Dogs don't know it's not bacon. They can't read!

by peacefulpete 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  In the early decades CE literally hundreds of cults arose. In part this was due to the exposure to farflung cultures and cults that were arriving in Palestine the last few centuries BC and CE. Add to that the fact that most all comon folks were illiterate and easy prey to new and novel promises of salvation or deliverence from oppression. I pulled this from an email I received.

  Keith Hopkins' ' A World Full Of Gods -
  Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire'.
  
  
  In the chapter on 'The Christian Revolution', Hopkins summarises
  contemporary scholarship on Christian numbers in the early centuries.
  
  Hopkins notes that 'early Christianity was tiny and scattered.' The best
  estimates are for considerably fewer than 10,000 Christians world-wide in
  100 CE, and only about 200,000 in 200 CE, scattered throughout several
  hundred towns (p. 85) . (He cites his own 'Early Christian Number and its
  Implications, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 6 (1998), and sociologist
  Rodney Starks' The Rise of Early Christianity, (Princeton 1996) among others.
  
  What I found of particular interest, and worth sharing, was
  Hopkins overlaying of these figures with existence of 'educated but
  varied and thin sub-elites (merchants, middle land-owners, teachers, clerks
  etc. altogether amounting to less than 2 per cent of adult males in the
  Roman world) who could write and read fluently.'
  
  Hopkins calculates that in the early decade of the sect, only a few dozen
  Christians could read or write fluently. Allowing even for relatively high
  rates of literacy, "by the end of the first century, all Christianity is
  likely to have included at any one time, less that fifty adult men who
  could write or read biblical texts fluently. And even by the end of the
  second century, although there may have been (by the same reckoning) over a
  thousand fluently literate Christians, that still works out, on average, as
  only about two literates per community.... Written Christianity was
  initially constructed by a tiny group of socially marginal men.'
  
  A telling insight.
• 

  SanFranciscoJim

  Hopkins calculates that in the early decade of the sect, only a few dozen
  Christians could read or write fluently.

  That's why they drew fish on the walls.

  
• 

  peacefulpete

  good one.
  
  btw...The fishy thing (vesica piscis) is formed by the intersection of 2 circles. It come from the Pythagorian gematria. The book "Jesus Christ Sun of God" by Fideler explains how entire pericopes (like the dividing of 2 fish and loaves) are merely code for geometic symbolim. Many of the Church Fathers believed the secrets of the universe were to be found in numbers.
• 

  heathen

  That is an interesting observation but I think the fact that the early christian church was populated with anointed christians is overlooked . I mean these people were able to speak in toungues and prophesy so who's to say for sure they couldn't read? The apostle paul for one seemed to have confidence that someone could read his letters to the congregations and also understand all that he was implying which seemed to be the most difficult part.
• 

  Faraon

  SFJ,

  That's why they drew fish on the walls.

  I knew there was something fishy about them.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Heathen...I supposed you could invoke the "gift of literacy" if your so inclined. Such dismissal of evidence on grounds of nothing more than "god can do anything' doen't work for me. BTW the "letters" of Paul are not what we were led to think they were. All but fundementalist recognise that the anachronisms, patchwork structure and changing grammer,word usage and theology of the books require late authorship and extensive redation. The book today addressed to the Romans bears internal evidence of having been originally written to someone in Laodicea not Rome. 1 Cor and Gal are the most likely of the entire bunch to have been written by a "Paul". This is even debated by others who interpret the evidence as suggesting a Marcionite writer or school of writers is responsible for the entire body of literture (minus 1,2 Tim, Hebrews, Philemon and Titus which are regarded as obvious mid to late 2nd century pious frauds). Much of this body of material was assimilated by the Catholic Church in the late 2nd century (because of it's popularity with those who were later labeled heretics) with numerous redations and interpolations to attempt to unite the various sects of Christians under their power. Yet Hebrews for example was not widely regarded as authoritative for another 200 years or more. Those books that appear today as letters to congregations, upon closer scrutiny, do not appear to have been letters at all but lectures, reworked to artificially give the impression of early wide christian unity under "Paul".
• 

  heathen

  I do agree that the writing were more than likely tampered with but to exclude the apostle pauls credabillity all together would be to exclude other sources such as acts of apostles that mention some of his trials and tribulation and association with the other apostles who seemingly support the fact that the apostle paul was a real person who was instructing people throughout the world on the christian way of life . There are still many things in the letters attributed to him that do agree with what jesus and the apostles were teaching .
• 

  peacefulpete

  Acts was written for that very purpose, to harmonize the loose threads. The book is even more riddled with problems as it attempted to retain elements from the Jerusalem bunch and yet suggest unity with Pauline sects. It most certainly was not written by any first century "Luke" as was suggested hundreds of years after it's writing. It also is a late composition with evidence of tampering.
• 

  heathen

  Just curious here ,pete , what is your take on all of this ? How much of the bible do you think is factual ?
• 

  Leolaia

  n/t