J-D

But maybe his Jewish followers didn't deify him. Maybe it was Gentile followers who did that.

J-D

The ben Pandera legend sounds to me like the sort of story that might be deliberately fabricated to discredit religious enemies, and in that case it's just as likely that the fabricators didn't care about its veracity. It's possible that they knew perfectly well what their enemies said about Jesus, and were seeking to muddy the waters with the ben Pandera story.

J-D

I'm sorry, you're seeing a connection that I'm not seeing. Are we going from circles to tangents?

J-D

Typically, a reading group is deliberately organised by one or two people. Are you positing the same of messianic reinterpreters? If so, why would this founder or founders vanish into obscurity? And what would be their motivation? Why would they think that messianic visions could more readily be obtained in groups? Or if that wasn't the reason, what was?

And were groups of messianic reinterpreters common (or 'not uncommon', if you think there's a difference)? How do you know?

J-D

If Christianity began, not with a flesh-and-blood Jesus, but with somebody purportedly getting a 'message' from a discarnate Christ, then who was that key somebody, and why is his identity obscure? Is that obscurity likely on the evidence from other religions? It's the flesh-and-blood Mohammed who's recognised as the founder of Islam.

J-D

Fair enough. And sorry for the misunderstanding.

J-D

But perhaps not, if Paul were deliberately propagating doctrine in conflict with that upheld by the Pillars, without having the same sort of authority that they did. In which case, it might have been reasonable for him to say, in effect: Oh, yes, the Pillars. Well, I did meet them. And we didn't exactly agree, but we decided not to interfere with each other.Now, moving right along ...

Donnmathan

Substitute "Jesus" for "King Arthur" in that second sentence, and you've got my position exactly. Yes, it seems likely someone stirred up the Jews, caused a bit of a ruckus, and was likely killed for it. Considering the sheer number of small mystery cults that have sprung up through the ages, it isn't even hard to imagine such a charismatic being made the object of a cult. Even a cult like it grabbing the ear of the emporer isn't unprecedented - it happened in Egypt at one point, as well (The Sun Cult and Amenhotep IV); the only difference is that the Christians managed to get a better grip than the Sun Cultists, and the religion continued after Constantine's death.

What baffles me is this - if it so obvious that the legends surrounding the likes of Arthur, Robin Hood, and Gilgamesh are full of embellishments and fantasy, then why is it so difficult for people to recognize the same quality in Jesus' story, especially considering all of the internal and dating problems?

Amaleq13

It is like both in that persons who have strong feelings about them are likely to talk about their interest and seek out others with similar interests but it is probably more like reading than poker in that the former is essentially a solitary endeavor while the latter requires a group.

IMO, a far better analogy would be a Bible study group. I would suggest that any messiah-seeking group would, likewise, originate in a communal worship service.

You asking about the collective hallucination and the initial reported experience is what inspires the response by others.

Yes, that is typically how collective hallucinations begin. A single, fantasy-prone individual has an experience and shares it with others who are generally also fantasy-prone.

I don't want to encourage people to try it but the same sort of thing is really quite easy to do intentionally with very little training. I've introduced false memories/perceptions with very little effort and it is disturbingly difficult to convince the "victims" of the deception afterward that they have been duped. If you are telling your audience what they want to believe, they will tend to see, hear, feel or recall what you tell them rather than what they actually perceived or experienced. Magicians and con men make a living off this psychological tendency in their fellow humans.

If they considered themselves fellow "visionaries", it seems to me quite likely. It would largely depend on how much they wanted the reported experience to be true and how much they wanted to share it. Given the context of a group of devout Jewish Scripture-studying, messiah-seekers, I would think the ground would be quite fertile.

I don't think the folks who wrote the DSS got together by accident, no.

I consider Cephas (the first to have the experience according to Paul) to have vanished into obscurity. Though, IMO and assuming James had an established reputation among his fellow Jews, I tend to consider him more influential in the subsequent growth.

I think I already addressed this. Faith in Judaism confronted with the apparent failure of traditional Jewish expectations.

I don't think we have to assume they were trying to have visions. The more "heads" trying to figure out what went wrong and/or what should be expected are more likely to obtain an answer.

I would think that only groups would result in preserved texts and religions movements.

No problem.

jjramsey

For many, it isn't difficult at all. However, legends surrounding the likes of say, Alexander the Great or (for a more modern-day example) Davy Crockett are also full of embellishments and fantasy. The mere presence of legends is not enough to say that someone is unhistorical or even enough to say that one's historicity is in doubt. In the case of Jesus, the dating problems just aren't that big. J-D pointed out in his example of the border ballads that the existence of contradictions in embellished accounts do not necessarily imply a lack of historicity in the outline of the accounts. The legendary nature of the accounts is insufficient grounds on its own to decide in favor of ahistoricity.