Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'Dem bones

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 08:07 AM
Original message
'Dem bones
John Cameron has assured himself an additional 15 minutes of fame with his documentary that claims Jesus' tomb and mortal remains have been discovered. When asked about this by a friend, I replied, "You'll never find a unicorn's bones." "What?" he asked. "There never was a historical Jesus. He could not have married and sired a son. End of story." Then I got to thinking that maybe my bald assertion was not ready for prime time, and that maybe a bit of research would strengthen the case. I have long been a fan of Earl Doherty http://www.jesuspuzzle.com and have read "The Jesus Puzzle". I highly recommend it as a good introduction to the non-historical Jesus.

Somewhere along the line a remark of Doherty's stuck in my mind, so I decided to test it. Doherty asserts that St. Paul was not aware of the earthly biography of Jesus. Nor, for that matter were the other authors of the Epistles.

Remember the order of composition of the New Testament books:

First came the Epistles beginning about 49-51 CE.

Some time later, the Gospels, which contain the biographical data on the man Jesus were written. According to general scholarly opinion:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100
Luke: c. 80–100
John: c. 90–110

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

With this in mind, I decided to do a concordance search in the Epistles to find words that would indicate knowledge of the information in the Gospels. I used most of the major events in the Gospels and searched important terms associated with them at http://www.blueletterbible.org. Here are the results, which reinforce my belief that the man Jesus was invented toward the end of the 1st century CE. Hence, no bones. Major sections of the following are organized by event (nativity, baptism, etc.). Keywords that I searched are followed by a colon and the results for their use in the Epistles. Your comments are more than welcome.


Nativity
Bethlehem, Nazareth, Judaea, Galilee: no references

Mary: Romans 16:6, a member of the Christian community of Rome. No reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene.

Conceive: Hebrews 11:11, reference to the OT story of Sara.

Virgin: 5 references in 1 and 2 Chronicles. None relate to the conception of Jesus.

Joseph: 2 references in Hebrews to OT Joseph.

Holy Spirit/Ghost: multiple references. None related to Jesus’ conception.

Born/Birth: multiple references. None related to Jesus nativity.



Baptism

Baptize(d)/Baptism: multiple references. None related to Jesus’ own baptism.

Jordan: no references.

John the Baptist: no references.



Temptation

Satan/Devil: no references to Jesus’ temptation.

Tempt(ed)/Temptation/: no references to Jesus’ temptation.

Wilderness: no references to Jesus’ temptation.



Lord's Prayer

No references.



The Apostles

Simon/Peter: 1/2Pe 1:1, identifies himself as the author.
Paul refers to meetings with him in Galatians 1 and 2.

Andrew, Peter’s brother: no references

James son of Zebedee/Alphaeus: Numerous references, including to himself in James 1:1.

John: Galatians 2: 9.

Philip: No references

Bartholomew/Nathanael: no references

Matthew/Levi: no references

Thomas: no references

Simon: no references

Judas Iscariot: no references!

Jude/Thaddaeus/ Lebbaeus: Jude 1:1



Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount)

no references



Entering Jerusalem

Bethany: no references

Martha: no references

Lazarus: no references

Jerusalem: no references to Jesus’ entering

Colt/Branches: no references



Temple Incident

Temple: no references to incident

Money changer(s): no references



“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”

Romans 13: 9, Galatians 5:14: Not attributed to Jesus, but a résumé of the law, and is originally from Leviticus.



Last Supper

Wine: no ritual reference

Bread: 1 Corinthians 10:16, describes communion in the context of OT sharing the sacrifice on the altar. No reference to the Last Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26: The Last Supper described with direct quotes from Jesus. Reference to betrayal. Paul says that he has received this information “of the Lord”, not that it is common historical knowledge within the Christian community. It is revealed to Paul personally. “Betrayed” is one interpretation of the Greek, which could also be translated “handed over” or “delivered up”. http://www.jesuspuzzle.com



The Passion

Gesthemane/Golgotha/Tomb: no references.

Buried: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Recites the resurrection, “according to the scriptures”. However, since the Gospels were written after 1 Corinthians, he is citing OT prophesies.

High priest/: no reference to passion.

Caiaphas: no reference

Pilate: 1 Timothy 6:13. This reference is thought by some scholars to be an interpolation. Others contend that this epistle was written in the second century, i.e. after the Gospels. http://www.jesuspuzzle.com



_____________
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dammit Ann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. The God Who Wasn't There.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Check this:
There's a good interview with Robert M. Price, whose work was featured in "The God Who Wasn't There", here

http://pointofinquiry.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is fascinating
How do the so-called "Lost" books of the Bible fit in here? I'm talking about the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, and other materials supposedly found in a Coptic library. Are they older, newer, or in between the Epistles and the Gospels?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The gnostic stuff
that the Church of Rome suppressed was more in line with Paul's mission than with accepted doctrine. The gnostics were at the very best ambivalent about a flesh and blood savior. See Elaine Pagels on this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0753821141/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4619653-1612916?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173821262&sr=8-2

The interesting thing about all the non-canonical gospels is that none of them tell the standard tale about Jesus. What we get from the canonical gospels is the Kremlin's air-brushed version.

This article: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jenksrev.htm

fills out my feeble "googling" efforts in a much more complete and scholarly way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. What Crossan calls the "extracanonical" gospels
date from various times. Current scholarship says that the earliest parts of Thomas are roughly contemporary with the Q document, both having been composed before 60 C. E. Thomas possibly originated with the Jerusalem church under the authrority of James, Jesus' brother. Both are "sayings" gospels, with minimal narrative material.

The idea that Paul preached a "purely spiritual" Christ, however, is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of its proponents. A "purely spiritual" Christ would not have been "born of a woman," "of the line of David according to the flesh," or sat around having a last supper of physical bread and wine. He'd be highly unlikely to have a very physical brother, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. These standard arguments
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 09:10 AM by malikstein
are put to rest in this article:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jenksrev.htm

For example, the bit about bread and wine is here:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the night in which he was betrayed took bread:

And when he had given thanks, he brake , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink , in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


Note that Paul prefaces the passage by saying that he received the following information "of the Lord". Paul never met Jesus, but knew him only through multiple visions that he refers to in his epistles. Thus, this description of the communion does not refer to the actions of a living person, but to the workings of a vivid imagination. The early Christians needed some such ritual as the communion to focus the communicant's mind on the essential message of salvation and also to compete with the other mystery religions, which all used similar rituals for similar reasons.

The earthly figure of Jesus described in the Gospels was invented in the latter half of the 1st century. The early Christians were members of the intellectual elite of their time. If they weren't they would not have been able to absorb the abstract neo-Platonic doctrine that Paul disseminated in the Hellenized Jewish Diaspora. Later, however, as the Christians began to recrute among a less educated population, they need to concretize the doctrine and put it into a form that the masses could understand. The Gospels became the tool that they needed.

In your reply, you point to a few instances in the Epistles that hint that maybe, just maybe, they are talking about a real person. How do you account, though, for the thundering silence on biographical information that my search turns up? Why for example, when Paul in the above passage refers to Jesus betrayal, does he not mention Judas? Why is Judas passed over in silence in all the Epistles? Why is there no mention of, not even the name, of Bethlehem, where Christ was born in a manger, Nazareth, where he grew up, Galilee, where he carried out most of his ministry, the Jordan River, where John the Baptist (also passed over in silence) baptized him and recognized him as the Messiah? These are gaping holes, that your spare passages of doubtful interpretation can not fill. The 21 canonical epistles, the bulk of the New Testament, make no mention of the man that the Gospels talk about. They speak of a spiritual creature who never set foot on this or any other planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Doherty really is a treasure trove of misinformation.
Points more or less in order: the ritual of the shared meal in early Christianity comes from the acting out of the image of the Messianic banquet--a reflection of the Kingdom of God in which everyone has enough to eat. ("Give us this day our daily bread," dontcha know.) It was practiced among the Essenes as a blessing of wine and broken loaf, to be presided over by the Priestly and Davidic Messiahs. The earliest form of the Eucharist, which is clearly derived from the Essene ritual, is to be found in the Didache. This form must in fact have been known to Paul because his first letter to the Corinthians deals with their failure to do it correctly. The so-called "words of institution" are indeed Paul's own addition, but the Eucharist is not his invention.

The first "sayings Gospels," Q and the first layer of Thomas, were in circulation by mid-first century CE. Mark comes in somewhere between 65-70, with Matthew at about 80, Luke and John as we currently know it following at approximately ten-year intervals. There are indications that the sayings and miracles sections of John are considerably earlier, and that it was the narrative portions that were added at the turn of the second century. If you're going to claim Jesus was "invented, in the latter half of the 1st century, you'd better be able to explain how Q,Thomas, et al. arrived on the scene before him.

The earliest Christians were destitute peasants. The Lord's Prayer is specifically the prayer of a community that knows hunger and the crushing burden of debt and debt slavery. The Didache is geared specifically toward this population and the itenerant teachers who served them. While it's true that Jesus' followers also included the educated and the wealthy, there's nothing at all Neo-Plantonic about his teaching. It's about as firmly rooted as it can be in the Jewish scriptures, both Torah and Prophets. Paul's theology is distinctly Neo-Platonic, however. That's why we have the phrases "Pauline Christianity" and even "Paulianity."

Paul's letters are not biographies. They are essentially specific attempts to address specific problems in specific congregations. The Q and Thomas gospels were already in circulation by the time Paul wrote. Why would he duplicate them every time he picked up his stylus? And as I'm sure you know, the birth and resurrection narratives were late-comers to the gospels. Mark has no nativity story, and originally had no resurrection narrative. By the time Luke and Matthew added on their birth and resurrection stories, Paul was dead.

Right. "Spiritual creatures" get "born of a woman," into known clans, interact with known historical figures and get executed as criminals every day.

Now, a few questions for you. What are Doherty's credentials? His biography says he has a degree in classical languages and ancient history, but gives neither the type of degree nor the granting institution. This claim therefore cannot be checked. What can be checked is the quality of his "scholarship," which results in--let us say "unique"--readings of Greek that bear no resemblance to Greek vocabulary and grammar as it's been known for the last 2000 years. Who peer-reviewed his work? Why is he essentially self-published? Granted, he's not the head-banger Kenneth Humphreys is, but I've seen nothing to indicate that he deserves serious attention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. okasha really is a treasure trove of misunderstanding.
The first "sayings Gospels," Q and the first layer of Thomas, were in circulation by mid-first century CE.


The dating of Thomas is contested. In North America, the early dating you use is considered most likely, while in Europe, a date in the 2nd century is considered more plausible.

Q is an hypothesis, and a contested hypothesis, at that. You can not make firm statements based on a document that noone has ever seen and that might never have existed. Even if there were a Q-like document, we have no guarantee that the sayings were quotations from Jesus. The kind of wisdom that Q is inferred to contain was fairly commonly available and may simply have been patched onto the Jesus myth.

The earliest Christians were destitute peasants.


The earliest conceivable Christians were Paul's audience. They were not destitute peasants. He tapped them for funds to support the "saints which are at Jerusalem". We have no record of Christian peasants in that period. Even if we accept the Gospel stories of Jesus's ministry, he did not address Christians. His audience was primarily Jewish. There were no Christians at that time.

Romans 15:25-26 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.

For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.


1 Corinthians 16:1-3 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

Upon the first of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.


there's nothing at all Neo-Plantonic about his teaching


Strictly speaking, you are right, since Plotinus systematized neo-Platonism in the 3rd century. I'll accept your correction and call Paul's teaching Platonic. He was, of course, as I think I pointed out, also rooted in the Old Testament, using it repeatedly to support his assertions about the Savior. He never refers to Jesus' life to make his argument, but to passages in the OT that he interprets as making his case about Jesus. If he knew about a real live person fulfilling the scriptures, why didn't he use examples from his life?

As to Jesus' teaching, if there ever was such a thing, all we know about it is what we read in the Gospels. At the very least, John puts what he reports into an unmistakably Platonic context: "In the beginning was the Word ...". Thus, the earliest documented Christian teachings that we know are clearly a mix Platonism and OT Judaism, and they emanate from Paul.

The Didache


I don't understand why you brought this document into a discussion about the earthly existence of Jesus. It makes no recognizable reference to such an historical figure.

Paul's letters are not biographies.


No contest. Then neither is the liturgy in your church, nor are the sermons that your minister pronounces. Nevertheless, they are full of claims concerning the earthly Jesus. His acts and sayings are mentioned in every imaginable context. Paul, on the other hand, is silent on the subject. Is it reasonable to contend that he knew Jesus' temporal biography and made absolutely no reference to it, even to the point of describing the communion as information that Jesus revealed to him in a vision?

The Q and Thomas gospels were already in circulation by the time Paul wrote.


As I pointed out above, you have no way of knowing that to be true.

Why would he duplicate them every time he picked up his stylus?


This is a straw man argument. He need not "duplicate" them every time, but merely refer to their content occasionally. He never does.

"Spiritual creatures" get "born of a woman," into known clans, interact with known historical figures and get executed as criminals every day.


Only in the Gospels, not in the Epistles.

What are Doherty's credentials?


I have no more specific information than you do on this subject. Whether Doherty is credentialed and knows the languages that he claims to know are, in fact, irrelevant to my original post. It shows the results of research that I did, based on comments by Doherty. I am not a biblical scholar, but a simple PhD in physics from McGill University. Those are my credentials, which you may use to weigh my evidence. You, too, can do similar research to mine, following the prescription that I described. Oh, and one more thing. I just checked for any mention of Herod in the Epistles: zip.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. But also remember that the letters are ALL written to Christian communities.
They are written to churches - people who are already Christian. The Epistles were not written to convince or to evangelize. And most of the letters were written to Christian communities that were either in conflict, and Paul (or the other writers) was either telling them to shape up, or the communities were following the teachings of others that Paul didn't like, and he was telling them to shape up.

You scholarship - and the "scholarship" of Doherty - are quite mistaken to think that just because Paul didn't mention Jesus' body that Jesus didn't exist.

That bullshit above about communion is fucking hilarious! :rofl:

I love crap that is clearly the writings of the paranoid or the conspiracist. Wicked funny! "The earthly figure of Jesus described in the Gospels was invented in the latter half of the 1st century" and "early Christians were members of the intellectual elite" and "Later....they need(ed) to concretize the doctrine and put it into a form that the masses could understand" <-- man, I couldn't come up with shit like that on my best fiction writing days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Thank you for your scholarly remarks
and for your Christian humility and charity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EvilAL Donating Member (357 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Skeleton Christ.
Skeleton Christ

Unbound God's creation, has grown into the sinner
Abandoned innocence, Impenitent transgressor
Escape mortality
They say your life can change
If you take God's hand
Embrace rebirth
Your cleansing's so divine
To be reborn in God's eyes

You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

Your faith has atrophied
And rots in hell's asylum
Despondence tears you down
A free-falling social stain
Escape atrocity
They say your life can change
If you take God's hand
Embrace rebirth
Your cleansing's so divine
To be reborn to God's lies

You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
It's all a fuckin' mockery
No grasp upon reality
It's mind control for
Compulsory religion and the Skeleton Christ

You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
I laugh at the abortion known as Christianity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
It's all a fuckin' mockery
No grasp upon reality
It's mind control for
Compulsory religion and the Skeleton Christ

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. I can't believe how you build a case on one assumption after the
other.
The first assumption that is really bad is that the Gospels were written FOR THE FIRST TIME 50 to 100 years later.
Those dates are the first KNOWN copies of the scriptures. It is not unthinkable that the disciples dictated or wrote down there remembrances soon after the death of Jesus and were copied many times over the next 100 years. There writing material did not have a long life time and they relied on copping to preserve it.
It is all speculation with parameters that say it ain't real so I will make it real to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The dates for when the Gospels
were written are the result of a couple of centuries of critical scholarship. You'll have to do a lot better than your wishful thinking to trump that. Good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Gospels mention destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 CE
So if Jesus (supposing he had ever lived as a human, on earth) really died in 30 CE, then Mark chapter 13, which is about an event which happened in 70 CE, was written 40 years after the fact.

Further, it is abundantly clear that Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark, and so they must have come later.

Now among ALL writings - in the Bible, in the extra-canonical books, in the apologetic works of early Christians, in ANYTHING - there is no reference to the Gospels until Ireanaeus in Book III of his "Against All Heresies", which was written in about 180 CE. Justin Martyr, writing in about 150 CE, talks about "Memoirs of the Apostles", but his quotations are not from our Gospels, nor does he know of them. Ireaneus is the first.

The book "Supernatural Religion" is a massive, detailed treatment of this issue. It used to be anextremely rare and expensive book, but it is now available as in inexpensive reprint from Kessinger and can be purchased from Amazon.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. My first thought on hearing of the "tomb" was "There WAS NO Jesus"...
...so those CAN'T be his bones.

Earl Doherty has done a fine job of arguing that the Christian religions started out worshiping a heavenly being, and only later was a "real, historical" person added to "flesh out" the legends as part of the power struggle between warring factions of early christians.

Of course, Gerald Massey, Arthur Drews, John Robinson and many others made this case 100 years ago.

The movie "The God Who Wasn't There", available on DVD, gives an nice introduction to the Jesus Myth.

The God Who Wasn't There
http://thegodmovie.com/dvd.php

View Trailer Here
http://www.thegodmovie.com/clip-Trailer.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malikstein Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. warring factions of early christians
Literally, they were warring factions, complete with murder and armed gangs of monks causing mayhem in almost every major city of the Roman Empire.

Constantine finally calmed things down when he gave the franchise to the trinitarians at the Council of Nicea. Since the Church was bought and got its 007 license, it has never looked back, repressing every hint of rebellion and free thought that dared raise its head. That lasted for more than a millenium and set science back severely. If it weren't for Christianity, we would have probably had the internet in about the year 1000, and we would have cures for most diseases. We would have invented an economic system capable of sustaining the entire world population in comfort and we would have learned how to put an end to warfare.

Other than that, I'm all in favor of Christianity, ignorance, poverty, supersitition and institutionalized hatred of the other. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Warring Factions - Criminal History of the Christian Church
Ken Humphreys has an excellent series of articles titled "Heart of Darkness: Criminal History of the Christian Church"

Heart of Darkness
http://jesusneverexisted.com/darkness.html



Here is a little exceprt of Humphrys' writings on the history of early Christain turf-wars:

Bloody Annals from the Church of Christ
Callistus
– Embezzler, Extortionist, Friend of Emperor’s Whore, Makes Pope, Dies with Transvestite!


Sex, corruption, murder – the scandal would spice up any era! But this was the Christian church before it was corrupted by power, as it waited in the wings of pagan Rome.

In the late second century a bright and ambitious presbyter Hippolytus was keen to impose his own carefully thought out ideas on the Christ-followers of Rome, a church split into many rival factions. Hippolytus was a Greek-speaking theoretician, schooled under Irenaeus at Lyons and by the eastern 'apologists' like Origen. His best known work is the Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (‘Refutation of All Heresies’). His mentor, Irenaeus, had already censured Pope Victor (189-198) for arrogance towards other bishops and when Hippolytus took up residence in Rome he viewed the church there with some alarm.

Victor was pressing ahead with the Latinization of the Roman Church and had excommunicated the Greek Churches of Asia Minor, ostensibly over the dating of Easter. A Greek-faction under ‘Theodotus the Money Changer’ had established an independent church in Rome which rejected the idea of the Trinity (at that time being promoted by the ruling faction), preferring the 'adoptionist' theology of 'Jesus an ordinary man on whom the Spirit descended at baptism.'

In 198 Victor died but much to Hippolytus's disgust (he had hoped for the top job himself) a cleric called Zephyrinus (198 - 217) took the bishop’s chair. Hippolytus, in the first book of his Refutation – called the ‘Philosophymena’ – described Zephyrinus as ‘a simple man without education.’ In a later work called The Apostolic Tradition he complained that under Zephyrinus’s leadership church discipline had become lax, the church itself corrupt and public worship a scandal.



Turf War
During Zephyrinus’s long tenure factional rivalry in the city became endemic. A group of soothsayers led by Montanus built a strong following, even among the bishop’s own entourage, and a third group, led by Sabellius, rejected the Logos and stressed the ‘modes’ of a unitary god. Hippolytus attacked them all – and Zephyrinus himself for doing nothing about it. A contemporary churchman, Tertullian in Carthage, equally austere, rallied to Hippolytus's support and censured the bishop in Rome.

What really irked Hippolytus was that the new pope relied heavily on the archdeacon Callistus as his enforcer, a rough, tough Roman, who had reached the top the hard way. The contempt felt by Hippolytus became all the greater when Zephyrinus’s right-hand man followed him into the top job. The ideologue Hippolytus locked horns with the mobster, asserting a rival claim to be Bishop of Rome and for several years the two men led rival Christian gangs.

Though Hippolytus was in the end to lose out, and in the process become history’s first ‘Anti-Pope,’ he took obvious delight in recording for posterity some home truths about his rival.

Apparently, as a young man Callistus had been the trusted slave of a Christian master, a freedman in the imperial household called Carpophorus. In fact, Carpophorus had entrusted Callistus with considerable funds deposited by fellow-Christians for the care of widows and orphans. The money ‘disappeared’ and Callistus made a run for it. He was apprehended aboard a ship in the port of Portus. His punishment was time on a pistrinum (a hand-mill).

Not long after his release, Callistus was arrested again, this time after a brawl in a synagogue where he was trying to extract money from a group of Roman Jews. Dragged before city Prefect Fuscianus, he was denounced by Carpophorus and sentenced to a penal colony, the silver mines of Sardinia. But Callistus had by this time friends in high places. He was, it seems, ‘counsellor’ to Bishop Victor and also a friend of a certain Marcia – who happened to be a concubine of Emperor Commodus. Marcia had been ‘brought up’ by the presbyter Hyacinthus before being passed on to Commodus.

Unlike his intellectual father, Marcus Aurelius, the dissolute Commodus entertained a favourable opinion of the Christians and employed several in the imperial court. (Not that it did him any good – the ‘Christian’ Marcia was party to the conspiracy that strangled Commodus in 193).



Party Time
Thanks to the intercession of Marcia, Callistus was soon released from Sardinia and was sent south by Victor to manage the Antium (Anzio) operation on a monthly retainer. With Victor’s death and the election of Zephyrinus, Callistus was summoned back to the capital by the new boss to manage a burial ground that the church had acquired. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Callistus ‘obtained great influence over the ignorant, illiterate and grasping Zephyrinus by bribes.’ With the death of Zephyrinus Callistus moved into the boss's chair.

Callistus’s own time as pope (217-222) coincided precisely with the reign of that most exotic of emperors, Elagabalus. The Syrian transvestite Elagabalus, a teenager of fourteen when he came to the throne, combined outrageous bi-sexuality with a religious fanaticism. Emotionally dependent upon his mother (with whom he was sexually involved), he married, in quick succession, three older women (including a Vestal Virgin) and a male charioteer. Like Caligula and Nero before him, Elagabalus caroused for ‘rough trade’ in the streets of Rome and even solicited ‘tricks’ within the corridors of the imperial palace.

Surrounding himself with a gay court, he gave high office to sexual favourites, among others, an actor (made commander of the Praetorian Guard), a muleteer (appointed imperial tax collector), and a barber.

Elagabalus, like Callistus, was a High Priest – in his case, worshipping a sacred black stone (almost certainly a fallen meteorite), which he brought with him in jewel-encrusted splendour from Emesa in Syria to Rome. But he also believed himself to be that god, the living incarnation of the sun-god. He instituted an annual procession across Rome, in which Elagabalus the man ran backwards before the chariot carrying Elagabalus the stone. Dressed in silk and often a blond wig, his bizarre ‘other-ness’ demonstrated to the populace that he was no mere mortal.

Rapacious taxation and wars of conquest were not for Elagabalus; his pre-occupation was to convert polytheistic Rome to an enforced monotheism. Callistus shared that goal. In keeping with the spirit of the age, Callistus was also notable for a libertine, ‘open door’ policy. Much to the disgust of Hippolytus and the austere Tertullian in Carthage (who wrote a scathing attack, ‘De pudicitia’ ), Callistus admitted ‘fornicators and murderers’ into the church, requiring of them only a statement of ‘contrition’.

Like Elagabalus, Callistus came to a sudden end: he was, it seems, ‘killed in a riot.’ Perhaps this was the same riot, in March 222, which followed the assassination of Elagabalus. After the emperor’s body had been dragged through the streets, ‘a large number of Elagabalus' henchmen subsequently also met with a violent death.’ One writer reports that Callistus was murdered by a pagan lynch mob, enraged by Christian expansion in the Trastevere district (Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p14). According to legend Callistus’s body was ‘thrown into a well.’

Hippolytus (as rival pope) continued his attacks on the ruling faction – first Urban I (222-230), and then Pontianus (230-235) – until a new emperor, Maximinus Thrax, no friend of any Jesus faction, sent Hippolytus (and Pontianus!) to the Sardinian mines, where the old theologian died.

Full Essay Here:
http://jesusneverexisted.com/papal-princes.htm#callistus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC