Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

More evidence of a reading comprehension problem. I did not dismiss all of history as you suggest. I did point out that whether or not there was a particular king 5000 years ago is not used as justification for public policy. So whether or not such a king existed isn’t so important. It doesn’t inform modern common man about his life. Millions think that they have a personal relationship today with just such a figure from 2000 years ago who was purported to have performed miracles including his own resurrection (which wasn’t the first he pulled off supposedly). They use this relationship to argue public policy and to denounce disbelievers. Somehow getting that one right seems more important to me.

By that standard, it is an important question whether the supernatural claims about Jesus are true--which I take it we're agreed they aren't. And if we're agreed on that, then the question of whether there was a historical flesh-and-blood individual at the root of the later distorted accounts is no more important than whether there was a historical flesh-and-blood individual at the root of the later stories about, say, Gilgamesh.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Stark is a sociologist whose "The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force" is a comprehensive - and readable - survey of the growth of the religion during the first few centuries of the Common Era. Stark is a Christian; nonetheless, he refutes the notion that God had to have taken a hand in Christianity's "miraculous" expansion. It's an easy, informative and entertaining read.

Didymus

I don't advocate the notion that God must have been the cause of the expansion of Christianity. But I don't see from what you say that Stark deals with the question I am interested in, which is whether there is some way the Christian movement could have originated other than as the following of an original leader/teacher/preacher. If Stark is a Christian, I presume that that is exactly how he supposes the movement originated.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Why did none of the Romans running the area (Judea, Palestine) write down any of the amazing feats. They were apparently great record keepers, from what I've heard. No reports back to Rome about water walking, feeding multitudes with a fish sandwich (think of what that would have done for the Roman Legion!), curing blindness, healing leprosy, etc? Or are none of those things real events?

Is that a serious question? Of course they weren't real events. Did anybody here suggest that they were? If they had been, you're quite right, it would have been striking if there had been no Roman record. But if there was a completely unmiraculous Jesus, the absence of Roman records would be far less surprising.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Of what use is Jesus without the miracles? Of what significance is he without Paul?

He provides an explanation of the origin of the Christian movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Give me the Cliff Notes version if you will. Why should I care if there was or was not a real Jesus if he wasn't divine, and wasn't resurrected as you seem to claim?

I don't think anybody said that you should care. But if you don't care, what are you doing on this thread?

J-D · 05-28-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

I don't believe anyone had common visions. I'm fairly confident after reading his work that Doherty doesn't either.

With this post you (again) show that you haven't totally read/comprehended the MJ thesis.

Then what is your explanation for the origin of Christianity-the-organisation?

Sparrow · 05-28-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

By that standard, it is an important question whether the supernatural claims about Jesus are true--which I take it we're agreed they aren't. And if we're agreed on that, then the question of whether there was a historical flesh-and-blood individual at the root of the later distorted accounts is no more important than whether there was a historical flesh-and-blood individual at the root of the later stories about, say, Gilgamesh.

You and I may be agreed as to whether there were supernatural events, but there are many who beleive them as real as anything you can name. Some of them would like to impose behavioral standards which you and I might find too restrictive.

Sparrow · 05-28-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Of what use is Jesus without the miracles? Of what significance is he without Paul?

He provides an explanation of the origin of the Christian movement.

OK, you got me there, but isn't that a bit circular? Any other benefit to a non-miraculous Jesus? Is not Paul the more powerful figure, taking an unremarkable cult following and building a religion out of it? He must be up there with David Koresh and Jim Jones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Give me the Cliff Notes version if you will. Why should I care if there was or was not a real Jesus if he wasn't divine, and wasn't resurrected as you seem to claim?

I don't think anybody said that you should care. But if you don't care, what are you doing on this thread?

The OP was about the turning point to MJ and I answered that. I've stayed with the thread and tried to respond and discuss, since that's the polite thing to do. And I didn't state in that post that I didn't care, but did ask why I should. It's simply a question designed to return some response I haven't yet heard or considered. No Robots finds it necessary to counter the MJ case, finding a historical Jesus to be necessary in some sense, although he agrees the miracles did not occur. Had I just shrugged my shoulders and left the thread, I've have never known ther could be such a person as a Christian Atheist as No Robots claims to be.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

This is poor, excuse-ridden speculation.

Why doesn't Paul, who is an excellent writer, 'take one for the team', and write down the Jesus story? What a better way to preach the message of Jesus, than to use Jesus' own words and deeds! It is abundantly clear that he possessed the skill to have done so. There is only one thing that Paul didn't possess in order for him to accomplish the task......... :huh:

What if Paul didn't want to preach the message of Jesus? What if he wanted to take over the Jesus movement but use it to preach a different message? Isn't that a possible alternative explanation, so there isn't 'only one'?

J-D · 05-28-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

However, to try and claim the same for early christian documents, is to try and claim that the church would have had no interest in copying said documents (and that pious laymen wouldn't be interested either), which I find rather unlikely. No?

No, not that unlikely. The Church would have had an obvious motive to suppress any early documents that contained messages at variance with those later officially endorsed by the Church. A bit like Stalin falsifying not only records but even photographs.

J-D · 05-28-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

We have plenty of examples of crazes spreading across the planet - picachou (sp?).

Pikachu. But Pokemon did not start without flesh-and-blood individual humans starting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

A leader starter is not needed for the type of mass behaviour we label religion.

So you say. But can you instance any counter-examples?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.