Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-01-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I’m not really suggesting, I don’t think, an inconsistent standard. If every one in the discussion understands that all we know of Epictetus is from the writings of one of his students, we can all keep in the back of our minds that Epictetus could be a product of the student’s imagination. But as I’ve not read the accounts of Epictetus student, let me assume that the student has not claimed that Epictetus performed miracles nor rose from the dead in an effort to save humanity from the wrath of a god. Such would be an extraordinary claim and would require, in my mind, more evidence. When you combine the fervor sometimes found with religious claims, with the fact that we have no writings from anyone who claims to have met a earthly Jesus (Epictetus’ student at least met him, right?), we have plenty of reason to consider the historicity of Jesus as somewhat less certain than Epictetus. As I recall, there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus outside of religious documents. Religious documents have in my experience been somewhat less reliable than others.

I agree that there is no inconsistency in applying different standards of proof to extraordinary claims. But I am not suggesting any extraordinary claims. I place no credence in the accounts of miracles. I am suggesting only the claim that the original group of Christians were the followers of a flesh-and-blood individual, whose name for all I know may not even have been Jesus, although that seems a convenient way to refer to him now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So we don’t know. One may tend, more or less strongly, one way or another, but one cannot be certain. Yes, I agree with that.

And, in what seems to me to be the spirit of the original post, I am struggling to indicate why I tend one way rather than the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But to take the gospels at face value means to me that you accept the miracles.

Still a red herring. I don’t take the gospels at face value, and I don’t see anybody else on this thread doing so either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

And to many people, an HJ means accepting the miracles.

In the first post I made to this thread, I considered the possibility that some people might not classify my position as ‘HJ’, and said that I don’t mind how people choose to classify it. If ‘HJ’ is defined to include ‘accepting the miracles’, then by that definition I reject ‘HJ’.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

They may not be posting in this thread. But since the core of Christianity is a resurrection that provides salvation, where is the religion without that miracle?

Since I am not a Christian, I don’t care if the answer is that it’s nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Of what real use is an actual preacher 2000 years ago, not divine, not performing miracles?

For a historian, the use of him is that he provides an explanation of the origin of the Christian movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

What unique insight does he offer, not found anywhere else?

None. In fact, even if he was divine and did perform miracles, the sayings attributed to him still provide no unique insight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, your explanation is possible. Do you have answers for the questions above or just rationalizations or speculation?

I’m not sure which specific questions you are referring to. If you are asking about difficulties in reconciling the documentary evidence with the hypothesis I’m suggesting, then my general answer is that the people who wrote the documents were not aiming at recording history. They each had a story to tell, a bit like the balladists who wrote about the Battle of Otterburn.

Toto · 06-01-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In the introduction to his Lays of Ancient Rome, Macaulay discusses two medieval ‘Border Ballads’ about the Battle of Otterburn. One ballad tells of the Scottish commander (Douglas) being killed by a member of the English rank-and-file and the English commander (Percy) being killed by a member of the Scottish rank-and-file. The other tells of the two commanders meeting in single combat, with Percy killing Douglas but then being taken captive himself. ...

I hope the implications of this for the argument here are clear, but if not I shall elucidate further.

If you only had these two ballads as evidence, could you figure out what actually happened? Could you even be sure that there was such a battle without other supporting evidence?

J-D · 06-01-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Collective hallucination essentially boils down to an emotionally charged setting + expectations of an experience + at least one member of the group claiming an experience + a tendency over time for recollections of the apparently shared experience to decrease in difference and increase in similarity.

If you posit this as a model for explaining the origin of Christianity, you still have to explain the prior existence of a group of which these people were members, and which shared an emotionally charged setting. Do you know of any instances of a religious movement starting in this way?

J-D · 06-02-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

There is some form of correlation between people who have visions and new religions. As we have a written record of Paul having a vision, doesn't that make sense of a place to look?

Not if we're looking for an explanation of Christianity originating before Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Paul may have changed pre existing judaic diasporic messianic groups into specialist jesus cult members.

What pre-existing judaic diasporic messianic groups?

J-D · 06-02-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Most people are not secular humanists, either; yet I consider knowledge of secular humanism essential for the well being of humanity. Not everyone has heard or appreciated Mozart's music, yet it would be a loss to humanity as whole if his music were erased from human memory.

'A loss if it were erased' is one thing; 'essential for well-being' is quite another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'm not saying that everyone has to be devoted to Christ. But there should be no impediments placed before those who do want to know about him. In the past, the priests tried to impede people from gaining direct knowledge about Christ. I believe that mythicists now do effectively the same thing.

How so? All they do is say what they think. Are you suggesting there's something wrong with people saying what they think?

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

What pre-existing judaic diasporic messianic groups?

Quote:

As the conditions of life deteriorated, apocalyptic beliefs grew—national catastrophe and the messianic kingdom were seen as imminent events. Some groups (see Essenes; Qumran) fled into the desert to lead righteous lives in anticipation, while others followed claimants to the mantle of Messiah (most notably Jesus). Out of these numerous ingredients came both Christianity and classical, or rabbinic, Judaism.

http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism

jjramsey · 06-02-2006, 04:41 AM

Clivedurdle, the groups that you mentioned do not appear to be diasporic messianic groups. The Essenes at Qumran were still in Judea. Also, if we are talking about messianic groups where the members "followed claimants to the mantle of Messiah," then we are talking about groups whose leaders are analogues to the HJ.

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2006, 04:54 AM

I am amazed at what I can only comprehend as pedantry! What is this assumption that there was no travel or communication or sharing of ideas? By then ocean going shipping throughout the med and NW atlantic were millenia old, there were Roman roads all over the place, camel trains throughout Africa and Asia.

Messianism was not a local belief - Pilate for example is alleged to have been born in Scotland! There are clear records of judaic comunities throughout Europe and Asia. Are you telling me ideas did not spread, especially key ones like the rebuilding of the dream of the promised land?

How many different empires had there been around there in the previous 500 years? What is important in empires? ideas spread!

Sparrow · 06-02-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I’m not sure which specific questions you are referring to. If you are asking about difficulties in reconciling the documentary evidence with the hypothesis I’m suggesting, then my general answer is that the people who wrote the documents were not aiming at recording history. They each had a story to tell, a bit like the balladists who wrote about the Battle of Otterburn.

The questions are the ones Geetamore posted in response to my simplistic summarization of my objection to an HJ back in post 404.

So the single issue twixt you and I it seems is whether there was an indivdual (or possibly multiplle individuals later conflated) at the root of Christian origins or not. Either way, no miracles were performed, no one rose from the dead. Not much of a squabble in my view.

My biggest concern is that the state of reasoning skills in many powerful people is such that if your sort of HJ is shown to have existed, then they consequently assume that all of the other stories we have about him are also true and proven. You and I won't go there, but many do.

Clivedurdle · 06-02-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

The ultimate basis of Persian greatness, then, was not its bureaucracy, nor even its armies, but its roads. ...these provided the immensity of the empire's body with its nervous system....Every evening, after a hard day's ride, the messenger would find a posting station waiting for him, equipped with a bed, provisions and a fresh horse for the morning. A truly urgent message ...might arrive at Persepolis from the Aegean in under two weeks.

Persian Fire Tom Holland, discussing Darius.

Sir Richard Burton, when in the depths of Somalia in the 1850's, heard of a ship disaster in Bombay within a few days.

Stonehenge was built 3500 years ago by transporting huge stones from Wales.

It is really for people to assert why ideas did not travel. It is now thought that the Celts did not migrate but what spread was ideas and trading items!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2006, 04:41 AM	#507
jjramsey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tallmadge, Ohio Posts: 808	Clivedurdle, the groups that you mentioned do not appear to be diasporic messianic groups. The Essenes at Qumran were still in Judea. Also, if we are talking about messianic groups where the members "followed claimants to the mantle of Messiah," then we are talking about groups whose leaders are analogues to the HJ.

06-02-2006, 04:54 AM	#508
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I am amazed at what I can only comprehend as pedantry! What is this assumption that there was no travel or communication or sharing of ideas? By then ocean going shipping throughout the med and NW atlantic were millenia old, there were Roman roads all over the place, camel trains throughout Africa and Asia. Messianism was not a local belief - Pilate for example is alleged to have been born in Scotland! There are clear records of judaic comunities throughout Europe and Asia. Are you telling me ideas did not spread, especially key ones like the rebuilding of the dream of the promised land? How many different empires had there been around there in the previous 500 years? What is important in empires? ideas spread!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.