Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chunk · 01-25-2006, 12:23 PM

If Jesus existed but was nothing more than a wise man with a small following, what explanation can we give for the development of a fully blown religion based around him?

I dont often see on this forum, full scenarios to explain how such a myth developed. Here is one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by killer Mike

If you stay within mainstream scholarship, there is a 99.99% acceptance among scholars that Jesus did exist. Go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.., and they all teach that Jesus did exist. The basic summary is that Jesus was just one of the dozens of people claiming to be messiahas and miracle workers at that time (see Life of Brian by Monty Python ). He preached for 1-3 years, and had managed to gain a small following of believers. Eventually he was executed over Passover by Roman authorities as a criminal. Early in his ministry, there was wide diversity of belief in interpretation of his teachings, but some of his followers, believed that shortly after his death god would come with all his glory and that the end of the world was near. Stories about Jesus circulated around mainly thru oral tradition at first, and eventually some of them came to be written down. About 40 years later, the Jews revolted against the Romans, and this war was lost. After the failure of this war against the Romans, it is when we start to see the Gospels being written (with Mark being the first). So the Gospels are a reflection of how the early Christians were dealing with losing the war, and the fact that the second coming had not come. For over 40 years they were waiting for God to come in all his glory, and this they thought would happen shortly after his death! They dealt with these very depressing and hard times by telling stories about Jesus.

Surely if you are going to attack Christianity and claim it isnt true, you must have an alternative explanation for why it has become what it is today.

Personally, the idea about it being based on a real person, but that it evolved into something untrue, is quite believable. However, I do have some points to make about it.

Paul wrote his letters to Christian groups about the time of 60ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com). They dont give a full account of Jesus' life but they do tell us a number of things.

This means people would have to have been falsely claiming things about the life of Jesus only 30 years after his death.

Similarly, the gospels are all written by 120ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com), which only leaves about 90 years between Jesus' death and them all being written.

I know it is a typical apologists arguement, but it cannot be denied that people would be around whos parents lived during the time of Jesus. They would be able to refute these claims. If that wasnt enough to kill off Christianity, surely it would at least have shrouded the religion in doubt making it less likely for people to choose to follow it later on.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the whole thing is a hoax, though up out of nothing by a small group of people. This means that those responsible for the myth must have seriously believed what they were saying to be the truth.

If Jesus' early followers were responsible for creating the idea of the ressurection, is it reasonable to say that in 90 years the idea could have evolved into the full story of a mans like and work? Just where would the various additions to the story come from? Why would the Gospel writers all paint a similar (not identical) biography of Jesus?

To call it unique does not mean that it is true, but has such a myth as this been created anywhere throughout the rest of history? One about a man who lived so closely to the time they myth was created?

So my basic question is, how do you explain the formation of Christianity as we know it today, if it is indeed a myth that developed between 30ad and 120ad?

In addition, what do we know (outside of acts) about very early Christianity that supports the idea that it is a myth?

Paul2 · 01-25-2006, 12:38 PM

re: Christianity is based on a myth

yeah well atheism is based on unmyth. so neener neener.

Quote:

If Jesus existed but was nothing more than a wise man with a small following, what explanation can we give for the development of a fully blown religion based around him?

It was popular for slaves and the poor because it lifted their spirits or whatever. It was also popular because it stole from a lot of other smaller beliefs and myths from around the area. Once politicians noticed that there were a lot of christians, it was all about controlling the masses from there.

Toto · 01-25-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

If Jesus existed but was nothing more than a wise man with a small following, what explanation can we give for the development of a fully blown religion based around him?

Um, if L. Ron Hubbard was merely a science fiction writer and not an inspired genius, what explanation can be given for the development of a full blown religion which owns lots of Southern California real estate?

If David Koresh was merely a nutcase and not the reincarnation of Jesus, how do you explain . .

You see where this goes?

We have a lot of historical and contemporary evidence about how religions develop, and the existence of a religion does not prove anything much about its founder.

Quote:

. . .Surely if you are going to attack Christianity and claim it isnt true, you must have an alternative explanation for why it has become what it is today.

See Rodney Stark, the Rise of Christianity.

Quote:

Personally, the idea about it being based on a real person, but that it evolved into something untrue, is quite believable. However, I do have some points to make about it.

Paul wrote his letters to Christian groups about the time of 60ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com). They dont give a full account of Jesus' life but they do tell us a number of things.

This means people would have to have been falsely claiming things about the life of Jesus only 30 years after his death.

It is not clear when Paul's letters were written, or when they were circulated for general reading. But there are people writing things today that are untrue, and getting away with it. (Swift Boat Veterans?)

Quote:

Similarly, the gospels are all written by 120ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com), which only leaves about 90 years between Jesus' death and them all being written.

I know it is a typical apologists arguement, but it cannot be denied that people would be around whos parents lived during the time of Jesus. They would be able to refute these claims. If that wasnt enough to kill off Christianity, surely it would at least have shrouded the religion in doubt making it less likely for people to choose to follow it later on.

Remember the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, with the general disruption and dispersal of the Jewish population.

And take into consideration that we don't know that anyone would have cared if the gospels were accurate history or merely a good story.

Quote:

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the whole thing is a hoax, though up out of nothing by a small group of people. This means that those responsible for the myth must have seriously believed what they were saying to be the truth.

If Jesus' early followers were responsible for creating the idea of the ressurection, is it reasonable to say that in 90 years the idea could have evolved into the full story of a mans like and work?

It sounds plausible to me. It only takes a couple of months to write a good novel.

Quote:

Just where would the various additions to the story come from? Why would the Gospel writers all paint a similar (not identical) biography of Jesus?

The gospel writers all copied the story line from Mark. Mark created the story from bits of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Quote:

To call it unique does not mean that it is true, but has such a myth as this been created anywhere throughout the rest of history? One about a man who lived so closely to the time they myth was created?

I suspect so.

Quote:

So my basic question is, how do you explain the formation of Christianity as we know it today, if it is indeed a myth that developed between 30ad and 120ad?

In addition, what do we know (outside of acts) about very early Christianity that supports the idea that it is a myth?

We know almost nothing about early Christianity, which supports the idea that it is a myth.

Another possible explanation is that given by Harold Leidner in The Formation of the Christ Myth, who sees Christianity as arising out of the destruction of the Temple, and the gospels and Acts inventing an earlier history for the religion.

mudknot2005 · 01-25-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

If Jesus existed but was nothing more than a wise man with a small following, what explanation can we give for the development of a fully blown religion based around him?

I dont often see on this forum, full scenarios to explain how such a myth developed. Here is one:

Surely if you are going to attack Christianity and claim it isnt true, you must have an alternative explanation for why it has become what it is today.

Personally, the idea about it being based on a real person, but that it evolved into something untrue, is quite believable. However, I do have some points to make about it.

Paul wrote his letters to Christian groups about the time of 60ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com). They dont give a full account of Jesus' life but they do tell us a number of things.

This means people would have to have been falsely claiming things about the life of Jesus only 30 years after his death.

Similarly, the gospels are all written by 120ad (www.earlychristianwrittings.com), which only leaves about 90 years between Jesus' death and them all being written.

I know it is a typical apologists arguement, but it cannot be denied that people would be around whos parents lived during the time of Jesus. They would be able to refute these claims. If that wasnt enough to kill off Christianity, surely it would at least have shrouded the religion in doubt making it less likely for people to choose to follow it later on.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the whole thing is a hoax, though up out of nothing by a small group of people. This means that those responsible for the myth must have seriously believed what they were saying to be the truth.

If Jesus' early followers were responsible for creating the idea of the ressurection, is it reasonable to say that in 90 years the idea could have evolved into the full story of a mans like and work? Just where would the various additions to the story come from? Why would the Gospel writers all paint a similar (not identical) biography of Jesus?

To call it unique does not mean that it is true, but has such a myth as this been created anywhere throughout the rest of history? One about a man who lived so closely to the time they myth was created?

So my basic question is, how do you explain the formation of Christianity as we know it today, if it is indeed a myth that developed between 30ad and 120ad?

In addition, what do we know (outside of acts) about very early Christianity that supports the idea that it is a myth?

we know the 1st president lived, do you believe the story about him choping down a cherry tree?

Clivedurdle · 01-25-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

hoax

Hoax and myth are not the same!

I think Paul (might be Marcion though) believed what he was writing, as did writers of Hebrews and Revelation.

Classic knock about god in heaven stuff (daemons seem to have been acknowledged to be able to take on earthly charcteristics btw).

The whole christology does not require an hj - I see the heresy as attempting to tie this mythological psychological world to the day to day too tightly!

Chunk · 01-26-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Um, if L. Ron Hubbard was merely a science fiction writer and not an inspired genius, what explanation can be given for the development of a full blown religion which owns lots of Southern California real estate?

I understand your point. However is it fair to compare the two? Nobody is claiming today that 50 years ago Ron Hubbard rose from the dead, or that he was born of a virgin, or that he walked on water or gave sight to the blind.

Im not trying to say that Scientologists dont appear to believe in some crazy things, but what they do believe in is set so far in the past its impossible to say its right or wrong.

Similarly, the view that the vast majority of people have about Scientology, is that its completely ridiculous. That hasnt stopped people joining the religion, but surely it will doubtlessly prevent it from becoming anything more than a short lived cult like following.

There are an estimated 8 million Scientologists in the world (http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...ientology.html). When you consider the easy of spreading a message in the world today, that is very few, and I seriously question how many of those follow it to the level of Xenu and believing in an exiled race.

Further to that, the majority of people only belong to the religion for 1 to 5 years (http://www.scientology.org/heritage/...fx/27-scns.htm) which shows how people leave when they start becoming more exposed the wilder parts of the Scientologist beliefs.

Quote:

If David Koresh was merely a nutcase and not the reincarnation of Jesus, how do you explain . .

You see where this goes?

Again, the complete lack of believability in what he did and claimed means that 10 years after his death the majority of people dont even know who he is.

if 30 or even 100 years after Jesus died, there was the same amount of reason to follow him as there is David Koresh, why did people do it? Although it is likely that some people will always follow something, no matter how crazy, why wasnt the general consnsus of Jesus that he was a nothing and that only crazy people followed him?

Quote:

We have a lot of historical and contemporary evidence about how religions develop, and the existence of a religion does not prove anything much about its founder.

Ok I have to agree to that. But doesnt it add any validity to Christianity what so ever? Surely Scientology and David Koresh can be used to show us how the majority of people dont believe in something without reason and evidence of what is being claimed is actually true.

Quote:

It is not clear when Paul's letters were written, or when they were circulated for general reading. But there are people writing things today that are untrue, and getting away with it. (Swift Boat Veterans?)

I thought even the most skeptic of people took Pauls letters to be written before the gospels? Does it matter when they were in general circulation. Surely it tells us that the ideas he was writing about were there.

Quote:

The gospel writers all copied the story line from Mark. Mark created the story from bits of the Hebrew Scriptures.

So we're back to the idea of it being a hoax. If it was created just from scripture, I cant understand how the author would believe what he was writing down actually happened.

Quote:

I suspect so.

Ermm, ok. Thanks, thats useful.

Quote:

We know almost nothing about early Christianity, which supports the idea that it is a myth.

Ive read of references to "Mystery religions", "essenes", non cannonical texts from before the gospels, evidence that supports "jesus cults" and small fractured followings of Jesus each with their own version of beliefs.

Could anyone help me with these things? I would like to read more on them. Are they purely the hypothesis of Scholars or is there actually anything to back them up?

Thanks.

JEST2ASK · 01-26-2006, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

I understand your point. However is it fair to compare the two? Nobody is claiming today that 50 years ago Ron Hubbard rose from the dead, or that he was born of a virgin, or that he walked on water or gave sight to the blind.

Im not trying to say that Scientologists dont appear to believe in some crazy things, but what they do believe in is set so far in the past its impossible to say its right or wrong.

Again, the complete lack of believability in what he did and claimed means that 10 years after his death the majority of people dont even know who he is.

if 30 or even 100 years after Jesus died, there was the same amount of reason to follow him as there is David Koresh, why did people do it? Although it is likely that some people will always follow something, no matter how crazy, why wasnt the general consnsus of Jesus that he was a nothing and that only crazy people followed him?

I thought even the most skeptic of people took Pauls letters to be written before the gospels? Does it matter when they were in general circulation. Surely it tells us that the ideas he was writing about were there.

So we're back to the idea of it being a hoax. If it was created just from scripture, I cant understand how the author would believe what he was writing down actually happened.

Ive read of references to "Mystery religions", "essenes", non cannonical texts from before the gospels, evidence that supports "jesus cults" and small fractured followings of Jesus each with their own version of beliefs.

Could anyone help me with these things? I would like to read more on them. Are they purely the hypothesis of Scholars or is there actually anything to back them up?

Thanks.

Hello Chuck :wave:
Excuse the liberties I took with highlighting your post, but the questions you raise are some of the minor reasons I do not believe Christainity.

I do not think it was a "HOAX" but that the further it got removed from it's orgins and the more there was active selection of texts and ideas the less it has in common with the intent of the actual historical basis.

Do you believe in the literal interpretaion of the Garden of Eden story and the "Fall"?

Do you beleve the claims surrounding Joseph Smith are factual?

I wonder where Christainity would be today without Paul or Constaine.

There are many who think that the Paul's Jesus was not the miracle worker of the Gospels and that Paul did not preach a physical resurrection.

FreezBee · 01-26-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunk

Ive read of references to "Mystery religions", "essenes", non cannonical texts from before the gospels, evidence that supports "jesus cults" and small fractured followings of Jesus each with their own version of beliefs.

Could anyone help me with these things? I would like to read more on them. Are they purely the hypothesis of Scholars or is there actually anything to back them up?

Well, you can always take a peek at this:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1667282

and this:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

As for non-canonical texts before the gospels, 1 Enoch is quoted by Jude, and while non-canonical it's the book which tells about the celestial rebellion, so for fantasy novel loving Christians, it's very juicy. You can find it here:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/enoch/index.html

As for "essenes", I suppose that you refer to the Qumran community, which might have been connected with the Essenes, and is of course well-known for the Dead Sea Scrolls. You might take a peek at this:

http://www.nazarene.net/Essenes.htm?

Enjoy!

- FreezBee

spiceobserver · 02-20-2006, 12:23 PM

compare scientology to christianity and you'll find alot of simlarities.

Barefoot Bree · 02-20-2006, 01:01 PM

Something that anyone considering the birth of Christianity, and especially when comparing it to recently-born religions, to remember is the very different world that existed back then. We are so used to the modern media that we take it for granted, and subconsciously assume that a comparitive easy access to news, events, and commentary existed back then.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

(I'm not an expert, so I'll speak only in generalities. I'm sure the experts will be along shortly to correct any misperceptions I put here.)

Forget newspapers, tv news, weekly magazines. Forget ANYTHING approaching instant or even quick access to news. The only ways for news to circulate, especially over such vast distances as Rome to Jerusalem, for example, is by a combination of private letter, official governmental or military dispatches, and word of mouth. How long did it take for a ship to sail or a messenger to ride horseback from Rome to Jerusalem? Anybody?

If Jesus existed, the people who knew him could quite likely never even HEAR many of the stories spread about him. And how would they refute them if they did? Take out a full-page spread in the Jerusalem Times? Local news and gossip you could get in the marketplace. But anything beyond local took a long, long time to disseminate, and by the very methods available, was extremely prone to becoming warped all out of recognizability.

In this modern age, most people have heard about Scientology or Mormonism to form an opinion about them. In the early first and second centuries BCE, it would have taken a LONG time for "most" people to have even heard the name of "christian", let alone enough facts to form an opinion.

In short, due to the communications of the time, it would actually be very easy for a small arcane cult to form, based on insufficient and possibly dreamed-up information, and slowly spread "under the radar" of the main culture, until it finally became widespread enough to be recognized. And by then there was just no way to verify any of the underlying "facts".

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

02-20-2006, 12:23 PM	#9
spiceobserver Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: a stream of water Posts: 5	compare scientology to christianity and you'll find alot of simlarities.

02-20-2006, 01:01 PM	#10
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	Something that anyone considering the birth of Christianity, and especially when comparing it to recently-born religions, to remember is the very different world that existed back then. We are so used to the modern media that we take it for granted, and subconsciously assume that a comparitive easy access to news, events, and commentary existed back then. Nothing could be further from the truth. (I'm not an expert, so I'll speak only in generalities. I'm sure the experts will be along shortly to correct any misperceptions I put here.) Forget newspapers, tv news, weekly magazines. Forget ANYTHING approaching instant or even quick access to news. The only ways for news to circulate, especially over such vast distances as Rome to Jerusalem, for example, is by a combination of private letter, official governmental or military dispatches, and word of mouth. How long did it take for a ship to sail or a messenger to ride horseback from Rome to Jerusalem? Anybody? If Jesus existed, the people who knew him could quite likely never even HEAR many of the stories spread about him. And how would they refute them if they did? Take out a full-page spread in the Jerusalem Times? Local news and gossip you could get in the marketplace. But anything beyond local took a long, long time to disseminate, and by the very methods available, was extremely prone to becoming warped all out of recognizability. In this modern age, most people have heard about Scientology or Mormonism to form an opinion about them. In the early first and second centuries BCE, it would have taken a LONG time for "most" people to have even heard the name of "christian", let alone enough facts to form an opinion. In short, due to the communications of the time, it would actually be very easy for a small arcane cult to form, based on insufficient and possibly dreamed-up information, and slowly spread "under the radar" of the main culture, until it finally became widespread enough to be recognized. And by then there was just no way to verify any of the underlying "facts".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.