Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-21-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And if Jesus/Christianity did not actually exist at the time specified, we are looking at lies of elephant proportions.

Quote:

Against the Galileans by Julian Book I
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth....

So which category below do you believe christianity started with (I'm guessing it's the bolded one) ?

Quote:

. . .started with an historical savior in the 1st century (mainstream HJ)

started with a mythical saviour in the 1st century (mainstream MJ)

started with a fictional construction by a political schemer in the 4th century. (FJ)
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_006.htm

*Edit* Reposted to correct grammatical error. . .

Toto · 02-21-2009, 09:51 AM

There is no "mainstream" MJ, and some mythicists think Christianity started in the second century.

arnoldo · 02-21-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But I'm aware that mythicists have other reasons to suspect there was no historical Jesus:
1. Virgin-born, crucified and resurrected godmen were a dime-a-dozen in those days.
2. Pagans thought that their myths were carried out in an "overlapping dimension".
3. The Jesus story was patterned along astrotheological lines, as were myths worldwide.
4. Eusebius et al forged all the early literature

Dear Don.

One might also add ...

5. Absence of any corroborating archaeological evidence.
6. The apocryphal NT mimic and bag Jesus and the Super-Crew.

Elephants leave tracks, peanut shells and large lumps of manure. It is quite possible that in the room we have nothing except three blind christians. When I was a kid there were these elephant jokes. You know .... "Have you ever seen an elephant in your refrigerator"? No .... "Shows how well they hide themselves."

Best wishes,

Pete

Considering that the NT lists many people such as Gamaliel whom the Apostle Paul lists as having been his teacher in Acts 22:3 as stated below

Quote:

3 'I, indeed, am a man, a Jew, having been born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, having been taught according to the exactitude of a law of the fathers, being zealous of God, as all ye are to-day.

Is it also your opinion that Gamaliel was also a mythical figure or was this "real person" interjected in the above scripture to add authenticity to the document? Also if you believe Gamaliel was a real historical person what evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Solo · 02-21-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think your idea that Paul didn't have any interest in the historical Jesus is fairly weird. And when you try to say that all of early Christianity didn't have any interest in the historical Jesus who was just on earth recently, not even caring to ask his putative brother or other people who knew him, it gets even weirder.

If you have seen psychotics literally shit themselves in fear which did not appear to have been provoked by anything "real" on this earth, you would not think that weird. Now imagine you yourself having had an "episode" and having been "restored" to a more-or-less normal self from a vegetative state (or one nearly that). Imagine Paul coming to you saying, I know what this is brother: it is your faith in Jesus Christ that was being tested. I was emptied myself by the devil when he first came. Now what would your likely reaction be ?

a) I am sure glad I am not alone in this, or

b) I better check on this Jesus Christ in history books to see if he really did have the faith to get him resurrected.

Jiri

ETA I am told that encopresis (loss of bowel control) in depressive psychoses is far more common than fainting (as in Luke's description of the symptoms of the "apocalypse". Lk 21:26).

Quote:

I haven't viewed all the evidence. My theory so far is that Christianity arose after the destruction of the Temple, that Jesus was a symbolic savor who was historicized, and that Christianity has always depended on either state sponsorship or a highly gullible social group.

mountainman · 02-21-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Considering that the NT lists many people such as Gamaliel whom the Apostle Paul lists as having been his teacher in Acts 22:3 as stated below

Quote:

3 'I, indeed, am a man, a Jew, having been born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, having been taught according to the exactitude of a law of the fathers, being zealous of God, as all ye are to-day.

Is it also your opinion that Gamaliel was also a mythical figure or was this "real person" interjected in the above scripture to add authenticity to the document?

Dear arnaldo,

The new testament is a convenient story which imo was fabricated from many disparate sources available to those who were appointed or commissioned to perform the assembly of the texts. The sources included the LXX, the pagan wisdom sayings in whom we move and live and have our being, Josephus, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, the writings of Mani and the Manichaeans, and whatever else was lying around in the libraries of Rome. We are IMO looking at a impious collage of texts redacted with abandon.

Quote:

Also if you believe Gamaliel was a real historical person what evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Gamaliel appears to be sourced from another story, brought in for good measure. Gamaliel does not have the spotlight of monotheistic deity shining down on him from on high, nor are there extant stories in circulation about G in which he came back to life three days after his burial to haunt his students.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 02-21-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no "mainstream" MJ, and some mythicists think Christianity started in the second century.

Some atheists think Christianity started in the first.
It just depends what you were taught as "history".
(Some people still cite Josephus for example).
It's quite confusing the combinations and permutations
of belief in this or that "early underground christianity".

GakuseiDon · 02-21-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

:huh: Please revise this list, or add to it, or do whatever you like to it, to avoid the mischaracterization.

It''s just that none of those are really reasons for mythicism by themselves.

I agree, none of those are really reasons for mythicism by themselves. You must have been arguing that particular point with Phantom GakuseiDon.

Here's how you tell the difference:
* If you don't read it on the Internet, it is from Phantom GakuseiDon.
* If you do read it on the Internet, it is from regular (or Classic) GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think your idea that Paul didn't have any interest in the historical Jesus is fairly weird.

Yes, good point. I think it is weird also. The question of "Why didn't Paul wrote more about the historical Jesus" is a darn good one, and provides evidence for ahistoricity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And when you try to say that all of early Christianity didn't have any interest in the historical Jesus who was just on earth recently, not even caring to ask his putative brother or other people who knew him, it gets even weirder.

Yep, another good point. The question of "Why did so many early Christian writers have so little interest in a historical Jesus?" is also a darn good one.

What I'm proposing is that it gets weirder still: not only did those earlier "occasional" letter writers include few historical details about Jesus, they included few historical details about anything. And this needs to be taken into consideration when going back to Paul. "The elephant in the room" is that this is not being taken into consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think I'm misreading what you write, But it is very frustrating to have you arguing, and often agree with the points that people make against you but never change your position.

Well, I do like to acknowledge good points, as I think it is important to do so. But acknowledging a good point is separate from actually needing to change one's position on something, though.

Which positions should I have changed that I have not actually changed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's as if you have made up your mind for other reasons that you are not telling us, and seeing what sort of arguments can be made against the publicly available part of your reasons. And then after your position has been refuted in my opinion, you pop up in another thread and make the same arguments.

That is something I would want to avoid doing like the plague. You would be doing us all a favour -- me especially -- if you point out when I do that the next time. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

What conclusion have you personally come to after viewing all the evidence? What is your theory of the origins of Christianity?

I haven't viewed all the evidence. My theory so far is that Christianity arose after the destruction of the Temple, that Jesus was a symbolic savor who was historicized, and that Christianity has always depended on either state sponsorship or a highly gullible social group.

If Christianity only arose after 70 CE, what were the earliest written letters then, in your opinion?

I suspect that any mythicist theory dating the start of Christianity so late is going to run into the problem I posted in the OP: eventually you are going to have early "historicist" Christian writings interpolating material into earlier letters, and yet somehow leaving out those important historical details that Paul left out -- which, I think we all agree, would be weird.

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

What I'm proposing is that it gets weirder still: not only did those earlier "occasional" letter writers include few historical details about Jesus, they included few historical details about anything. And this needs to be taken into consideration when going back to Paul. "The elephant in the room" is that this is not being taken into consideration.

You should take your elephants into consideration.

HJers want to get a pass because there is a lack of historical details. Jesus must exist by default. Don't blame Paul, they seemed to be saying, nobody wrote about any historical details about anything, except perhaps the resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaukedeison

I suspect that any mythicist theory dating the start of Christianity so late is going to run into the problem I posted in the OP: eventually you are going to have early "historicist" Christian writings interpolating material into earlier letters, and yet somehow leaving out those important historical details that Paul left out -- which, I think we all agree, would be weird.

The writer called Paul, based on Justin Martyr, appears to be late and fits very nicely after Marcion.

There would be no need to claim his writings were interpolated. Just that the writer was part of the scheme to distort history.

Toto · 02-21-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Yes, good point. I think it is weird also. The question of "Why didn't Paul wrote more about the historical Jesus" is a darn good one, and provides evidence for ahistoricity.

Yep, another good point. The question of "Why did so many early Christian writers have so little interest in a historical Jesus?" is also a darn good one.

Well, gosh darn it, what evidence counters that?

Quote:

What I'm proposing is that it gets weirder still: not only did those earlier "occasional" letter writers include few historical details about Jesus, they included few historical details about anything. And this needs to be taken into consideration when going back to Paul. "The elephant in the room" is that this is not being taken into consideration.

You published this idea before, and no one has bought it. It's not that it hasn't been discussed, it's that it is unpersuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I haven't viewed all the evidence. My theory so far is that Christianity arose after the destruction of the Temple, that Jesus was a symbolic savor who was historicized, and that Christianity has always depended on either state sponsorship or a highly gullible social group.

If Christianity only arose after 70 CE, what were the earliest written letters then, in your opinion?

?? There may have been someone who wrote the basis for the letters we now know as Paul before 70 CE, who was later Christianized. We might never know.

Quote:

I suspect that any mythicist theory dating the start of Christianity so late is going to run into the problem I posted in the OP: eventually you are going to have early "historicist" Christian writings interpolating material into earlier letters, and yet somehow leaving out those important historical details that Paul left out -- which, I think we all agree, would be weird.

We do not all agree.

Under my theory, this omission is not weird. These historical details are not important, because there was no "historical" Jesus and everyone knew it. There were no historicist Christians, there were only orthodox Christians who believed that Jesus had "appeared" in the "flesh," based on their reading of Scripture. They only cared about conforming to doctrine, not about planting earlier evidence of Jesus.

Their interpolations mainly concerned theology - the position of the Jews, salvation, grace, angels.

The modern historicists need to explain why there are no no historical details where they would be expected, and have no answer.

figuer · 02-22-2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Under my theory, this omission is not weird. These historical details are not important, because there was no "historical" Jesus and everyone knew it.

So don't you think there might have been some Jewish teacher named Jesus who had a small group of followers and was executed, and his story was enlarged, mythified etc.? What is so strange about such a scenario?

Quote:

The modern historicists need to explain why there are no no historical details where they would be expected, and have no answer.

Why would there be historical details in a theological/pastoral letter? What if there were other letters by Paul which concerned historical details but were not preserved? Are these arguments against believers or about the possibility of a historical Jesus?

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

02-21-2009, 09:51 AM	#62
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There is no "mainstream" MJ, and some mythicists think Christianity started in the second century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.