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 01-06-2006, 10:34 AM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
If we assume some man named Jesus was crucified, what might explain the rise of Christianity from such an event? Doesn't this likely imply something about how that man was perceived? What do you think would be some minimum reasonable conclusions about the man or his death?

ted
Sorry for butting in. Could you explain please, what you mean by Christianity? Are you speaking of fully blown Gentile Christianity of the type around 325 CE? Current forms? The reason I ask is because I know at least one person who thinks anyone who believed Jesus was a, or the Christ, can be classified as a Christian. And I know of no certain evidence that the first believers thought Jesus was more than some sort of prophet. So are we speaking here of people who think Jesus was/is God, or something less?
Mark Mc is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 10:54 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Mc
Sorry for butting in. Could you explain please, what you mean by Christianity? Are you speaking of fully blown Gentile Christianity of the type around 325 CE? Current forms? The reason I ask is because I know at least one person who thinks anyone who believed Jesus was a, or the Christ, can be classified as a Christian. And I know of no certain evidence that the first believers thought Jesus was more than some sort of prophet. So are we speaking here of people who think Jesus was/is God, or something less?
We're talking about the whole phenomenon, all flavours. BTW, I use "Christ" not to indicate any divinity on his part, but rather to indicate my love and respect for the man.
freigeister is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 01:37 PM   #33
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Watts
Heck, there is more reason to believe Alexander the Great was a creation than Jesus.
Doggone it, no there isn't.

An assertion of that kind is an indicator of utter unfamiliarity with MJ literature.

Didymus
Didymus is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 02:16 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default The descriptions of John and Jesus were very similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
If we assume some man named Jesus was crucified, what might explain the rise of Christianity from such an event? Doesn't this likely imply something about how that man was perceived? What do you think would be some minimum reasonable conclusions about the man or his death?

ted
Hi ted,

Myths go around and round, first attached to one character, then to another. It has little or nothing to do with historicity.

It is likely from such passages as Matt. 9:14 that the early Christians came into competition and conflict with the Baptist sect. (This doesn't mean that the alleged founder of either group was necessarily historical). The church then subordinated the legendary founder of the competing religion to their own legendary founder (Mark 1:7-8; John 1:29 ff), and appropriated many of the competitor's myths and applied them to Jesus.

The only difference between John and Jesus is that Christianity won out. Otherwise we would have Jesus playing a subordinate role to :notworthy JBAP.

1. Both were alleged to have a miraculous conception announced by angels. Luke 1:6, 16.
2. The parents of both were thought to be sinless. Luke 1:6.
2. Both were alleged to have preached.Matt. 3:1.
3. Both were alleged to have had disciples. Matt. 9:14, 11:12. Mark 2:18.
3. Both were alleged to baptise their disciples. John 4:1
6. Both taught their diciples to pray the "Lord's Paryer". Luke 11:1 ff.
4. Both were allegedly thought to have been prophets. Matt. 21:26.
4. Both were allegedly thought to have been the messiah. Mark 8:29. John 1:19-20.
5. Both were alleged to have been possesed by demons by their enemies. Matt. 11:18. Luke 7:33.
5. Both were alleged to have been executed. Mark 6:27.
6. Both were alleged to have been buried in a tomb. Mark 6:29.
7. Both were alleged to have risen from the dead. Matt. 14:2; Mark 6:14, 16.
8. Both had religions that continued in their names. Acts 19:2-3.

The attributes you are trying to find in this imagined historical Jesus aren't unique. That is the great myth in apologetics. Any time you find someone arguing for the uniqueness of Jesus, Christianity, or Christian origins, there are almost always apolgetic motives to be found.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 02:23 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 503
Default

And so, in spite even of the thread title, the discussion peters out into the usual "He's historical" / "He's mythical" wankfest. :snooze:
freigeister is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 02:51 PM   #36
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Yes, I'm asking for people to derive a naturalistic explanation for Christiainity to have developed from the crucifixion of a real man.
You have assumed a crucified man and a religion that developed out of that event. If you have no naturalistic explanation, does that mean 1) you think there is a supernaturalistic explanation or 2) some of your assumed facts may be wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
There are a lot of new religious movements that form around men or women with charismatic personalities, but they usually fall apart when the charismatic person dies.
So why didn't this one?

...
Perhaps because Christianity did not start around a charismatic preacher? Perhaps Christianity developed the way other religious movements develop, because it met the needs of a group of people, and at a certain point in its history, adopted a myth about being founded by a crucified wisdom teacher.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 03:33 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Thanks, Sparrow, for your reply. You imply that he was a leader of some kind, with followers. Are you saying he would make up fantastic stories to convince people to join his group? If not, how or why would people join his group? And, what was the message being preached by that group? I understand the part about mythology growing over time, but am still not clear on what the mechanism is for the early growth prior to the greater stories of myth.

ted
First, I'm not wedded to any particular scenario. Mythical or historical are both plausible. As I said before, I'm not given to accept supernatural events, so the miracles, including a resurrection, are off the table for me. Your mileage may vary.

IF there were an itinerant preacher with a following who got in trouble with the Romans and therefore died a grisly death, and IF one of those followers was reminiscing later in life about the good old days to a friend that had never been a part of those times, a friend that say had strange visions later that night after some bad pork, then MAYBE that friend might have thought he met that long dead preacher in his vision and was called to preach his message. Now since the originator of the message is long gone and itinerant preachers are (have I heard this somewhere before?) a dime a dozen, this gastrointestinally challenged friend might need to embellish some of the facts in order to gain followers again. What those in marketing call "differentiating the product".

I'd like to think that people of the last two hundred years were better educated/less ignorant that those of two thousand years. Given that we have questions about how it could be possible for a religion to get started without a factual basis at its origin, how would you explain the rise of the Mormon religion? Perhaps examining that story may enlighten us?
Sparrow is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 03:38 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
I'd like to think that people of the last two hundred years were better educated/less ignorant that those of two thousand years.
:rolling:


Quote:
Given that we have questions about how it could be possible for a religion to get started without a factual basis at its origin, how would you explain the rise of the Mormon religion? Perhaps examining that story may enlighten us?
The Mormon religion does have a factual basis at its origin: his name is Joseph Smith.
freigeister is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:10 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Watts
A Jewish carpenter, a commoner who never even wrote anything down and then died a criminal's death on a cross, doesn't exactly fit the bill for a hero-savior.
People who create hero-saviors tend to build them up as mighty and strong, going off and slaying a minotaur or performing labors.
A guy who gets crucified, then tells his followers to take up their own crosses and follow him, doesn't sound like any normal invention by the population.
Heck, there is more reason to believe Alexander the Great was a creation than Jesus.
Yes, you may be right, BUT!
Consider the context.
Take Paul for example.
a) Believes that the end of the world is at hand
b) low self esteem
c) guilt ridden
d) can't crawl low enough to get forgiveness from his God.
e) fear of God and punishment.
g) outcast
h) rejects society
i) rejects fun, parties and all that life has to offer.
j) thinks that the best thing is for people to not get married and to have no sex in their lives.
k) has no life outside his faith.
l) his only hope is for God to give him a life.

Do you really expect Paul's saviour to be something like Superman?
NOGO is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:17 PM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freigeister
The Mormon religion does have a factual basis at its origin: his name is Joseph Smith.
I think Joseph Smith was historical, but the angel Moroni? Was the word moron invented by then or is it derived from this angel's name? It's a shame we can't examine the gold plates.

I'm not sure what you thought was funny, Freigeister. Was it my wishful, but unsubstantiated, thinking regarding educational progress?
Sparrow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:56 PM.

Top

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