TedM

I see your point, but I care because it helps me try and make sense out of how Christianity could have developed naturalistically. I'm curious.

ted

Koyaanisqatsi

You mean that a man existed who the myth was created around. I concur.

Well, that is quite simple; that is the myth that was created by subsequent cult members. It's just like the game of Telephone, only expanded over many (hundreds of) years. IOW, I would contend (and I think modern scholarship on both "sides" confirms) that not a single one of Jesus' contemporaries thought of him as either having bodily resurrected or that he was Jehova incarnate. In fact, I think a good argument can be made that Paul is the one to have concocted such nonsense and deliberately so.

But then, I consider Paul to be the actual perpetrator of the mythology and not a "believer" at all. It is my considered opinion that he is the man behind the curtain of the cult of chrisitianity (ahh aliteration) and most likely a Roman "spy" if you will, but that's for several different threads .

Jews of that time would not have considered a human being to be a sacrifice at all. That is entirely a pagan influence. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by either Isaih or Daniel (my memory fails me right now), as the "true" messiah's (and there are many) presence marks the end of sacrifice. Not in any christian apologetic manner, either; he arrives to shut off animal and grain sacrifice as a method for salvation just before he murders all non-annointed humans in preparation for Jehova's arrival on Earth.

You literally could not get farther opposite from the Jewish concept of the Messiah if you tried (which, again, I argue is evidence for a deliberate cult created by non-Jews--i.e., Romans--as part of their occupation, just like we have done throughout our history of occupations and other nations as well).

Forgive me, but that's just not true at all. The only factor that caused the proliferation of the christian cult was Constantine (i.e., military force). Of course you're going to have people convert to your cult if the choices are exile/ostracism, torture and in all too many cases, death.

:huh:

Looking back with hindsight gets you nothing. The number one truth about human history is that the victors write it.

Indeed, you should start there and then deconstruct. Along the way you'll discover such things as little to no compelling evidence that any early christian cult members were persecuted (and certainly no more than any Jew at the time, which is what they would have been considered by the alleged persecutors); that not a single alleged persecution was the result of the cult member believing that Jesus was the resurrected "one true god" incarnate (a point all too often overlooked, if ever raised); that Islam (an offshoot of Judaism, too) spread even faster than Christianity for the exact same reasons (brutality); etc.; etc.; etc.

In short, viruses don't spread because they're "true;" nor does the fact that they do spread prove they are "righteous."

Yes, well, what this thread has failed to do is raise the fact that you're talking about (at best) extremely ignorant, fearful, oppressed and highly superstitious people to begin with who already believed that the dead could rise (Mithra; John the Baptist), that miracles of all kinds could happen (talking snakes; bushes; donkeys; etc) and that Gods of all kinds necessarily exist.

Its no great fete to convince millions of remarkably ignorant people who already believe in gods that another god exists.

:huh:

If you can name one I'd be mightily impressed. Careful, that may be a trap.

Well, again, think of the game of Telephone and add into the mix an environment in which there was pretty much no such thing as critical thinking. Look at Paul (again), where he even acknowledges those critical thinkers among the then cult members (Greeks and Gentiles) and comes up with ways to use their timid objections against them.

Cults are loaded decks; deliberately manipulated to serve a power structure. If anyone can honestly and historically demonstrate that the history of the Christian cult (and Judaism and Islam) is anything other than that, well, then, maybe we've got something.

Charismatic, radical teacher (probably an insurgent/terrorist, in the eyes of the Roman occupation; radical anti-orthodoxist and inspiration to his synagogue) is martyred for the cause of peace. Voila! The man is turned into the myth that later oppressors pervert in order to destroy the insurgent "hearts and minds."

Human tribal warfare S.O.P.

Then some fun happens when it is discovered (by the Romans who likely concocted it) that although it has no effect on the Jewish resistance as hoped, it is strangely effective on the fringe Jews and pagans and since it is a slave's cult designed to stop anyone from questioning authority, well, hey! Take it out of mothballs and put it to work in Greece!

It's actually not that difficult to see how cults and the memes that create and maintain them spread even without profound ignorance and brutal dictatorship.

TedM

Wow. That's a lot of stuff. I'll try and respond when time allows. For now, I have one comment:

This is a conspiracy theory. Of course it may be true. Like most people, I find them interesting, but don't put much stock in them. Please do share your thoughts on this though in some threads.

Why do you think the Jewish believers prior to Paul thought he had been resurrected in spirit? Or do you not think that?

ted

Didymus

I think they cared. It's hard for me to believe that the Romans would want to be used as proxy executioners by locals with intra-communal scores to settle. That sort of concession could only lead to trouble.

Well, the term "influential" is generally used to refer to someone with a great deal of influence. Jesus and Christianity didn't fill the bill until well into the 2nd century. If you sum up what can be taken as 1st century history, all you get is a tiny Jewish sect that also had some gentile adherents in the Diaspora, and whose refusal to participate in local sacrifices annoyed a few officials (Pliny, and possibly Nero). Traditional Jews responded only with animosity; apparently the new cult didn't rate a full fledged anathema.

I've heard it said that it's likely that first century Christians may have numbered no more than 300, nearly all of them gentiles. I'm not sure of the source for that, but it's not inconceivable.

What if virtually the entire Jerusalem narrative, starting with the colt he rode in on, were based on the OT? Would that win you over?

Didymus

TedM

I dont' find it hard to believe given the destruction of Jerusalem and picture of Pilate by Josephus.

I assume the 'authentic' epistles of Paul are authentic. Based on those, I think it was much bigger than a few hundred, but would prefer to not debate it at this point.


It would go a long ways. DO you know of another link that demonstrates that virtually the entire narrative is based on the OT? I recently started to review it (though I started at the Lord's Supper), but it will take months. I'm familiar with Vorkosigan's review of Mark.

ted

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, well, you'll see that I excell at "a lot of stuff."

Well, it's a theory that would involve a conspiracy, yes, but since dead people don't rise and you can't walk on water and snakes/burning bushes/donkeys don't speak and Moses coud not have come down from a mountain with stone tablets actually inscribed by a god, ultimately all we're talking about when discussing the Judeo/Christian/Islamic cults are "conspiracy theory." Who did it; why did they do it; who maintains it; etc.

In what? Theories?

I have many times

Well, first, I don't think they considered him "resurrected" at all; I think they considered him a dead martyr for their cause; i.e., that he "lives on" in their hearts and minds as a motivating force against the occupation of the Romans (hence acting in Jesus' name, and the like; remember the game of Telephone now?) and that, secondly, at best, a few among his following may have thought of him in some rudimentary, non-orthodox, radical, reformed, early first century Essene-like precursor to the concept of "heaven" with their god Jehovah.

Remember that Judaism didn't (doesn't) really have a Heaven (or a Hell); you died and were buried and that was pretty much it. Think Jerusalem, where the shit supposedly happened; not Corinth, where the shit was re-interpreted with overt (admitted) poetic license tailored to the culture/dogma of the (captive) audience.

Telephone. You whisper one thing into a person's ear at one end and you've got something completely different coming out of the mouth of the person at the other end. All in a matter of seconds between people that are standing right next to each other.

Expand that simple truth of human nature over years and miles back in a time when fantastical oral tradition was considered as ironclad as we consider scientific fact today and you've got your explanation of mythology, with or without my theory of deliberate manipulation.

jakejonesiv

Ted,

Here is the evidence you are looking for!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...Jesus_Obit.jpg


If the image is too small to read in your browswer, double click on it to get the resize button.

Jake Jones IV

Didymus

It's very unflattering indeed, as is Philo's profile of Pilate as callous, cruel, etc. But neither Josephus nor Philo suggested that he was a pushover who regularly caved in to the demands of Jewish religious authorities; if anything, he was indifferent to the wishes of local officials. Thus Mark has Pilate acting out of policy and out of character. That in itself is "evidence of invention," a bit shakey I'll admit, but nonetheless it's an affirmative case, not an argument from silence.

Me neither; it was just a throwaway.

I don't think authenticity is an issue here. Regardless, Paul gives no indication of the size of his congregations. It's quite possible that they consisted only of the folks he mentions by name, plus a few friends and family members. Early Christian demographics seem to be largely a mystery shouded in apologetics. Christians like big numbers early (see Luke's spurious post-resurrection mass conversions, including one of Jews!); skeptics can't find confirmation for that. I'd really like to find a good, relatively untainted treatment of the subject.

I don't know of any link, Ted. I'm familiar with the idea from many sources, including http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/arch.../04-02-23.html, but I didn't know there was an exhaustive treatment. Would you mind posting the link you have? Thanks in advance.

Didymus

Didymus

In the first century, Jupiter was worshipped throughout the Roman Empire. There were many temples constructed to honor him, and the business of sacrificing animals to him and many other gods was a significant part of the Roman economy. Does that convince you that Jupiter and his fellow-deities really existed?

Didymus

Didymus

It is not a stretch, but the criteria are insufficient. You're right; a "historical Jesus" who met only your criteria would not have been worth mentioning. Nor would he have constituted the Jesus of the gospels. You need to establish many more criteria, including, but not limited to, parentage, travels in Galilee and execution in Jerusalem, association with a band of apostles who accompanied him, the use of a particular lexicon of pseudo-cynic sayings and parables, execution by the Roman prefect, etc. A character who met some, but not all, of the criteria might be considered a "protojesus" or some such, but he wouldn't be the Jesus described in the NT. After all, isn't that character the person you're talking about??

I assume you're not counting as historical the large-scale public miracles, including the famous "darkess at noon" and the post-resurrection appearances. If those things really happened, there would have been PLENTY worthy of mention!

But I assume you're only concerned with the more mundane Jesus. Even without the miracles, the writers of the age, including Josephus and Philo, would have taken considerable interest in the events beginning with his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and ending with the crucifixion. Imagine - the prefect of a rebellious Roman province taking illegal orders from corrupt local religious leaders! THAT should have been grounds for Pilate's dismissal, even stronger grounds than his later tryannical excesses. And those things would have gotten into the annals.

Keep in mind that "evidence of invention" is not easy to come by, and in the case of the Jesus story, that's by design. Think of the many, many urban legends that are quite plausible and widely believed. Some require extensive of research to find the facts. "Good" legends don't scream "This is a lie!" In fact, they are tough to crack. All successful legends are carefully constructed to be non-falsifiable, and the Jesus legend is no exception. In effect, you're asking us to falsify a tale that very astute men tailored for non-falsifiability over a period of 400 years. Anything that was falsifiable was scrapped or burnt. What's left is the New Testament canon, including, regarding Jesus' life, the gospels, a compendium of unevidenced events. But that's as intended. If its tenets were easy to falsify, Christianity would have crumbled long ago.

So it's not by accident that we are left mainly with "arguments from silence" and surmises like the ones above about Pilate and the crucifixion. The church fathers weren't stupid.

Didymus