Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of us think that it's only recently that all the warts of Christianity have been revealed by modern scholarship, but the truth is there were a lot of philosophers who saw Christian propagandizing techniques almost from the moment Christianity began spreading among the rabble and underlings of the Roman empire. Take for example 2nd Century philosopher Celsus observations of how insidiously rabid Christian teachers infected their audiences:
Quote:
In private homes we see woolworkers, cobblers, handy workers and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels, who would not dare to say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. But whenever they get hold of children in private and some stupid women with them, they let out some outstanding statements as, for example, that they must not pay any attention to their father and school teachers, but must obey them; they say that these talk nonsense and have no understanding, and that in reality they neither know, nor are able to do anything good, but are taken up with empty chatter. But they alone, they say, know the right way to live, and if the children would believe them, they would become happy and make their home happy as well. And if just as they are speaking they see one of the schoolteachers coming, or some intelligent person, or even the father himself, the more cautious of them flee in all directions; but the more reckless urge the children on to rebel. They whisper to them that in the presence of their father and their schoolmasters they do not feel able to explain anything to the children, since they do not want to have anything to do with the silly and abstruse teachers who are totally corrupted and far gone in wickedness and who inflict punishment on the children. But, if they like, they should leave father and their schoolmasters, and go along with the women who are their playfellows to the wooldresser's shop, or the cobbler's, or the washerwoman's shop, that they may learn perfection. And by saying this they persuade them.
In a nutshell: "Flee those who are intelligent; they will lead you away from the truth. Listen to us who have the truth and you will be saved from eternal hellfire. Knowledge is the tool of the devil. Be as little children and believe what we, and only we, say to you. Rebel against your teachers. They are of satan. If you can't accept what we say by faith then you will be condemned. Don't ask for evidence. That is a trick of the evil one to try to lead you astray."
Sound familiar? Straight out of the gospels and Jesus' teachings.
Apparently this technique of tricking converts has been going on from the beginning. We see it even in the writings of the early church fathers like scoundrel and imperial liar, Eusebius, who said, "It is not wrong to resort to lies and trickery to obtain converts if the end justifies the means."
A lot of us think that it's only recently that all the warts of Christianity have been revealed by modern scholarship, but the truth is there were a lot of philosophers who saw Christian propagandizing techniques almost from the moment Christianity began spreading among the rabble and underlings of the Roman empire. Take for example 2nd Century philosopher Celsus observations of how insidiously rabid Christian teachers infected their audiences:
In a nutshell: "Flee those who are intelligent; they will lead you away from the truth. Listen to us who have the truth and you will be saved from eternal hellfire. Knowledge is the tool of the devil. Be as little children and believe what we, and only we, say to you. Rebel against your teachers. They are of satan. If you can't accept what we say by faith then you will be condemned. Don't ask for evidence. That is a trick of the evil one to try to lead you astray."
Sound familiar? Straight out of the gospels and Jesus' teachings.
Apparently this technique of tricking converts has been going on from the beginning. We see it even in the writings of the early church fathers like scoundrel and imperial liar, Eusebius, who said, "It is not wrong to resort to lies and trickery to obtain converts if the end justifies the means."
Ancient Roman philosophers were also making fun of the gullibility of Adult Christians being abused by Prosperity Gospel Preachers and the general Christian idea (although not followed widely among the richest ancient Christians) of not resisting evil and being overly charitable even to your enemies.
But the truth is simple, "a sucker is born..." literally, children are born without knowledge and without wisdom and back then child labor wasn't illegal. Psychologically untrained people are persuaded more by apparent surety rather than any of the (naturally nuanced) evidence or logical arguments. There is a great psychological bias to believe ANY proclamation of one's own immortality after being prepped with ideas of death.
A lot of people in the Roman Armies and Mercenary groups were already following "Eastern" Cultic Religions of Fighting and Sacrifice (mainly Mithraism) and the general population was following after Dionysus to protect their love for alcohol availability (although splurging on it was killing them in natural selection). Once the General Government converted to Christianity, the general population followed after. Because they believed in "records" as "true based on the purported lives of the writers" they were primed for Bibliolatry.
A lot of us think that it's only recently that all the warts of Christianity have been revealed by modern scholarship, but the truth is there were a lot of philosophers who saw Christian propagandizing techniques almost from the moment Christianity began spreading among the rabble and underlings of the Roman empire. Take for example 2nd Century philosopher Celsus observations of how insidiously rabid Christian teachers infected their audiences:
In a nutshell: "Flee those who are intelligent; they will lead you away from the truth. Listen to us who have the truth and you will be saved from eternal hellfire. Knowledge is the tool of the devil. Be as little children and believe what we, and only we, say to you. Rebel against your teachers. They are of satan. If you can't accept what we say by faith then you will be condemned. Don't ask for evidence. That is a trick of the evil one to try to lead you astray."
Sound familiar? Straight out of the gospels and Jesus' teachings.
Apparently this technique of tricking converts has been going on from the beginning. We see it even in the writings of the early church fathers like scoundrel and imperial liar, Eusebius, who said, "It is not wrong to resort to lies and trickery to obtain converts if the end justifies the means."
So here's the question that haunts me day in and day out: 1.2 BILLION people in the world identify themselves with the teachings of Christ. We cannot even uncover any secular evidence Christ actually lived, let alone said all the things attributed to him yet over a billion people hitch their wagon to Jesus being the way, the truth and the life.
Now here's the catch: do we know that that's a fact? Ask any Christian why they follow him. 90% will say, "Because Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but through me." But what's our evidence Jesus said that? John's gospel, they say. Ah, but Jesus never wrote John's gospel. In fact, according to most historians even John the apostle who supposedly wrote the gospel had nothing to do with it. The earliest evidence we have of the existence of something that looks like John's gospel is a credit-card size piece of parchment called the Ryland P52 that has
Quote:
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΗΜΙOYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩ ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ Ε ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ
ΔAΙΩN
translated:
Quote:
the Jews, “For us.....anyone,” so that the w....oke signifyin....die. En.... rium P....and sai...Jews?”
This fragment is believed to be a portion of Jesus' trial with Pilate, the earliest this can be dated is 125-150 CE...nearly 100 years, give or take, after Jesus' supposed death.
Upon this one fragment hangs much if not most of Christian historical heritage. We cannot prove one way or the other that the words in this fragment are John's, given that the absolute longest date John could possibility have survived to would have been 95 AD, some 30-40 years earlier than the parchment is dated, and given that the average lifespan then was about 23, not 95. But we'd have to believe that John lived to about 95 when he wrote this, and further we'd have to believe his memory was still so good he can remember four whole chapters of teachings word-for-word Jesus preached at the last supper....teachings that Matthew, who supposedly was there at the same time, never once recounts with even a word in his own gospel.
Further still, the gospel paints a completely inaccurate picture of the Pilate that secular writings report of him. Here Pilate is a milquetoast, pleading with the Jews to take Jesus off his hands and relieve him of the headache, then questioning Jesus very careful on philosophical matters. The Pilate we know from actual history was a ruthless near-barbarian who crucified anyone that even smacked of rebellion against Roman rule. Writings by Roman historians are replete with accounts of his mercilessness in dealing with criminals.
So back to my issue: the whole of Christianity rests on these words, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but through me." and we honest-to-God haven't the vaguest clue who wrote them, but we know with 99.999% certainty that it wasn't John the Apostle who was supposedly present when Jesus is said to have uttered them.
This is no evidence at all upon which to hang your entire life---believing that Jesus is the divine Son of God who is a propitiation for our sins and a sin offering to appease a God of wrath who will condemn us eternally if we do not believe in Jesus.
The extreme likelihood is that this I am the way verse was written by an unknown zealot of Christianity circa 3-4th century sometime around the Council of Nicaea who wanted to give credence to the growing church policy that Jesus was a god and that it was vital for eternal life to believe in him. There isn't a shred of evidence earlier than the Council that it was standard belief Jesus was divine. Quite the contrary, the Synoptics never mention Jesus and divinity in the same sentence. So prior to the council there isn't a shred of historical evidence there was any belief at all that Jesus was divine.
Sounds a lot like what Socrates said about the Sophists. Are you sure you got this right?
I'd be happy to deconstruct it with you if you feel up to it.
Just as one example, is it possible that the writer of John was familiar with the sayings of Krishna, who said about 600 years earlier,
Quote:
" THOSE WHO WORSHIP OTHER GODS AND THOSE WHO WORSHIP THEM WITH FAITH, ARE ACTUALLY WORSHIPING ME. I AM THE RECEIVER OF ALL DEVOTION [GITA 9:23] EVEN A MAN WITH WORST KARMAS WILL NOTPERISH IF HE BECOMES MY DEVOTEE [GITA 9:30,31] [Sound familiar? It should: John3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son; that whoever believes in him shall not PERISH...]
5-- I AM THE SOURCE OF ALL SPIRITUAL & MATERIAL WORLDS.
EVERYTHING EMANATES FROM ME [GITA 10:8]
EVERYTHING IS BORN OF ME. I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF ALL. NO ONE IS ABOVE ME [GITA 12:6, 7]
Actually, that sounds more like the construction my Episcopal priest friend put on the notorious "no one comes to the Father but by me" verse, whech he says was meant to be INclusive rather than EXclusive, or "Anyone coming to the Father IS coming by the Way I embody." I like the wayWilliam Penn put it a few years later, "The Humble, Meek, Merciful, Just, Pious and Devout Souls, are everywhere of one religion and when Death has taken off the Mask, they will know one another, though the divers Liveries they wear here make them Strangers."
Actually, that sounds more like the construction my Episcopal priest friend put on the notorious "no one comes to the Father but by me" verse, whech he says was meant to be INclusive rather than EXclusive, or "Anyone coming to the Father IS coming by the Way I embody." I like the wayWilliam Penn put it a few years later, "The Humble, Meek, Merciful, Just, Pious and Devout Souls, are everywhere of one religion and when Death has taken off the Mask, they will know one another, though the divers Liveries they wear here make them Strangers."
Well, I agree with William Penn and I agree with your pastor that the words of Jesus should be construed as inclusive of ALL religions, not just one as the Christian fundamentalists like to interpret it. As the person who wrote the article, link I included, said, "The Spirit of God that inhabited Jesus is the same Spirit that inhabited Krishna and Buddha and Mohammed. Each person spoke for their own people."
Even Howard Storm, who had one of the most profound NDE's recorded, created a fireSTORM in the Christian community when he said that when he asked God which religion was the correct one, God replied, "Whichever one leads you to the truth."
Sounds a lot like what Socrates said about the Sophists. Are you sure you got this right?
What was it?
The "Sophists" did indeed probably use this conversion tactic on teenagers, since at some point a Sophist was someone engaged in trade-school (or that is a specific field of work, requiring almost cult-like devotion, but little wide philosophy).
Later on, to be a "Sophist" simply meant to be teaching rhetoric (which was highly prized as the "scientific art of persuasion").
Quote:
...
It is sometimes suggested that it was because of their successes, rather than despite them, that the attitudes of the ancient Greeks towards the sophists were not wholly positive. In the early 5th century BC the Greek word sophistes (sophist), which is closely related to the words sophos (wise) and sophia (wisdom), was used of someone who was skilled in a particular craft or who was an expert in particular discipline. A little later it came to be associated with wisdom in general matters – a sort of practical and even political wisdom. Finally, it was applied to the sophists proper – the group of individuals who taught (or boasted of teaching) the art of persuasive discourse. Initially, then, the term sophistes was used in a positive way of esteemed individuals: the poets Homer and Hesiod, the sage Solon, and the great mathematician Pythagoras were all described as sophists. However, by the time sophistry proper was thriving, the term had already acquired derogatory connotations.
...
The "Sophists" did indeed probably use this conversion tactic on teenagers, since at some point a Sophist was someone engaged in trade-school (or that is a specific field of work, requiring almost cult-like devotion, but little wide philosophy).
Later on, to be a "Sophist" simply meant to be teaching rhetoric (which was highly prized as the "scientific art of persuasion").
continued at http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/r...rjp9_crome.pdf
"To this day, “Sophistry” is known as the art of using bad but persuasive arguments (or, as Socrates puts it, “making the worse argument appear the better”). Sometimes this is accomplished using semantic tricks, such as equivocation." notes on The Apology
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
