mysteriousworld

I was thinking about the jesus myth theory. How many examples of this kind of origin for a new religion do we actually have?

In recent history lets say the past 200 years how many new religious sects were based on a completely fictional founder?

Toto

Do you mean "based on" or "founded by"?

Google "new religious movements" and you will find long lists of new religions. But most of them are variations of Christianity or Hinduism. They generally have a charsimatic living cult leader, but this person is usually regarded as a prophet or a master or a teacher, not as a god. The cult may worship God or Jesus or Krishna, but have a contemporary founder.

A lot of the attempted reconstructions of early Christianity assume that Jesus was this sort of charsmatic cult leader. Other reconstructions assume that Paul had the role of cult leader, and that Jesus had nothing to do with founding the church.

DNAReplicator

John Frum springs to mind.

spin

No religion has a fictional founder. You mightn't know who founded it: we don't know who founded the Apollo religion or the Mithras religion, but we do know who founded Islam. The discussion here has frequently revolved around whether Paul founded christianity or not. Did he need a real Jesus seems to be the issue that can't be resolved.

avi

I disagree.

The issue, is not whether or not Paul needed a real Jesus. The issue is whether or not there had been a real person, living in Palestine 2000 years ago, named Jesus, who had performed supernatural miracles, and whose apostle, Paul became, having never encountered this man Jesus;

OR,

alternatively,

if Jesus were a fictional character, acknowledged by Paul, as someone he had never encountered, "kata sarka", but rather, had imagined, as "kata pneuma".

With respect to the question of whether Paul "founded christianity or not", one must first acknowledge whether Paul wrote before, or after, composition of the gospels.

It is not clear to me, that we possess reasonable evidence in favor of Paul's having written prior to creation of the four gospels, mid second century. Our earliest extant document of his letters is P46, copied in the latter half of the second century, according to palaeographic analysis.

According to that scenario, (post-Gospel creation of Paul's epistles) there would be no reason to grant Paul credit for having supposedly established the church....

avi

Roger Pearse

It would be unusual, I agree. Most things in this world are created by a single determined individual, who inevitably leaves his imprint on his creation.

The instance I can think of -- and I have not researched this, so this is hearsay -- is Rosicrucianism. As I understand it, this movement owes its being to a novel narrating the (fiction) travels and doings of one Johann Rosenkreuz, and his encounters with a secret esoteric movement. The novel was extremely popular, and everyone wanted to know about this 'movement', which in turn caused chapters of it to come into being.

But that is all off the top of my head, and matters might be quite otherwise.

Isn't Hermeticism this kind of movement also?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Juststeve

Avi:

I don't think anyone on the board has argued for "a real person, living in Palestine 2000 years ago, named Jesus, who had performed supernatural miracles". Certainly I haven't. What is argued for is a real man named Jesus about whom claims came to be made about performing supernatural miracles. That's quite a different thing.

I can for example believe in Mohamed without believing he received a revelation from God or made a night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem. I can believe in George Washington without believing that he chopped down a cherry tree or threw a coin across the Delaware.

You present a straw man.

Steve

Frankencaster

Also My thought.

Church of Latter Day Saints. It is base on revelations by the angel Moroni about Jesus to joseph Smith.

The base is a myth but the founder (Joseph Smith) is real.

How would a mythical character start a religion if it he didn't exist?

Lots of sects and cults have started in the last couple centuries. They are usually founded by nut jobs or fraudsters.

Chaucer

Ironically, never underestimate the insanity of humanity: There are theories out there about Mohammed being all a myth too. Here --

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...4/152943.shtml

-- here --

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wor...-teaching.html

-- here --

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JK18Aa01.html

-- and here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226...eTabs_comments

Yes, this seems as dubious to me as all the mytherism. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. As a genuine rationalist, I should be the least surprised of all that there are many, many cranks out there, shouldn't I?

Chaucer

spin

You wouldn't know what a genuine rationalist was if you were in a room full of them. You've eschewed rationality throughout your postings here, preferring dogma. Rationalists may make mistakes, but they tend to avoid party lines such as the one you've been toeing. The rationalist usually doesn't go for the man as you did in your misguided thread about concerning a recent talk by Carrier and persistently misrepresent what the man said. Until you lift your act you'll remain a noisy dogmatist, howling at passing traffic.