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?

freigeister

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.

Didymus

Doggone it, no there isn't.

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

Didymus

jakejonesiv

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

freigeister

And so, in spite even of the thread title, the discussion peters out into the usual "He's historical" / "He's mythical" wankfest. :snooze:

Toto

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?

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.

Sparrow

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?

freigeister

:rolling:


The Mormon religion does have a factual basis at its origin: his name is Joseph Smith.

NOGO

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?

Sparrow

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?