FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-16-2012, 01:55 AM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
A quick and dirty test of a hypothesis is the sanity check: apply the same set of principles to other data and see if it is plausible. The downside, if you are committed to the hypothesis, is that you run the risk of accepting the insanity.

Like Jesus, Muhammad is the reputed founder of a religion. Like Jesus, Muhammad never left evidence of his existence except through the religious tradition that he reputedly founded. Yet, even most Jesus-mythicists take it for granted that Muhammad existed.

That is not an irrational presumption. It is grounded in a consistent pattern of personality cults: in all personality cults about a reputed human being, the personality actually existed. If Muhammad never existed, it would break that otherwise-universal pattern. If Jesus never existed, it would break that otherwise-universal pattern.
Your presumption is highly irrational. You put forward the absurd notion that the existence of Jesus as human does NOT require any evidence once a person believes some other character existed.

It is unheard of that the existence or non-existence of Muhammed is the evidence for the existence of a human Jesus.

If people take for granted that Muhammad existed without evidence then based on your absurd presumption you MUST admit that Adam and Eve and the Angel Gabriel were figures of history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
...I believe that is the underlying reason why Jesus-mythicism comes off as preposterous to almost everyone including non-religious people, because everyone knows the pattern of personality cults. That reason is seldom fully conscious. Immanuel Velikovsky's proposition (that the Solar System's activity was responsible for all Biblical catastrophes) seems absurd on the face to most people, even to those people not trained in physics, though many of the arguments against it are rooted in physics. We all know the basic gist of Newtonian physics from everyday living.
So how come Ehrman wrote such an awful book--A Failure of Facts and Logics??

And how come HJers are on a QUEST for a human Jesus??

HJers have ALREADY Admitted that NT Jesus is a Myth for hundreds of years.

HJers are LOOKING for HJ.

Please, get familiar with the QUEST for HJ.

Who are looking for an HJ???

It must be HJers.

Please, help them find HJ.

Muhammed was NOT described as the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator that walked on water.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 01:56 AM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I do claim that Christianity was a personality cult. I don't know what you mean with the question, "What happened to that personality?", sorry, but you may like to review my Gospel of Abe. You know where to find it. Jesus follows many of the patterns of personality cults. I will repost my checklist that I wrote up elsewhere.
...
I think the historical Jesus (reconstructed by critical scholars from the New Testament) fulfills enough of the items on the list to draw the conclusion that the historical Jesus led a dangerous cult. But, that isn't to say that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus fulfilling ALL such patterns, and the pattern of the cult leader having sex with the followers would be among the exceptions. But, that would mean that Jesus follows a pattern of founders of religion as we know them from ancient history, such as Buddha, Zoroaster and Parshva. We would know about the sex life of those characters only if such knowledge was passed on to us through the religious traditions. Such religious traditions are often silent or contrary to that point, though not always (such as with Muhammad).
This is just a muddle. We have no real evidence of the personality of Jesus. Critical scholars have their various speculative reconstructions, as do you, but there is no agreement. But many of these critical scholars do not think that Jesus was the cult leader and do not think that he founded Christianity.


Quote:
No, but I don't think the availability of the kind of data you have in mind is plausible. It would be analogous to data that shows that all known cult founders had two nostrils. Such data does not exist because nobody disputes it and there is no evidence to the contrary. Maybe someone can do a comprehensive survey as soon as someone worth a dime makes a claim that there may be some reputedly-human cult founders who never really existed. .... But, I actually think the best way to resolve such an issue is to wait for someone to produce evidence that a reputedly-human cult founder never existed. If no such evidence is produced, then the pattern stands. Heck, the pattern stands regardless.
You say that evidence would not change your idea of this hypothetical pattern, but here goes.

You can find a list of "new religions" (the politically correct term for cults) at various places. Take wikipedi's - List_of_new_religious_movements.

What do you notice? Most cults are not named after the founder, and the founder frequently claims his authority from Jesus. Rev Moon's Unification Church deified him, but the cult was not named after him, and he claimed to be channeling Jesus. For these cults, Jesus might as well be a phantom or a mythic figure with no historical existence.

There is a cult around John Frum. I think that it is generally held that Frum either never existed, or was based on a generic US serviceman. There is no agreement on whether he was black or white.

There is an International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I hope you don't think that Krishna ever existed.

In short, there is just no support for your idea that there is some sort of rule of cults that requires that Jesus existed if there was a cult named after him.
The name of the cult is neither here nor there. Did I communicate the wrong idea? Well, it is late at night, at least in my time zone. I think I better hit the sack. Darn insomnia.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 02:04 AM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
The name of the cult is neither here nor there. Did I communicate the wrong idea? Well, it is late at night, at least in my time zone. I think I better hit the sack. Darn insomnia.
You need some sleep.

It is most absurd that Muhammad's existence is the evidence for an historical Jesus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 02:31 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
In short, there is just no support for your idea that there is some sort of rule of cults that requires that Jesus existed if there was a cult named after him.
Christians are named after Jesus?

Jesus was never called Christ while he was alive. For one thing, that is a Greek word.

As for the early religion being a 'personality cult' - 'What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”'

Of course, we must remember that Paul is 'silent', so Abe does not have to listen to any of this direct trouncing of any idea that early Christianity was a personality cult based on the personality of Jesus.

Isn't it great when historicists just declare the Bible to be silent whenever it contradicts them?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 04:15 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

So far this thread does not even discuss the substance of the issue it describes. I raised substantive issues in another thread but apparently almost no one was interested.
The Quran says virtually nothing about Mohammed and mentions the name with no context only four times.
Everything about him is from hadiths and later biographies.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 06:27 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
So far this thread does not even discuss the substance of the issue it describes. I raised substantive issues in another thread but apparently almost no one was interested.
The Quran says virtually nothing about Mohammed and mentions the name with no context only four times.
Everything about him is from hadiths and later biographies.
I would love to discuss the substance of this stuff. I would expect that the arguments against the existence of Muhammad are cut from the same knife as the arguments against the existence of Jesus, and that introduction makes the cut. The evidence for Muhammad doesn't make the cut in terms of quantity and quality. The name with no context only four times? I am trying to imagine no context; like maybe "Muhammad" on a blank page, or "Muhammad" somehow floating in the void of space, but even those would count as contexts.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 07:10 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
In short, there is just no support for your idea that there is some sort of rule of cults that requires that Jesus existed if there was a cult named after him.
Christians are named after Jesus?

Jesus was never called Christ while he was alive. For one thing, that is a Greek word.
A translation of a Hebrew word, though. One that was used of Jesus before he had even started his mission:

'The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).' Jn 1:41 NIV

Quote:
As for the early religion being a 'personality cult' - 'What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”'
That of course demonstrates that Christianity was not to be a personality cult. Presumably that's what you meant.

Funny how threads on Islam end up on something entirely different.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 07:13 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
In short, there is just no support for your idea that there is some sort of rule of cults that requires that Jesus existed if there was a cult named after him.
Christians are named after Jesus?

Jesus was never called Christ while he was alive. For one thing, that is a Greek word.
A translation of a Hebrew word, though. One that was used of Jesus before he had even started his mission:

'The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ)."' Jn 1:41 NIV

Quote:
As for the early religion being a 'personality cult' - 'What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”'
That of course demonstrates that Christianity was not to be a personality cult. Presumably that's what you meant.

Funny how threads on Islam end up on something entirely different.
SO you think random fishermen calling Jesus the Messiah is historical?

I guess they knew Jesus was the Messiah because he was gathering an army to overthrow the Romans, which we are always told is the only Messiah that a Jew could have imagined existing.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 07:19 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
In short, there is just no support for your idea that there is some sort of rule of cults that requires that Jesus existed if there was a cult named after him.
Christians are named after Jesus?

Jesus was never called Christ while he was alive. For one thing, that is a Greek word.
A translation of a Hebrew word, though. One that was used of Jesus before he had even started his mission:

'The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ)."' Jn 1:41 NIV

Quote:
As for the early religion being a 'personality cult' - 'What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”'
That of course demonstrates that Christianity was not to be a personality cult. Presumably that's what you meant.

Funny how threads on Islam end up on something entirely different.
SO you think random fishermen calling Jesus the Messiah is historical?
What is a random fisherman? One with my luck, I expect!

Quote:
I guess
I agree, there.

Quote:
they knew Jesus was the Messiah because he was gathering an army to overthrow the Romans, which we are always told is the only Messiah that a Jew could have imagined existing.
I haven't told you that. So you haven't been told it, have you.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 07:45 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Apostate Abe, I am not advocating personally for or against the interpretations or approaches of Robert Spencer. However points he has raised in his book "Did Muhammed Exist?" are not his original inventions and are very useful, as well as other points:

a) The Quran itself only mentions the name "Muhammed" four times with no context at all except involving the term messenger. Jesus is mentioned 36 times, and Moses over 100 times.

b) In one chapter Jesus prophecies the coming of someone else called AHMAD.

c) Nothing is really known about Muhammed until the appearance of biographical material in the name of Abu Ishaq in several histories a couple of hundred years after Mohammed was said to have died around 632.

d) There were apparently many Arabian/Syrian/Persian SYNCRETIST sects that adopted elements from Judaism and Christianity, gnosticism, Manichaeism.

e) The Quran appears to be a composite of writings from various sources, and there is just as good a reason to see "orthodox Islam" as emerging at the time of the Baghdad caliphate from among the various sects.

f) One should also question whether the conquests of the Muslims actually involved anything to do with the canonical Quran or Muhammad at all, but instead involved some generic or non-"Muslim" monotheistic sect or sects. Indeed, the term Muslim (one who surrenders to God) is so general that it is possible that it referred to many monotheistic Arabian sects.

g) Non-Islamic sources refer to some obscure conqueror named MHMT among Sarcens with no mention of a Quran or holy book. A coing was discovered with a person holding what appears to be a cross on one side and the word MHMD on the other. Of course the name could be Muhammad or Mahmud.

h) The conflict with the followers of Ali and Hussein could well have been a conflict between emerging orthodox Islam and a sect or sects of gnostic Imamists which eventually adopted ideas from Islam including the canonized version of the Quran and became what is called Shia Islam, which itself is divided into the Twelvers and Ismailis, who both have a very strong commitment to the idea of the infalliable imam, which does not exist among the non-Shia.

i) Some believe that even what is known as mainstream Sunni Islam has differences from what existed a thousand years ago before the advent of the Ottoman caliphate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
So far this thread does not even discuss the substance of the issue it describes. I raised substantive issues in another thread but apparently almost no one was interested.
The Quran says virtually nothing about Mohammed and mentions the name with no context only four times.
Everything about him is from hadiths and later biographies.
I would love to discuss the substance of this stuff. I would expect that the arguments against the existence of Muhammad are cut from the same knife as the arguments against the existence of Jesus, and that introduction makes the cut. The evidence for Muhammad doesn't make the cut in terms of quantity and quality. The name with no context only four times? I am trying to imagine no context; like maybe "Muhammad" on a blank page, or "Muhammad" somehow floating in the void of space, but even those would count as contexts.
Duvduv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.