Jesus discussion

[Daniel S Peterson]

I do not think we have any evidence that the "faithful Centurion" of the New Testament story became a full-fledged Christian.

Yes, he evidently heard of the miracles of Jesus, maybe he even witnessesed some, and then had the faith to believe Jesus could cure his sevant.

For all we know, after Jesus cured his servant, the "faithful centurion" offered sacrifice to the Goddess Fortuna for the good luck of learning of the wise Jewish healer from Nazareth. Most pagans believed the gods of other cultures were authentic, and we do not see only Christianity in the Roman empire, but the worship of Isis of Egypt, Mithras of Persia, etc. When worship of only one God became mandatory, "specialist Saints" were created to replace specialist Gods.

Early Christians (who were mostly pagan coverts rather than Jews) probably believed this as well, as we can see by the incorporation of many pagan beliefs, and even pagan dieties into their religion, that are clearly not to be found in the Judaism practiced by the Rabbi, Jesus. The Satan of Christianity, for example, is not the Satan of the Old Testament. He is a carbon copy of Ahriman of Zoroastrian mythology.

[Primitivus]

In Luke's Gospel it clearly indicates that the centurion referred to in Capernaum had identified himself with the Jews (someone without any political incentive--it had to be due to genuine faith).

When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue."

If he was a follower of Judaism, who called upon the teacher Jesus, it is not unlikely that he would come to recognize him as the Messiah after witnessing his miracles. Of course, that's speculation, since the text does not make that expressly clear.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

plus: it was written considerable time after Jesus lived.

M.VIB.M.

[Restitvtvs]

Thank you all for these additional details. I amended my previous message accordingly. Best regards, +r

[Primitivus]

plus: it was written considerable time after Jesus lived.
M.VIB.M.

Something that is debatable...

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

debatable by whom if i may ask? all contemporary witnessess have died!

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Primitivus]

...all contemporary witnessess have died!

...Which is precisely why we can't agree on it today. And, I daresay, if the writers were still alive, there would be those who disagreed with them about the composition of the documents. Such is the nature of life.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

hehehehehe you bit!!!

always fun when people bite!

M.VIB.M.

[Restitvtvs]

Christians that may have served in the Roman Army before the great fire: the Roman Centurion Cornelius

Document: Acts 10:1-48

Bible: [url:1kj6kl8h]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=49[/url]

Wikipedia: [url:1kj6kl8h]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_Cornelius[/url]

According to "Acts", the Centurion converted from Judaism to Christianity. No details about him months or years afterwards.

If this was basically true, and if any non-biblical documents existed about this, they nevertheless may have been lost and/or destroyed.

[tlclark]

Oh gad, there are thousands of Christian legends of military saints before the 3rd C. The list is endless.

Before anyone mentions it, yes we have to challenge the authenticity, it could be folklore, altered after the fact, documentary hypothesis...blah blah blah. Fine. but when we see a large pattern of the same issue, namely christian soldiers dying for their beliefs we have to ask why did this become a trope of Christian hagiography? Why was this a compelling story to tell and retell?

It seems the first instinct is to say "this isn't real" fine. why did it exist in the first place? Outside marxist methodologies calling it christian propaganda, what else meaningful can be said on that avenue of thinking? In short, dismissing a textual tradition is just that, dismissive. Let's try and build on what's there. There is ample evidence that demonstrating the existence of military converts (and not just converts but saints) was very important to early Christians. Why? Clearly these stories may be exaggerated by why make them in the first place.

There are only two answers: One there is some propagandistic value to them (of which there are many theories, none of them very satisfying) or they have some kernel of truth.

Travis

[Primitivus]

Oh gad, there are thousands of Christian legends of military saints before the 3rd C...

Well said, Travis.

[Restitvtvs]

Oh gad, there are thousands of Christian legends of military saints before the 3rd C. The list is endless.

Before anyone mentions it, yes we have to challenge the authenticity, it could be folklore, altered after the fact, documentary hypothesis...blah blah blah. Fine. but when we see a large pattern of the same issue, namely christian soldiers dying for their beliefs we have to ask why did this become a trope of Christian hagiography? Why was this a compelling story to tell and retell?

It seems the first instinct is to say "this isn't real" fine. why did it exist in the first place? Outside marxist methodologies calling it christian propaganda, what else meaningful can be said on that avenue of thinking? In short, dismissing a textual tradition is just that, dismissive. Let's try and build on what's there. There is ample evidence that demonstrating the existence of military converts (and not just converts but saints) was very important to early Christians. Why? Clearly these stories may be exaggerated by why make them in the first place.

There are only two answers: One there is some propagandistic value to them (of which there are many theories, none of them very satisfying) or they have some kernel of truth.

Travis

Excellent summary!

Given the very large numbers of people involved over decades & centuries; and given the individual, societal, and ethic diversity within the extensive Roman Enpire; probability favors that there where at least a few pre-Great Fire military converts, and a much larger number of pre-Constantinian military converts. That strongly favors kernals of truth & more.

Unfortunately, actual cases of military conversion may be distorted (and sometimes duplicated) over the centuries, for many different reasons, including misunderstanding, inaccurate memory, mistranslation, mistranscription, etc. Of course, some cases can be outright fabrications, created for various reasons, some perhaps well-intended & others not.

[tlclark]

Thanks.

This argument reminds me a lot of my Master's thesis on St. Simeon Stylites who sat on a pillar for 37 years. I kept reading all these theories regarding the popularity of his cult. Brown suggested that Simeon took on the role of the local magistrates. Kreuger saw in terms of biblical typos. Frankfurter saw it as a continuation of pagan custom. Others noted that Simeon's pillar was on the junction of a crossroads and trading routes. Over time I began to realize that it was a little bit like saying that if you pile a load of kindling up it will spontaneously burst into flame. They were not trying to explain Simeon, they were trying to explain away Simeon as the product of natural causes. All of this ignored the very real faith experiences of the dozens of eyewitnesses who went to his pillar.

That doesn't mean that we have to be credulous of every story, but neither should we be overly incredulous.

Travis

[~Praetoria~]

I have a question, are there any non-biased (meaning non christian or jewish) records of Jesus' miracles? because I'd expect people with a bias about Jesus to make up stories to make him look better, whereas other non-biased people wouldn't. so what I'm asking is does anyone know if any non-christian has ever recorded Jesus' miracles

[Restitvtvs]

I have a question, are there any non-biased (meaning non christian or jewish) records of Jesus' miracles? because I'd expect people with a bias about Jesus to make up stories to make him look better, whereas other non-biased people wouldn't. so what I'm asking is does anyone know if any non-christian has ever recorded Jesus' miracles

Very interesting question.

Respectfully, it also raises more questions:

Who could have made unbiased records?

Are first-hand witnesses inherently biased or unbiased?

Are non-witnesses, recording first-hand witnesses' statements, inherently biased or unbiased?

Some biased against Jesus could have done the opposite, i.e., diminished any miracles.

Who wasn't biased one way or another?

How could we validate their being biased or unbiased? :roll: Hard to accurately show anyone's motive(s) (e.g., conflict of interest, or lack thereof) some 2,000 years after the fact.

Does being biased mean that one's statements are inherently inaccurate or invalid?

Does being unbiased mean that one's statements are inherently accurate or valid?

Additional potential confounding factors: Errors can creep into witnesses' statements because each witness has different degrees of vision, hearing, position, access, analysis, understanding, memory, speaking, writing & other relevant skills that affect their statements. hock: Would any resulting, conflicting statements inherently void all statements? Would similar statements inherently validate the statements? :roll:

So, with due respect to all concerned, I would be skeptical of any statements (or other evidence) from that time, or any other. :? lol:

I look forward to any evidence presented in answer to the original question.