Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-20-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The interesting question is how religions get started.

That is indeed a very good question. Very good, IMO. How do religions normally get started?

Shamanism - person receives "message" from hallucination, teaches it to his or her tribe.

Islam - person receives a "message" from a hallucination, preaches it to local folks.

Judaism - a sequence of people receive "messages" from hallucinations, preach them to their people.

Greek religion - people receive "answers" from hallucinations to give to querents.

Hinduism - many, many yoga and jnana texts are "recieved" from various gods, as per their dedications, Siva being a particular favourite.

seiðr ("Sith"

) - pre-Christian Norse religion - people "take the high seat" and receive "answers" from hallucinations to give to querents.

Celestial Masters Daoism - person receives "message" from hallucination and founds religion. Later, another person receives "message" from hallucination that founds another massive regional branch of the same religion.

Tibetan Buddhism - everybody and his mother gets "messages" from various hallucinations and propounds variations on the main themes of the religion.

(?) Christianity - person gets "message" from hallucination and founds religion. Was that person a human "Joshua" hallucinating God his Father, or a human "Paul" hallucinating "Christ, Son of God"? Too difficult to say for sure, evidence highly ambiguous, but latter more likely.

None of these hallucinations are necessarily pathological (though some may be) - they are the result of normal functions of the brain, gerrymandered to somewhat uncommon (though as can be seen from above, not all that uncommon) results under certain circumstances (spiritual exercises including breathing practices, tremendous life crises, sleep deprivation, intense concentration on texts, ritual magic exercises, drugs, dancing, etc., etc.)

None of your stories are reliably documented. The closest you come is with Islam. I don't know whether there is contemporaneous documentation which reliably establishes that there was such a person as Mohammed and that he preached a message, but if there is, the suggestion that he was subject to hallucinations is speculative.

Consider, instead, a case for which there is reliable contemporaneous documentation: Mormonism. Were Joseph Smith's claims about the angel Moroni and the metal plates the product of hallucinations on his part? Or was he a charlatan who consciously fabricated the whole story for personal gain?

archibald · 09-20-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity exists
Islam exists

Mohamed is an explanation for the existence of Islam
Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity

There are a number of possible explanations. HJ is just one of them (or is one type of them). End of. :]

dog-on · 09-20-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Correct, in fact it is beyond any reasonable doubt that someone "founded" what we call Christianity.

The question, as always, is who.

This ought to remind us of the people who set out to prove that the Francis Bacon who wrote Shakespeare was not the one we all know but another otherwise unknown man of the same name.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

He shoots, he scores! :notworthy:

Iskander · 09-20-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity exists
Islam exists

Mohamed is an explanation for the existence of Islam
Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity

There are a number of possible explanations. HJ is just one of them (or is one type of them). End of. :]

Such as? , please ignore this, I hadn't noticed your ,"End"

It is the end for me too. I loathe noise

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

aa5874

I have invited an explanation for the existence of Christianity.

I will, however, try to make my position clear to you:
Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion , the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still voraciously maintained in small circles of traditionalist ‘ dogmatists ‘, far exceed those deriving from its acceptance

Your position explains NOTHING.

Billions of people BELIEVE Jesus was God Incarnate and the Word that was GOD based on the BIBLE.

Billions of people BELIEVE the NT Canon that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

What is YOUR position BASED on?

What CREDIBLE source of antiquity EXPLAINS your position?

And please, do not even attempt to play the numbers game, here.

Atheists have very LITTLE regards for QUANTITY.

Atheism was DERIVED by QUALITY of evidence.

What QUALITY sources do you have for your EXPLANATIONS about Jesus?

As in:

Christianity exists
Islam exists

Mohamed is an explanation for the existence of Islam
Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity

Again, you EXPLAIN NOTHING but LOGICAL Fallacies

Marcion's Phantom EXISTED so BELIEF in the Phantom existed?

ZEUS existed so belief in ZEUS EXISTED?

The God of the Jews exists so Judaism exists?

In the ISLAMIC religion, Mohammed is NOT worshiped as a God.

In the Jesus Christ religion, Jesus is the Creator of heaven and earth, the Word that was God and the Child of a Ghost.

Again, you have UTTERLY FAILED to provide any credible sources of antiquity for your "explanations".

What I NEED is SOURCES of antiquity for your position. I ALREADY know your position.

Once you have NO sources then you SIMPLY cannot EXPLAIN anything about your Jesus.

We are NO longer accepting your IMAGINATION as an explanation.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 02:55 PM

One more time. An item in relation to the 'David Hume test'.

1. Does anyone have any other examples of a religious figure who started off as 'non-existent on earth' and switched to generally seen as 'existent' in such a relatively short space of historical time?

2. Does anyone have any clear evidence that such a switch happened in this case? For example, was there ever a heresy countered in which any heretic group, or any other group, was accused of believing he never existed?

If not, I defy any objective person not to consider it more than pure speculation that there ever was such a group.

This is the thread in which to cite it.

And while I'm at it, could someone comment on the verses from the epistles cited in the OP (from Romans and 1 cor), or any of the objective 'tests' I suggested, or the list of items (a) to (f) etc?

And I'm hoping that someone will confirm why the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 is a clue for something.

And I've almost, but not quite, given up on jiri telling me about his reasons for interpreting 'dead' as 'not really dead' in Hebrews 6:2. :]

And Toto is still free to tell me why Jesus was described as crucified by Paul, and on what basis he conclude that 50% of 'Paul' is bogus and how he knows what the original 50% was.

Spin might even consider explaining how he holds to the idea of 1 Cor 15:3-11 being a single en-block interpolation when there is textual evidence that it wasn't.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...Correct, in fact it is beyond any reasonable doubt that someone "founded" what we call Christianity.

The question, as always, is who.

Well, based on the NT Canon, it was NOT Jesus Christ or "Paul".

In the supposed EARLIEST Gospels, Jesus did NOT tell the Jewish people or any one he was Christ during his supposed lifetime and FORBADE the disciples from telling any Jew or any person that he was Christ.

Mt 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

In the supposed earliest Gospels, Jesus did NOT start a NEW religion under the name of Christ.

And in the Pauline writings it is claimed "Paul" was a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH BEFORE he started to preach. See Galatians 1

Ga 1:23 -

Quote:

But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

The NT ELIMINATES Jesus Christ and "Paul" as the ones who started Christianity.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

One more time. An item in relation to the 'David Hume test'.

1. Does anyone have any other examples of a religious figure who started off as 'non-existent on earth' and switched to generally seen as 'existent' in such a relatively short space of historical time?

2. Does anyone have any clear evidence that such a switch happened in this case?

This is the thread in which to cite it.

Why don't you CITE your sources of antiquity that can corroborate the Jesus story in NT Canon was before the Fall of the Temple?

This is YOUR thread you NEED clear evidence.

You are promoting Chinese Whispers or propaganda.

1. Jesus Christ was NOT described as an Historical figure.

2. An historical figure is NOT the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

3. You DON'T know when the Jesus stories and any Pauline writings were ACTUALLY written.

4. You have PRESUMED your OWN chronology for the START of Christianity.

5. The abundance of evidence shows that the Jesus stories were probably developed sometime in the 2nd century.

J-D · 09-20-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...Correct, in fact it is beyond any reasonable doubt that someone "founded" what we call Christianity.

The question, as always, is who.

Well, based on the NT Canon, it was NOT Jesus Christ or "Paul".

In the supposed EARLIEST Gospels, Jesus did NOT tell the Jewish people or any one he was Christ during his supposed lifetime and FORBADE the disciples from telling any Jew or any person that he was Christ.

Mt 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

In the supposed earliest Gospels, Jesus did NOT start a NEW religion under the name of Christ.

And in the Pauline writings it is claimed "Paul" was a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH BEFORE he started to preach. See Galatians 1

Ga 1:23 -

Quote:

But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

The NT ELIMINATES Jesus Christ and "Paul" as the ones who started Christianity.

You have utterly failed to provide any credible sources of antiquity for your explanations.

Stringbean · 09-20-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And where we don't, historians do not generally insist that these characters must be historical.

Sorry Toto, but there's a huge flaw in that. Without meaning to, you have introduced a strawman standard of 'insist that something must be', which neither I, nor any historian I have ever read of would ever use in relation to ancient history.

No, the truth is that where we don't have much good evidence, historians will decide on the basis of 'probably'. Of course, history is a Humanity, not a science, so it's a professional estimate, based on the best tools they can use. This is as much true, as I understand it, for the basic question of whether someone existed as much as it is for the details of their supposed lives.

Wow. I have rarely seen the actual situation so badly turned upon its head. Lewis Carroll could hardly have done a better job.

Toto, the actual pieces of extant written evidence, in case you hadn't noticed, are heavily in favour on an HJ. That is to say, almost all of the texts we have appear to reference an EP, including even Paul. There is, in fact, a surplus of evidence for Jesus in comparison to many, many other minor characters from Ancient history.

There are different ways of dealing with that, but it is indisputably the objective starting point for any historical enquiry.

This is not me saying that MJ has the burden of proof, by the way. Personally, I don't go much for 'B of P'. I think all sides share such things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The clear evidence is the gospels.

How so?

Quote:

Toto, the actual pieces of extant written evidence, in case you hadn't noticed, are heavily in favour on an HJ.

In order to make this claim your going to have to provide primary as well as contemporary sources....and just because christians are mentioned in an historians writing does not validate a jesus. Lets make this easy:

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

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

09-20-2011, 02:55 PM	#126
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	One more time. An item in relation to the 'David Hume test'. 1. Does anyone have any other examples of a religious figure who started off as 'non-existent on earth' and switched to generally seen as 'existent' in such a relatively short space of historical time? 2. Does anyone have any clear evidence that such a switch happened in this case? For example, was there ever a heresy countered in which any heretic group, or any other group, was accused of believing he never existed? If not, I defy any objective person not to consider it more than pure speculation that there ever was such a group. This is the thread in which to cite it. And while I'm at it, could someone comment on the verses from the epistles cited in the OP (from Romans and 1 cor), or any of the objective 'tests' I suggested, or the list of items (a) to (f) etc? And I'm hoping that someone will confirm why the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 is a clue for something. And I've almost, but not quite, given up on jiri telling me about his reasons for interpreting 'dead' as 'not really dead' in Hebrews 6:2. :] And Toto is still free to tell me why Jesus was described as crucified by Paul, and on what basis he conclude that 50% of 'Paul' is bogus and how he knows what the original 50% was. Spin might even consider explaining how he holds to the idea of 1 Cor 15:3-11 being a single en-block interpolation when there is textual evidence that it wasn't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.