Lost Christianities Bart Ehrman

[grympy]

I have the book, and have read about 20% . Seems about right to me, but I'm no biblical scholar. IE I don't know what I don't know.  

So I'm posting this 18 minute clip with Dr Ehrman . I'd appreciate comments  from say Free, Min, Bucky and Mordant, or anyone else who has some knowledge rather than just an opinion. 

Thanks in advance

[Minimalist]

Clip?

[grympy]

Clip?

Oh shit. Forgot to post it.  I'm getting worse you know. Fixed.

[Minimalist]

LOL.

Getting old is for the birds.  It merely beats dying young.

[grympy]

LOL.

Getting old is for the birds.  It merely beats dying young.

Indeed.

  I'm still about 20 inside.  Pity the body is being  so damned uncooperative. Various parts are slowing down ,and a couple have stopped working almost entirely. A matter of use  it before you lose it I'm afraid 

[Paleophyte]

Read it several years back. Neither brilliant nor horrible. Gives you an idea of what sort of early religions Christianity spun of and later extinguished. Mostly.

[grympy]

Read it several years back. Neither brilliant nor horrible. Gives you an idea of what sort of early religions Christianity spun of and later extinguished. Mostly.

 That's about whatI gathered. The most important point to me is that it gives the lie to the claim that Christianity arose fully formed and homogeneous. Or have I missed the point? I'm looking at it as an atheist,  not a theist.

[Cheerful Charlie]

There were many varieties of Christianity from the beginning. Gnostics, Arians, Montanist and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis
...
Epiphanius of Salamis (Greek: Ἐπιφάνιος; c. 310–320 – 403) was the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. He is considered a saint and a Church Father by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He gained a reputation as a strong defender of orthodoxy. He is best known for composing the Panarion, a very large compendium of the heresies up to his own time, full of quotations that are often the only surviving fragments of suppressed texts.
...

Any number of theologians of the past have championed are attacked a large varity of Christianities in the past Usually in rather intemperate language. Irenaeus wrote a work, Against Heresies, or On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis.

The Nag Hamadi library is a large collection of until uncovered, lost Christianity texts.

[mordant]

Read it several years back. Neither brilliant nor horrible. Gives you an idea of what sort of early religions Christianity spun of and later extinguished. Mostly.

 That's about whatI gathered. The most important point to me is that it gives the lie to the claim that Christianity arose fully formed and homogeneous. Or have I missed the point? I'm looking at it as an atheist,  not a theist.

Just so.

Many modern Christians imagine that they would recognize the beliefs and customs of first century Christianity when in fact I think they would more likely be appalled by it.

Something generally resembling modern orthodoxy didn't coalesce and dispense with various counter-orthodoxies until roughly the 4th century. Until then it was a stew of competing ideas. Even after that there was constant evolution. Protestants have a tendency to forget they didn't exist a mere 500 years ago, etc.

[Minimalist]

It's as useful as an 18 minute Q & A on an entire book can be.

Once you take all the horseshit that later church propagandists created and throw it in the fucking shitter then you can begin to speculate on what the earliest scattered factions which later grew into xtianity started out as.  And speculate is about all we can do.  Early xtianity left no mark on the landscape in terms of archaeology and, if they did write things down, they were not preserved by the later churchie fucks who were simply trying to build their power base.  The obvious problem with all of these so-called heresies is that we only know about them because of the writings of (much) later writers.  Irenaeus was late 2d century, Tertullian was early 3d and Ephiphanius was late 4th/early 5th century.  It is dangerous to put too much stock in the opinions of enemies.  We see this with such actual historical figures as Caligula, Herod the Great, and Nero.  

Never forget the observation of the late 2d century Greco-Roman writer, Celsus:  ""Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense..."."

Celsus, the first Greco-Roman writer who ever heard of this jesus fucker or at least thought it significant enough to mention, seems to have a solid understanding of how much religious groups can despise each other.

I know the feeling.  I despise them all.

[grympy]

Read it several years back. Neither brilliant nor horrible. Gives you an idea of what sort of early religions Christianity spun of and later extinguished. Mostly.

 That's about whatI gathered. The most important point to me is that it gives the lie to the claim that Christianity arose fully formed and homogeneous. Or have I missed the point? I'm looking at it as an atheist,  not a theist.

Just so.

Many modern Christians imagine that they would recognize the beliefs and customs of first century Christianity when in fact I think they would more likely be appalled by it.

Something generally resembling modern orthodoxy didn't coalesce and dispense with various counter-orthodoxies until roughly the 4th century. Until then it was a stew of competing ideas. Even after that there was constant evolution. Protestants have a tendency to forget they didn't exist a mere 500 years ago, etc.

 Yup, didn't end after the first Nicene council-------

I served with a bloke   who was a 'nominal catholic'. IE it said "catholic" on his dog tags and he went to mass religiously every Xmas.  .Mine also said 'catholic' :  It took me about three minutes in to my army service  to understand (1)never volunteer and, more important (2) Keep your head down ,avoid standing out .If you stand out, the bastards might remember your name. The ywill then get you to do all kinds of unpleasant things.  The unpleasant things  tended to take the form of physical exertion.

Anyway, the  devout  catholic swore that reincarnation is  part of Catholic doctrine.

[grympy]

It's as useful as an 18 minute Q & A on an entire book can be.

Once you take all the horseshit that later church propagandists created and throw it in the fucking shitter then you can begin to speculate on what the earliest scattered factions which later grew into xtianity started out as.  And speculate is about all we can do.  Early xtianity left no mark on the landscape in terms of archaeology and, if they did write things down, they were not preserved by the later churchie fucks who were simply trying to build their power base.  The obvious problem with all of these so-called heresies is that we only know about them because of the writings of (much) later writers.  Irenaeus was late 2d century, Tertullian was early 3d and Ephiphanius was late 4th/early 5th century.  It is dangerous to put too much stock in the opinions of enemies.  We see this with such actual historical figures as Caligula, Herod the Great, and Nero.  

Never forget the observation of the late 2d century Greco-Roman writer, Celsus:  ""Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense..."."

Celsus, the first Greco-Roman writer who ever heard of this jesus fucker or at least thought it significant enough to mention, seems to have a solid understanding of how much religious groups can despise each other.

I know the feeling.  I despise them all.

 Thanks. I'm now interested enough to finish the book. 

PS : On the first Nicene council:  That  although basic tenets and the canon was decided then, that was not the real reason  Constantine  called the council. (? )That it was about politics and power . IE to move the centre of Christianity   away from Constantinople  back to Rome .That would also make Rome more more politically powerful  (?) To what an extent ,if at all, do you agree?

[Minimalist]

Constantine was a murdering thug. A power crazed bastard. Think Trump with a sword.

[grympy]

Constantine was a murdering thug.  A power crazed bastard.  Think Trump with a sword.

 Got it.

Always thought the deathbed conversion story was a bit convenient .

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's as useful as an 18 minute Q & A on an entire book can be.

Once you take all the horseshit that later church propagandists created and throw it in the fucking shitter then you can begin to speculate on what the earliest scattered factions which later grew into xtianity started out as.  And speculate is about all we can do.  Early xtianity left no mark on the landscape in terms of archaeology and, if they did write things down, they were not preserved by the later churchie fucks who were simply trying to build their power base.  The obvious problem with all of these so-called heresies is that we only know about them because of the writings of (much) later writers.  Irenaeus was late 2d century, Tertullian was early 3d and Ephiphanius was late 4th/early 5th century.  It is dangerous to put too much stock in the opinions of enemies.  We see this with such actual historical figures as Caligula, Herod the Great, and Nero.  

Never forget the observation of the late 2d century Greco-Roman writer, Celsus:  ""Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense..."."

Celsus, the first Greco-Roman writer who ever heard of this jesus fucker or at least thought it significant enough to mention, seems to have a solid understanding of how much religious groups can despise each other.

I know the feeling.  I despise them all.

 Thanks. I'm now interested enough to finish the book. 

PS : On the first Nicene council:  That  although basic tenets and the canon was decided then, that was not the real reason  Constantine  called the council. (? )That it was about politics and power . IE to move the centre of Christianity   away from Constantinople  back to Rome .That would also make Rome more more politically powerful  (?) To what an extent ,if at all, do you agree?

Christianity was then riven by competing ideas about the nature of Christ and God.  The main point of Nicea was to lay out a dogmatic Christology to unify Christianity.  To create an orthodox and uniform Christianity.

[Minimalist]

But Nicaea was 150 years after Celsus. 

Something had been fucking things up long before Arius and Athanasios.

[Cheerful Charlie]

The other point of Nicea was to lay down rules and regulations. The beginnings of official canon law. And attempts to set up regular synods to settle various issue as they arose in the future. Christianity was to become a unified religion that eliminated personal theology for an orthodox and settled orthodoxy. Of course it didn't quite work out that smoothly.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, in that it was a total flop.  The most effective missionary ever was Ulfilas who spread Arianism ( fuck that phony "paul" asshole) to the Germanic tribes who invaded and overran the Western empire.



It took centuries for the orthodox to regain control and in the meantime the so-called pope was nothing but a schlepper!

Of course, when they re-wrote the story that all changed.

[Minimalist]

Constantine was a murdering thug.  A power crazed bastard.  Think Trump with a sword.

 Got it.

Always thought the deathbed conversion story was a bit convenient .

You want interesting, Grymp?  This is the Arch of Constantine



It commemorates the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but contains no xtian symbolism.  As late as 314, just before the Arch was completed, Constantine was issuing coins celebrating Sol Invictus.  But facts never even slow down lying xtian shits.

[grympy]

Constantine was a murdering thug.  A power crazed bastard.  Think Trump with a sword.

 Got it.

Always thought the deathbed conversion story was a bit convenient .

You want interesting, Grymp?  This is the Arch of Constantine



It commemorates the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but contains no xtian symbolism.  As late as 314, just before the Arch was completed, Constantine was issuing coins celebrating Sol Invictus.  But facts never even slow down lying xtian shits.

 What is the putative  time of Constantine's vision "in this sign thou shalt conquer"  ?

[Minimalist]

Just before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.  Of course, that is told to us in two separate versions by xtian writers.

Lactantius,  writing some years later in the Liber de Mortibus Persecutorum, says "Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter Χ, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST."

(the old "I have a dream horseshit" that xhristards love to trot out!)  Lactantius was in the East when the battle happened.

Then of course we have the famed old liar, Eusebius who wrote in his Life of Constantine:

CHAPTER XXVII: That after reflecting on the Dawn fall of those who had worshiped Idols, he made Choice of Christianity.

Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, (1) he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance. While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven; while one alone who had pursued an entirely opposite course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme God during his whole life, had formal I him to be the Saviour and Protector of his empire, and the Giver of every good thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, manifestations of his power and very many tokens: and considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them (2) had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other, (3) being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of death (4) ); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his father's God alone.

CHAPTER XXVIII: How, while he was praying, God sent him a Vision of a Cross of Light in the Heavens at Mid-day, with an Inscription admonishing him to conquer by that.
ACCORDINGLY he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, (1) when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after- time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. (2)

As noted elsewhere, Constantine, while he did legalize religious worship in the Edict of Milan for everyone ( not just fucking xhristards ) seems to have continued being a loyal devotee of Sol Invictus for quite some time.  I rather imagine that his supposed death bed conversion is yet one more xtian wet dream.

[Paleophyte]

Read it several years back. Neither brilliant nor horrible. Gives you an idea of what sort of early religions Christianity spun of and later extinguished. Mostly.

 That's about whatI gathered. The most important point to me is that it gives the lie to the claim that Christianity arose fully formed and homogeneous. Or have I missed the point? I'm looking at it as an atheist,  not a theist.

That's the book in a nutshell.

[Minimalist]

That is exactly the point....

Carrier gives a great discussion of the various mystery cults which seemed to primarily arise in the East in the first century BC and AD.  Long before the catch-all term "xtian" was invented these various groups seemed to exist individually and with various local distinctions to the basic mystery cult - there's a savior god and he can save your silly ass too - bullshit which was catching on.

It's a fascinating subject made even more so by the simple fact that no one talks about them.  That suggests to me that these were  lower-class cults of no interest to the intelligentsia.  Neither Tacitus nor Josephus makes any mention of "xtians" as any sort of a power bloc in the run up to the Great Revolt.  So much for "multitudes" of xtian fuckers.

[grympy]

@Min

I heard of the 'Arian heresy' at school, but have just had to look it up to remind myself of its tenets. Non trinitarian. I can see how that upset followers of "The Way" .

Just had a quick look at Wiki. I'd heard of the Gnostics (dead sea scrolls?) Had also heard of the Donatists, but don't remember anything about them.

Recently read a bit about the relatively sane Ebionites

The only other 'heretics' with whom I'm familiar are the Cathars. They REALLY got up theChurch's nose. Must have been a
" present threat' ,. People never forgot the savagery with which they were wiped out by the church . (Friday the thirteenth superstition ) Didn't their persecutors become the Spanish inquisition?

If one steps back for a second realise what the church was doing , one is confronted with the obscene idea of killing a person because of different beliefs. I came away from such musing unconvinced persecution of heretics had anything to do with spiritual beliefs. I think it was about power and of course money. God has always needed vast sums of money

Wikipedia gives long list of heresies. I'm sure it's a fascinating area of study, but right now, I'm still reading on mainstream Christian beliefs .

[Minimalist]

The Arian heresy was late....4th century stuff.

Irenaeus, allegedly writing in the 2d century, aimed his barbs at Valentianism and Marcionism and finally in book 5 of Against Heresies gets around to mentioning the Ebionites and Docetists so you can see where he put his energy....although his reasoning borders on blithering stupidity which is all I'd expect from a jesus freak, anyway.  When Celsus was writing about how the different groups of xhristards hated each other that is what he was talking about, not Arianism.

The church expects people to believe that their boy got his ass nailed to a cross c 36 AD and instantly, in spite of the fact that he just lived and supposedly taught, false teachers instantly appeared and started spreading vicious lies about what he said.  Only the dumbest of xhristard morons fall for such a ridiculous story.