The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

I aint your bro, dude.

My apologies.

 

[dbz]

Philosophy does arrive at the point of unity, the One, the same end point as Judaism.

Scholars sometimes object to the term ‘Middle Platonism’ as being rather loosely defined. The term is used to cover the period between the Old Academy and Plotinus, but Platonists of this period do not conform to a single category. This period has failed to generate much academic interest…

Gaston, Thomas E. (July 2009). "The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists". The Heythrop Journal 50(4): 573–580. doi :10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00448.x.​

Middle Platonism conventionally refers to a group of philosophers from the 1st century BCE to the 3rd century CE who may be described as Platonists by virtue of their allegiance to a nucleus of Platonic doctrines. More precisely, this allegiance can be presented as the attempt to develop a systematic and theological interpretation of Plato’s philosophy. This suffices to prove its importance, philosophically and historically, for two reasons: (1) because the commitment to the view that Plato’s philosophy can be reduced to a system proved very influential in the history of philosophy, and (2) because in this period monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy, and this confrontation was greatly influenced by the theological speculations of these authors. Unfortunately, most of the works of Middle Platonists are now lost, but the material that remains enable us to reconstruct the basic features of their thought.

Bonazzi, Mauro (30 March 2015). "Middle Platonism". Classics. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0190.​

[Per Middle Platonists] The general characteristics of this revised Platonic philosophy (and the closely related Neo-Pythagoreanism) were the recognition of a hierarchy of divine principles with stress on the transcendence of the supreme principle, which was already occasionally called “the One”; the placing of the Platonic forms in the divine mind; a strongly otherworldly attitude demanding a “flight from the body,” an ascent of the mind to the divine and eternal; and a preoccupation with the problem of evil, attributed either to an evil world soul or to matter.

"Platonism | Britannica". www.britannica.com.​

God and matter, supplemented by the Platonic Forms, which Middle Platonists typically identified with God’s thoughts. . . . There was also an increasing focus on the intermediary role played by daemons in the functioning of the world.

Dillon, John (2016). "Platonism, Early and Middle". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-A089-1.​

Philo expressed his philosophical religion in the form of lengthy allegorical commentaries on the Jewish Scriptures, especially on Genesis. In these he showed to his own satisfaction that the ancient revelation given to Moses accorded with the teaching of the best Greek philosophers, which, in his view, was later and derivative. The Greek philosophy that he preferred and found to be most in accordance with revelation was an early form of Middle Platonism.

"Platonism - Platonism in the world of revealed religions | Britannica". www.britannica.com.​

Most of what we know about Hellenistic Judaism is drawn from Philo (some from Josephus), his writings supplying valuable data for the philosophical eclecticism of Platonist, Stoic, and Pythagorean elements known as Middle Platonism…

Williams, D. (29 October 2016). "The Career of the Lógos: A Brief Biography". Philosophies 1(3): 209–219. doi :10.3390/philosophies1030209.​

[04:50] What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction...

"A History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism". YouTube. @time:00:04:50.​

What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction!​

 

[No Robots]

What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism to a monistic direction!​

Wow, dbz, that is some awesome digging! I'm truly impressed.

Here is a key quotation that you provide in your post:

In these [Philo] showed to his own satisfaction that the ancient revelation given to Moses accorded with the teaching of the best Greek philosophers, which, in his view, was later and derivative. The Greek philosophy that he preferred and found to be most in accordance with revelation was an early form of Middle Platonism.

The connection between Judaism and Middle Platonism is certainly worth exploring. The important thing from my perspective is that your post bears out Macmurray's basic thesis, namely, that Greek culture is essentially dualistic and in its confrontation with Jewish monism it is the latter that is gaining ground.

 

[steve_bank]

I aint your bro, dude.

My apologies.

I would not take personal offense on an anonymous forum with someone I do not know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The words and deeds attribute to the gospel Jesus would have been outrageous to Jews. Any hint of somebody claiming to be directly related to god would have been serious blasphemy.

The idea of a Jewish demigod walking among the people, human mother and god father, would also be blasphemous.
Jews do not allow any physical imagery of god which is considered idolatry.

The gospels are Hellenistic probably intended as promotional material for the gentiles. The demigod birth narrative would resonate with gentiles, not Jews.

But so what? How did mainstream christianity (just using the phrase, I know there is no such beast) react to mormons?

I'm just intrigued by the baseless assertion that mythicism is antisemitic. That's not even dumb.

Of course we're talking about people that believe in all manner of woo so what's likely happening is that people are taking offense not about being Jewish but about believing in ghosty tales of magic creatures. It's a bit of bait and switch, just move the goal posts, so my absurd claims are no longer in the spotlight.

 

[steve_bank]

Mormons were hated by Christians. From what I read colonial and 19th century Christians were not very tolerant. Jefferson from a bio hated the RCC, the papists.

Mormons were hated as a mysterious group. Brigam Young set himself up as a paramilitary force and marched west to claim by force if needed a place he called paradise. There were battles. I cited Mormons as a documented example of how a new myth is fabricated from an existing myth and grows. Like Christians Mormons splintered into factions.

I never said all mythical traditions are anti Jewish. Whatever the early Jewish Jesus followers were as it spread to gentiles and various adaptions the Jewish scrpture ad the Jewish messiah was claimed by new believers as their own.

It came out that Mormons had a facility to baptize dead Jews. Antisemitism in theChrtian world always existed. The Mecgant Of Venice, Shylock became a cocoon term thru today for a greedy unethical lender. 'Don't Jew me' was a slur I heard as a kid.

From what I read in contrast the Muslim Ottoman Empire while there could be antisemitism generally tolerated all beliefs as long as there was loyalty to the empire. In fact modern Israel drew on he Ottomans as to how they deal with religions,

Wether there were early Christians who tolerated Jews who knows. The first order of baseness for all organized religions especially the Abrahamics is to create ab eney to focus on. Look at the word as it is today.

Are there tolerant Jews, Muslims, and Christians? Sure there are, but there is also a great deal of inerfaith conflict.

My point alwys is the relgion and culture are never simplistic black and white dichotomies. Many shades of grey and no simple morality.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I never said all mythical traditions are anti Jewish. Whatever the early Jewish Jesus followers were as it spread to gentiles and various adaptions the Jewish scrpture ad the Jewish messiah was claimed by new believers as their own.

Sorry if it seemed I did, that was not the intention.

I'm curious if you were previously aware of claims of antisemitism wrt mythicism. This thread is the first I heard of such silliness. Maybe there are mythicists who are antisemitic. That certainly wouldn't distinguish them in any way. Lots of people are unfortunately antisemitic and they aren't mythicists, so even if there are such folk what's the big deal? I might not like Sandy Koufax as a pitcher but does that make me antisemitic? Hardly. The whole claim is just such a dopey argument from a rational standpoint and so it grabs my curiosity.

 

[No Robots]

I never said all mythical traditions are anti Jewish. Whatever the early Jewish Jesus followers were as it spread to gentiles and various adaptions the Jewish scrpture ad the Jewish messiah was claimed by new believers as their own.

Sorry if it seemed I did, that was not the intention.

I'm curious if you were previously aware of claims of antisemitism wrt mythicism. This thread is the first I heard of such silliness. Maybe there are mythicists who are antisemitic. That certainly wouldn't distinguish them in any way. Lots of people are unfortunately antisemitic and they aren't mythicists, so even if there are such folk what's the big deal? I might not like Sandy Koufax as a pitcher but does that make me antisemitic? Hardly. The whole claim is just such a dopey argument from a rational standpoint and so it grabs my curiosity.

Antisemitic would be to say no Jew could throw as well as Koufax, that Koufax was actually Greek and that Koufax didn't really exist, but was a myth.

 

[abaddon]

Antisemitic would be to say no Jew could....

So? Who's saying that there's something Jesus couldn't do as a Jew but could do if he were a Greek instead?

"The Christ" is mythical regardless if there was a real person behind the tale. If a real person existed then that needs supporting evidence, not a battle of cultural concerns. The influence of dualism from Greek thought on the myth is just there, regardless whether you or anyone likes it. If you dislike the spirit-matter dualism in the myth that arose about Jesus, then can't you just explain without the red herring about antisemitism?

 

[steve_bank]

I never said all mythical traditions are anti Jewish. Whatever the early Jewish Jesus followers were as it spread to gentiles and various adaptions the Jewish scrpture ad the Jewish messiah was claimed by new believers as their own.

Sorry if it seemed I did, that was not the intention.

I'm curious if you were previously aware of claims of antisemitism wrt mythicism. This thread is the first I heard of such silliness. Maybe there are mythicists who are antisemitic. That certainly wouldn't distinguish them in any way. Lots of people are unfortunately antisemitic and they aren't mythicists, so even if there are such folk what's the big deal? I might not like Sandy Koufax as a pitcher but does that make me antisemitic? Hardly. The whole claim is just such a dopey argument from a rational standpoint and so it grabs my curiosity.

In our modern politically correct culture it does make you racist.

If by mythicist you are referring specifically to Christians then Christianity most certainly has been antisemitic It was in the 90s when American Evangelicals began a reproachment of sorts. Jews and specifically the rise of modern Israel and the rebuiling of the temple became part of the ever evolving end times prophesies.

Israel and Netanyahu capitalized on the propaganda value for Israel. Promoting the image that Israel and American Christians have common values. Holy Land tours and the Jerusalem Syndrome where visiting Christians have visions and imagine things.

A good thing in general when it reduces the antisemitic hate. Jews in the USA remain at the top of the national hate crime list.

Its a mixed bag. Some Christians build bridges, some keep the anti Jew hate alive. Antisemitism was an element of the old movie Ivanhoe and medieval culture. A knight takes up the cause of a Jewish girl and her family.

The Jewish rabbi and philosopher Moses Maimoniides circa 16th century was known for building interfaith bridges and reconciling religion with philosoph. I read his book A Guide For he Perplexed. There are always bridge builders and hate mongers.

 

[No Robots]

So? Who's saying that there's something Jesus couldn't do as a Jew but could do if he were a Greek instead?

The words and deeds attribute to the gospel Jesus would have been outrageous to Jews.

If you dislike the spirit-matter dualism in the myth that arose about Jesus, then can't you just explain without the red herring about antisemitism?

Please see my thread, "The value of Bible literature for atheism and the value of atheism for Bible literature."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I never said all mythical traditions are anti Jewish. Whatever the early Jewish Jesus followers were as it spread to gentiles and various adaptions the Jewish scrpture ad the Jewish messiah was claimed by new believers as their own.

Sorry if it seemed I did, that was not the intention.

I'm curious if you were previously aware of claims of antisemitism wrt mythicism. This thread is the first I heard of such silliness. Maybe there are mythicists who are antisemitic. That certainly wouldn't distinguish them in any way. Lots of people are unfortunately antisemitic and they aren't mythicists, so even if there are such folk what's the big deal? I might not like Sandy Koufax as a pitcher but does that make me antisemitic? Hardly. The whole claim is just such a dopey argument from a rational standpoint and so it grabs my curiosity.

In our modern politically correct culture it does make you racist.

If by mythicist you are referring specifically to Christians then Christianity most certainly has been antisemitic It was in the 90s when American Evangelicals began a reproachment of sorts. Jews and specifically the rise of modern Israel and the rebuiling of the temple became part of the ever evolving end times prophesies.

Israel and Netanyahu capitalized on the propaganda value for Israel. Promoting the image that Israel and American Christians have common values. Holy Land tours and the Jerusalem Syndrome where visiting Christians have visions and imagine things.

A good thing in general when it reduces the antisemitic hate. Jews in the USA remain at the top of the national hate crime list.

Its a mixed bag. Some Christians build bridges, some keep the anti Jew hate alive. Antisemitism was an element of the old movie Ivanhoe and medieval culture. A knight takes up the cause of a Jewish girl and her family.

The Jewish rabbi and philosopher Moses Maimoniides circa 16th century was known for building interfaith bridges and reconciling religion with philosoph. I read his book A Guide For he Perplexed. There are always bridge builders and hate mongers.

Sounds like there's a lot of projecting going on. That's refreshing to know because it only makes me racist to someone who is a racist. For someone who isn't racist, someone who acknowledges their instinctive biases and prejudices and manages them, someone who isn't taken in by silly arguments, I'm not racist. I can certainly live with that.

Who started all this silliness about mythicists being antisemitic, and when? It's probably in one of dbz's links but I'm not about to go looking through all those links.

 

[steve_bank]

So? Who's saying that there's something Jesus couldn't do as a Jew but could do if he were a Greek instead?

The words and deeds attribute to the gospel Jesus would have been outrageous to Jews.

If you dislike the spirit-matter dualism in the myth that arose about Jesus, then can't you just explain without the red herring about antisemitism?

Please see my thread, "The value of Bible literature for atheism and the value of atheism for Bible literature."

Back in the day I got more befit from reading Buddhism and Confucianism than the Holy Babble. Also the traditional western philosophers.

The babble is a disjointed collection of ethnic history, genealogy, religious myths, and a bizarre morality written by differnt authors at different times. The gospels are a disjointed collection of alleged sayings ad actions bt a ancient Jew. Jesus of the gospels was a wandering Jewish rabbi preaching to fellow Jews reinforcing Mosaic Law, IOW Leviticus.

Jesus never renounced Judaism. If you want to follow Jesus be a Jew, keep kosher.

That being said, Job is a pernnoal story. A righteous prosperous man on whom shit rains down without warning..

To the OP.

Ancient Jews adapted myths from other cultures and invented myths/stories to embellish their history.
Christians adapted Jewish scrpture and made it their own adding their own inventions.
Christianity evolved into many variations.
Mormons adapted the Christian myth.

The Code Of Hammurabi was far superior to anything devived from the ancient Torah as a civil and religious structure.

 

[No Robots]

Who started all this silliness about mythicists being antisemitic, and when? It's probably in one of dbz's links but I'm not about to go looking through all those links.

It was probably me. I know I responded to dbz's quotations of Doherty by saying that Doherty and Price are notorious de-judaizers. This places them and their supporters at odds with current scholarship that unanimously recognizes the Jewish nature of the New Testament. In effect, the de-judaizing tendencies of leading mythicists is actually a throwback to earlier anti-Jewish New Testament scholarship.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who started all this silliness about mythicists being antisemitic, and when? It's probably in one of dbz's links but I'm not about to go looking through all those links.

It was probably me. I know I responded to dbz's quotations of Doherty by saying that Doherty and Price are notorious de-judaizers. This places them and their supporters at odds with current scholarship that unanimously recognizes the Jewish nature of the New Testament. In effect, the de-judaizing tendencies of leading mythicists is actually a throwback to earlier anti-Jewish New Testament scholarship.

How are they being "de-judaizers?" Are you the first to invent this silliness or did this get started somewhere else. I googled around to find if there is any such sentiment and came up zip.

 

[No Robots]

How are they being "de-judaizers?" Are you the first to invent this silliness or did this get started somewhere else. I googled around to find if there is any such sentiment and came up zip.

I quoted this earlier:

[W]e may wonder whether this Jewish inquiry into the historical Jesus could have saved the situation, or, conversely, whether--to ask a more painful question--the bitter anti-Semitism of the Nazi period was in some degree a consequence of the previous, massive de-Judaizing of Jesus on the part of (generally Christian) scholars. Aside from the entirely frivolous contentions of a few, such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain or Walter Grundmann, that Jesus was Aryan, a much harder issue would be to come to any judgement about the impact of the widely prevailing image of Jesus as virtually a non-Jew held in almost all western centers of learning at the beginning of the century and for some time into the century. Certainly anti-Semitism was no special possession of Germany, though its roots seemed to run deeper there, and the countervailing forces provided by a C.G. Montefiore or an Israel Abraham did not prevail in Germany. But the question of demonstrating a link between historical Jesus portrayals and the subsequent Holocaust would require a monumental investigation of its own and is so amorphous that the probability of success would be minimal. My own suspicion, merely to venture an intuition, is that the treatment of Jesus in scholarship, and thereby in churches as well, had an indirect influence in preparing people to think of Jesus as disconnected from Judaism and therefore to separate the two in making moral evaluations. The same could, of course, be affirmed of places other than Germany. The instinct of Jewish scholarship to attempt to reclaim Jesus was then not merely an exercise in recovering its own history, but a movement of self-survival as well.--The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950 / Walter P. Weaver, p. 256

See also:

"Theology as a vision of Colonialism: From supercessionism to dejudaization in German Protestantism" / Susannah Heschel. In Germany's colonial pasts / ed. by Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, Lora Wildenthal.

"Thelogical bulimia: Christianity and its dejudaization" / Susannah Heschel. Chapter 13 In After the passion is gone: American religious consequences / J. Shawn Landres, Michael Berenbaum.

As for Doherty and Price de-judaizing the New Testament, here is the passage I quoted earlier from Doherty's review of Price's Deconstructing Jesus:

Price gives us ten pages [151-160] of parallels between the sayings of Q1 (the apparent bedrock layer of the Q document) and Cynic-style pronouncements of famous sages like Epictetus, Seneca, or of those reporting on Cynic philosophers, such as Diogenes Laertius. There seems little doubt of the ultimate provenance of the core teachings of the Gospel Jesus -- and it isn't a Jewish one.

 

[Swammerdami]

A month ago I was about 90% certain that a Jesus from Galilee (probably Nazareth) DID exist, was probably baptized by John the Baptist and WAS crucified under Pontius Pilate, and somehow inspired new cult(s). That was about ALL I did know about Jesus.

Now I am about 95% certain. There is a whole cottage industry of "Mythicists"; but they have been tested in this thread and been found wanting. If all their rhetoric is unable to shake the conclusion Occam's Razor dictates I must follow the Razor.

IF there is at least one plausible model in which the Nazarene was purely mythical, THEN there is one model which can be articulated. The mythicists here seemed unable to even understand this logic, and were unwilling or unable to posit any particular mythologization model.

There are two independent mentions of James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Sure the mentions might be forgeries or frauds, but how did those frauds come about? The mythologists were unable or unwilling to suggest any specific answer. Two independent sources tell us about Chrestians (presumably followers of a 'Jesus the Good') and Christians (followers of a 'Jesus the Anointed') in the same place and same time. Mythicists were unsure if these were the same or different groups! I used boldface and a larger font to highlight the simplicity of a few yes/no questions:
IF there is at least one plausible model in which the Nazarene was purely mythical, THEN there is one model which can be articulated. But to no avail.

I am not a Christian, and try to ponder Jesus' historicity purely as an exercise. It would be fun to have a thread discussing other myths, for example Arthur or Moses. But first I would ask the historians here to compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence for such early Anglo-Saxon Kings as Icel Eomering(?), founder of the Iclinga dynasty of Mercia; Hengest and Horsa; or Cerdic, first King of the Gewissae.

I'll close — just for fun, note the mention of John the Baptist! — with the 5th-century mentions from a 9th-century history book, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; IIUC this book incorporates information from Gildas and Bede the Venerable and is the main evidence for historicity of, e.g., Cerdic of Wessex.

(Wikipedia and Google already offer opinions on historicity, and I defer to them here. I just post this in case some find it interesting.)

A.D. 418. This year the Romans collected all the hoards of gold that were in Britain; and some they hid in the earth, so that no man afterwards might find them, and some they carried away with them into Gaul.

A.D. 423. This year Theodosius the younger succeeded to the empire.

A.D. 429. This year Bishop Palladius was sent from Pope Celestinus to the Scots, that he might establish their faith.

A.D. 430. This year Patricius was sent from Pope Celestinus to preach baptism to the Scots.

A.D. 435. This year the Goths sacked the city of Rome; and never since have the Romans reigned in Britain. This was about eleven hundred and ten winters after it was built. They reigned altogether in Britain four hundred and seventy winters since Gaius Julius first sought that land.

A.D. 443. This year sent the Britons over sea to Rome, and begged assistance against the Picts; but they had none, for the Romans were at war with Atila, king of the Huns. Then sent they to the Angles, and requested the same from the nobles of that nation.

A.D. 444. This year died St. Martin.

A.D. 448. This year John the Baptist showed his head to two monks, who came from the eastern country to Jerusalem for the sake of prayer, in the place that whilom was the palace of Herod.

A.D. 449. This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire, and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa, invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons to his assistance, landed in Britain in a place that is called Ipwinesfleet; first of all to support the Britons, but they afterwards fought against them. The king directed them to fight against the Picts; and they did so; and obtained the victory wheresoever they came. They then sent to the Angles, and desired them to send more assistance. They described the worthlessness of the Britons, and the richness of the land. They then sent them greater support. Then came the men from three powers of Germany; the Old Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the men of Kent, the Wightwarians (that is, the tribe that now dwelleth in the Isle of Wight), and that kindred in Wessex that men yet call the kindred of the Jutes. From the Old Saxons came the people of Essex and Sussex and Wessex. From Anglia, which has ever since remained waste between the Jutes and the Saxons, came the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, and all of those north of the Humber. Their leaders were two brothers, Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden. From this Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that of the Southumbrians also.

A.D. 455. This year Hengest and Horsa fought with Wurtgern the king on the spot that is called Aylesford. His brother Horsa being there slain, Hengest afterwards took to the kingdom with his son Esc.

A.D. 457. This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Crayford, and there slew four thousand men. The Britons then forsook the land of Kent, and in great consternation fled to London.

A.D. 465. This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Welsh, nigh Wippedfleet; and there slew twelve leaders, all Welsh. On their side a thane was there slain, whose name was Wipped.

A.D. 473. This year Hengest and Esc fought with the Welsh, and took immense Booty. And the Welsh fled from the English like fire.

A.D. 477. This year came Ella to Britain, with his three sons, Cymen, and Wlenking, and Cissa, in three ships; landing at a place that is called Cymenshore. There they slew many of the Welsh; and some in flight they drove into the wood that is called Andred'sley.

A.D. 482. This year the blessed Abbot Benedict shone in this world, by the splendour of those virtues which the blessed Gregory records in the book of Dialogues.

A.D. 485. This year Ella fought with the Welsh nigh Mecred's- Burnsted.

A.D. 488. This year Esc succeeded to the kingdom; and was king of the men of Kent twenty-four winters.

A.D. 490. This year Ella and Cissa besieged the city of Andred, and slew all that were therein; nor was one Briten left there afterwards.

A.D. 495. This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore. And they fought with the Welsh the same day. Then he died, and his son Cynric succeeded to the government, and held it six and twenty winters. Then he died; and Ceawlin, his son, succeeded, who reigned seventeen years. Then he died; and Ceol succeeded to the government, and reigned five years. When he died, Ceolwulf, his brother, succeeded, and reigned seventeen years. Their kin goeth to Cerdic. Then succeeded Cynebils, Ceolwulf's brother's son, to the kingdom; and reigned one and thirty winters. And he first of West-Saxon kings received baptism. Then succeeded Cenwall, who was the son of Cynegils, and reigned one and thirty winters. Then held Sexburga, his queen, the government one year after him. Then succeeded Escwine to the kingdom, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and held it two years. Then succeeded Centwine, the son of Cynegils, to the kingdom of the West-Saxons, and reigned nine years. Then succeeded Ceadwall to the government, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and held it three years. Then succeeded Ina to the kingdom of the West-Saxons, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned thirty-seven winters. Then succeeded Ethelheard, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned sixteen years. Then succeeded Cuthred, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned sixteen winters. Then succeeded Sigebriht, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned one year. Then succeeded Cynwulf, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned one and thirty winters. Then succeeded Brihtric, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned sixteen years. Then succeeded Egbert to the kingdom, and held it seven and thirty winters, and seven months. Then succeeded Ethelwulf, his son, and reigned eighteen years and a half. Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealmund, Ealmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild, Ingild of Cenred (Ina of Cenred, Cuthburga of Cenred, and Cwenburga of Cenred), Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cuthwulf, Cuthwulf of Cuthwine, Cuthwine of Celm, Celm of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda of Cerdic. Then succeeded Ethelbald, the son of Ethelwulf, to the kingdom, and held it five years. Then succeeded Ethelbert, his brother, and reigned five years. Then succeeded Ethelred, his brother, to the kingdom, and held it five years. Then succeeded Alfred, their brother, to the government. And then had elapsed of his age three and twenty winters, and three hundred and ninety-six winters from the time when his kindred first gained the land of Wessex from the Welsh. And he held the kingdom a year and a half less than thirty winters. Then succeeded Edward, the son of Alfred, and reigned twenty-four winters. When he died, then succeeded Athelstan, his son, and reigned fourteen years and seven weeks and three days. Then succeeded Edmund, his brother, and reigned six years and a half, wanting two nights. Then succeeded Edred, his brother, and reigned nine years and six weeks. Then succeeded Edwy, the son of Edmund, and reigned three years and thirty-six weeks, wanting two days. When he died, then succeeded Edgar, his brother, and reigned sixteen years and eight weeks and two nights. When he died, then succeeded Edward, the son of Edgar, and reigned --

 

[steve_bank]

Paul gets the credt for "de-judaizing?" Judaisms for gentile converts.

Circumcision controversy in early Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the Hebrew Bible, circumcision was enjoined upon the biblical patriarch Abraham, his descendants and their slaves as "a token of the covenant" concluded with him by God for all generations, as an "everlasting covenant".[1]

The Council of Jerusalem[2] during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree": "But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. ... By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Galatians 2:2–5)." It may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism.[3]

Circumcision has played an important role in Christian history and theology; the circumcision of Jesus is celebrated as a feast day in the liturgical calendar of many Christian denominations, while Paul's teaching that physical circumcision was unnecessary for membership in the new covenant was instrumental in the separation of Christianity from Judaism.[4][5] In some Eastern Christian denominations male circumcision is an established practice,[6][7][8] and males are generally required to be circumcised shortly after birth as part of a rite of passage.[6] Circumcision is widely practiced in many Christian countries and communities.[9][7]

Similar differences and disputes existed within Early Christianity, but disputes within Christianity extended also to the place of Mosaic Law or Old Covenant in general in Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. Alister McGrath, an intellectual historian and proponent of paleo-orthodoxy, claims that many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.[16] As such, they tended to be of the view that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic Law were required for salvation. Those in the Christian community who insisted that biblical law, including laws on circumcision, continued to apply to Christians were pejoratively labeled Judaizers by their opponents and criticized as being elitist and legalistic.[17]


The Council of Jerusalem[18] of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community. Specifically, it had to consider whether gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it was conscious that the issue had wider implications, since circumcision is the "everlasting" sign of the covenant of the pieces.[19] Jewish culture was still trying to find its place in the more dominant Hellenistic culture which found circumcision to be repulsive.[20]

The decision of the Council, called the Apostolic Decree,[21] was that most Mosaic Law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile converts. The Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship".[22] There is a view that 'strangled' and 'blood' in the texts refer to foreskin conditions - paraphimosis and ruptured frenulum, respectively.[23] Beginning with Augustine of Hippo,[24] many[citation needed] have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Leviticus 17 as the basis.[25]

The Decree is one of the first acts differentiating the Church from its Jewish roots,[26] though a similar dispute was taking place at the same time within Judaism, but which came to a contrary conclusion.

Celebrating circumcision, what a laugh. Shows how goofy relgio can be.

 

[No Robots]

Gentiles were not yet psychically equipped to understand the significance of circumcision. The day will come, however when all men will undergo circumcision. Here (p. 61) is Harry Waton:

Circumcision is a condition to explicit reason and the intellect. No man can attain to explicit reason and the intellect without circumcision. This is the reason why the Jews only attained to explicit reason and the intellect. This shows itself, first, in the fact that the Jews only attained to an understanding of the whole of existence, from beginning to end; secondly, the Jews are the only ones who attained to an adequate understanding of the relation of the material world to the ideal world. And because of this, the Jews are an eternal people, they will inherit the earth forever, and all salvation must come from and through them. Here, again, I must remind you that by Jews are not meant a particular people, but all of rational humanity, no matter what to their race, color and blood. All rational humanity will adopt circumcision as the absolute condition to the realization of the destiny of mankind. There is also a biologic reason for circumcision: Circumcision curbs the untamed sex passion. This is shown in two ways. First, the Jews always found happiness in married life, marriage was always to them a true sacrament, and the Jews always loved their children as no other people loved their children. Next, the Jews did not need institutions for celibates. Celibacy, in whatever form, and practised for whatever purpose is a confession of sex bankruptcy. The celibates by endeavoring to hold their sex urge under control, condemn themselves to a life of perpetual struggle with the sex urge. The celibates are far more slaves to the sex urge than the circumcised Jews are; the celibates think of nothing else so much as they think of their sex urge. The ethics of Moses comprehends circumcision. Later Moses told the Jew: And Jehovah thy God will circumcize thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live (Deuteronomy 30, 6). This means that circumcision of the sex organ will lead to the circumcision of the heart, that man may attain to the intellect, and love Jehovah with the whole heart and the whole soul.

Universal male circumcision is the necessary pre-condition for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians today are psychical equipped to understand the myths they follow?