a few times.

    Saying that, I have read on the topic of early Christianity mainly in connection with research on Carl Jung, who was extremely interested in Gnostic ideas. I was familiar with the name of Valentinus you referred to. I was also familiar with the idea of Sophia, representing wisdom.One particular aspect arising within Christianity is the whole way in which the writer known as 'Paul' seems to have played a key role in the development of Christianity. In Paul's writings there was a whole emphasis on the idea of striving for perfection. This is important in connection with Gnostic beliefs, because the Gnostics were world rejecting. They had negative beliefs about the body and sexuality.

    The idea of the virgin birth probably needs to be seen in connection with a worldview which sees sexuality and the body in a negative way. Apart from that, when you look at symbolism in the Bible, it does seem that so much of this may be derived from other traditions, especially Egyptian ideas.
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    The idea of the virgin birth probably needs to be seen in connection with a worldview which sees sexuality and the body in a negative way. Apart from that, when you look at symbolism in the Bible, it does seem that so much of this may be derived from other traditions, especially Egyptian ideas.Jack Cummins

    The point that cannot be overlooked is that the Christian Church, since its beginnings, was based on the principles of theological and dogmatic conversion and structuring of the masses and their beliefs.

    Let's face it, if the historical Jesus existed, he was conceived like any other human being. His mystification as being conceived of a virgin birth arose from the need to rewrite his worldly past. For, "how could the Son of God have been conceived in a carnal way?", which Christians saw - through the Demiurge - as being evil and being part of Satan.

    His "pure" birth is now seen as "facts" for the simple reason that Christians won the battle against the classical world. It is obvious that they would spread a message that would be concordant to their governmental and societal plans.

    How coincidental was the fact that, shortly after the story of Jesus's birth was published for all to see - by Celsus -, Christians came up with a Gospel entirely focused on the "sanctity" and "purity" of his birth. It is very, very convenient.

    Therefore, I reiterate, if there is a historical characteristic of Jesus that we can verify, with evidence that supports the hypothesis as being real, it is that:

    "Jesus was not conceived by God in a virgin birth, but by two ordinary humans in a normal sexual act."
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I do not have any problems with the idea of Jesus being born through a sexual act. What I wonder about is why is this so significant for people? If Jesus's message is the main aspect of Christianity, I do not see why it has to be based on belief in magic. Of course, there is so much more to this, such as miracles and the resurrection. These are much more complex than the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus, but it does seem that for some people they all come together in a whole perspective on reality.
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    If Jesus's message is the main aspect of Christianity, I do not see why it has to be based on belief in magic. Of course, there is so much more to this, such as miracles and the resurrection. These are much more complex than the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus, but it does seem that for some people they all come together in a whole perspective on reality.Jack Cummins

    We have to take into account that, in the period when Christianity was structured, humanity still came from traditions and principles linked to the mythological and mythical.

    Religion is a way of, in periods of subjective chaos, reconstructing society in an objective - absolute - way. For the Christian faith was one that could not be questioned. It was "The Word", therefore, it was the substantial truth of reality.

    Christianity, for many, was a way of bringing purpose back, not only to their lives, but to the whole of Roman society, which until now - 2nd and 3rd centuries - was afflicted by the inconvenience of too much prosperity and plurality.

    Obviously, the elites of the religion were the only ones with a complete understanding of thr dogmas and how the cult worked. In their views, the cosmogony of Christianity could not be questioned, and when Celsus, with his criticism, ended up revealing the contradictions found in the foundation of Christianity, they quickly rewrote it to agree with their arguments.

    In conclusion, why do they focus so much on this aspect of the faith? The need to strengthen and establish a new dogma for the converted masses as truth.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    One aspect which I think is worth you considering is how this connects to your whole philosophy of egoism. The needs of those in power over others is probably different from those of the individual. It is hard to know the awareness of the individuals, even the elite. How much was conscious? Perhaps we are going beyond the mythical at this point. But, sometimes the intention or motivations may need to be disentangled from mythic understanding of reality.
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    One aspect which I think is worth you considering is how this connects to your whole philosophy of egoism. The needs of those in power over others is probably different from those of the individual. It is hard to know the awareness of the individuals, even the elite. How much was conscious? Perhaps we are going beyond the mythical at this point. But, sometimes the intention or motivations may need to be disentangled from mythic understanding of reality.Jack Cummins

    Even though many of the choices made by the Christian elite were within the aspect of "mass mentality", they were all still individuals, who were carried away by - what I call - "Negative Egoism", the irrational, instinctive, primitive part of Man.

    Their preaching of a message of a perfect symbolic world, ended up justifying their distortion of the material physical world.

    In a way, Christianity, in its core principles, is a duality of Victory x Victory.

    The elite would transform the world in such a way that its image would remain intact, while destroying the individual's freedom to establish themselves permanently in the upper caste of the hierarchy - the elites -, while following a message of "postmortem reward".

    Their faith comforted them when they remembered what they had done to the world.

    They were so valuable, that God became flesh and sacrificed himself for humanity. A beautiful rhetoric that says:

    "Look! No matter how evil and wicked we are, if we repent, we will go to the eternal reward!"

    Justified debauchery and carnage...
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I do think that there is a difference between the psychology of the elite and the mass of humanity, in terms of experience and the wish to preserve certain ideas, and to use these ideas politically. However, even that is a blurry continuum, and it is hard to know how this is distinguished, or on what basis. Is it about power, wealth or education?

    I am not sure who benefits from certain religious beliefs now. It may be so different from the structure from which those from which the ideas protected in the days of early Christianity. Do those ideas protect those who are in power, or those who are comforted by those beliefs? With such ideas as the virgin birth, I do think that such ideas probably comfort a whole variety of people, probably those who are so caught up in the web of belief and faith, that they would probably not dare to question. Many have not been taught such ideas because they have not been brought up with such beliefs but it is not a clear distinction between the mass acceptance of such ideas and a minority rejecting. We are in a very complicated time of a whole spectrum of thoughts throughout the world.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k


    Although I cherish the hope that his father's name was Naughtius Maximus, in my less silly moments I'm quite willing to accept as probable the claim that Pantera was the father of Jesus. The evidence supporting the claim is certainly far more extensive than any evidence that there was such a person as Joseph.

    As for Mary, as I'm sure you know it wasn't uncommon for gods to be the product of miraculous, even virgin, birth at the time. In one version of the birth of Mithras, for example, he was born of a virgin. There were so many sons of gods. I suspect Mary's virginity was something acquired by Christianity as it gradually acquired other pagan beliefs as it spread across the Empire, just as she acquired the titles and aspects of Isis (as worshiped in the Roman version of her cult).
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.