Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 09-29-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Which is why I am sceptical of this model for the origin of Christianity. I don't say it's impossible; just that it strikes me as less plausible than the single-founder alternative (for which there are historically recorded parallels).

Daoism in China is an example of a religion which coalesced from a mixture of schools and communities, but was later attributed to a single founder (Laozi) - and this, even though there were several real charismatic religious leaders involved throughout its history, including Zhaungzi (and I have already mentioned Shangqing Daoism, which was a "revealed" religion based on spirit communications). Contrast this with the slightly earlier Mohism (sort of like Communism) which definitely did have a single founder (Mohi), or with Confucianism, which had a real person at the root of it, but little of whose writings come down to us, and whose "school", as it later developed, had lots of stuff that bore little relation to Confucius' original doctrines.

Actually you might be surprised at the degree to which a "single founder" model can be doubted on good grounds in all the main religions, and how reasonable looking a "coalescence" model, as an alternative possibility, really is. See this essay by Robert M. Price.

J-D · 09-29-2006, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

In that case they do not talk about the historical Jesus - nor can they as we know absolutely zip about him. He is long forgotten. The only Jesus that is left is the mythical Jesus of the gospels who never existed. So people who write about a "historical Jesus" are simply spinning a "what could have happen" into a "it did happen" speculation. This is on the whole very unprofessional for serious historians to do.

Just because some obscure rabbi/preacher named Yeshu who got crucified COULD have been the start of christianity we cannot really draw the conclusion that it really DID happen this way and we can above all not say much more than that about this individual. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

The people who are interested in books of this kind are apologists who want you to acept that this obscure individual existed is equivalent to their claim that a divine 100 percent man and 100 percent god gospel Jesus existed and can save your soul if you just believe in him. Oh yeah, maybe one or other confused historian or wanna-be historian is also interested in him because "he founded a very popular religion of our time". However, as anything about him beyond what I already said is speculation any such interest is pointless.

The historical Jesus might have existed but he is long forgotten and we have absolutely zip from him or about him anywhere. No letter from him to his mom, no diary, no letter from a rabbi who disagree with his teaching warning people not to listen to him etc etc. zip, nada, nil. He might have existed but he might as well have not as we have nothing from him or about him. The only thing we have is the gospel Jesus who never existed and is pure fiction.

Alf

Your characterisation of the authors of the particular book I mentioned is hopelessly inaccurate. In the strict literal sense of the words, you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I've read that there are other books by other authors making parallel attempts but reaching quite different conclusions. Your characterisation may apply to some of them, but somehow I suspect not all. But not having read those books, I don't really know, so I won't put any weight on that. I will say that there is one definite counterexample which disproves your thesis.

jakejonesiv · 09-29-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

This is rather weighted language. To suggest it's a "coalition" implies that they are fighting some common foe. They aren't. The vast majority of "historicists" have no idea that mythicism exists in any meaningful form.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Hi Rick,

The opposition to Earl Dohety's theories seem to the unifying theme of the "coalition," at least on IIDB.

And if the vast majority of historicists have no idea that mythicism exists in any meaningful form, then they have no idea what it means to be a historist in any meaningful form, because they are unaware of the issues involved.

Jake Jones IV

TrueMyth · 09-29-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But surely even the apologists on this board would say there's nothing to prove this fully-fledged man-God ever existed? Who is left, amongst apologists, who will defend the fully-fledged Jesus Christ of the synoptics as a historical personage? I don't think there are many. To take the most obvious point, as many have pointed out, if that Jesus had lived, he would have made a much bigger splash in the outside world than he evidently did, or at least some external evidence of some of the more outstanding miracles attested in the Gospels would have been found.

I'm curious: what more of an impact would you desire other than the following?

1: Murdered for his unorthodox beliefs
2: One of many sects of Judaism, but grew to the largest religion in the world
3: Calendars for millenia have been build around his birth and death

Jesus, under any possible understanding of his person, has had a greater impact (for good or ill) on history than any other person who ever existed. If you claim that if the Synoptic Jesus existed, he would have had more of an impact, I wonder what possible ground you have for this, given his widespread influence.

Amaleq13 · 09-29-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Which is why I am sceptical of this model for the origin of Christianity. I don't say it's impossible; just that it strikes me as less plausible than the single-founder alternative (for which there are historically recorded parallels).

As far as I can tell, there is nothing inherently implausible about the concept regardless of the existence of actual examples.

Amaleq13 · 09-29-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

I'm curious: what more of an impact would you desire other than the following?

1: Murdered for his unorthodox beliefs
2: One of many sects of Judaism, but grew to the largest religion in the world
3: Calendars for millenia have been build around his birth and death

Jesus, under any possible understanding of his person, has had a greater impact (for good or ill) on history than any other person who ever existed. If you claim that if the Synoptic Jesus existed, he would have had more of an impact, I wonder what possible ground you have for this, given his widespread influence.

I think he was referring to immediate impact so neither 2 nor 3 would be relevant and I don't see how 1 indicates significant impact. It really only indicates that he became known enough to be considered a threat to somebody in power.

Rick Sumner · 09-29-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Rick,
The opposition to Earl Dohety's theories seem to the unifying theme of the "coalition," at least on IIDB.

To go from "on IIDB" to your earlier assertion regarding a general trend is a rather dramatic step.

Quote:

And if the vast majority of historicists have no idea that mythicism exists in any meaningful form, then they have no idea what it means to be a historist in any meaningful form, because they are unaware of the issues involved.

Not at all. To be an historicist means to assert that Jesus was historical. One doesn't need to be aware of, for example, Earl Doherty, to do so.

You miss my point, perhaps I quoted the wrong portion of your post to make it. You suggest that "both" are "arguing for an historical Jesus," except, well, they're not.

Mainstream academia at large doesn't know Detering, Doherty, Carrier and so on even exist. They don't need to "argue" for an historical Jesus, because they're not aware of anyone arguing the converse.

Right or wrong, that's simply reality, as even a cursory glimpse at any peer-reviewed journal (excluding the JHC) will reveal.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TrueMyth · 09-29-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I think he was referring to immediate impact so neither 2 nor 3 would be relevant and I don't see how 1 indicates significant impact. It really only indicates that he became known enough to be considered a threat to somebody in power.

OK, fine. However, doesn't it seem a little wrong to you to only measure a person's impact in their lifetime? If that were the case, Emily Dickinson, Johan Sebastian Bach, Vincent Van Gogh, and Gregor Mendel would be judged to be of little impact. It seems entirely reasonable, historically, to attribute part of a person's impact the the fact that their life work (whether that be religious mysticism, composition, poems, art, or genetics) might persist past their death and result in followers and/or admirers, perhaps even disciples. Even if few people become followers or admirers (say, Freud), it seems reasonable to attribute to that person historical impact for being a pioneer, upon whose shoulders others stand. If you are going to hinge a response on the definition of "immediate", I would be very interested to see if you can conjure a definition which will not be either historically obtuse or conceding the point.

Also, what would you want Jesus to have accomplished more during his lifetime? Gather a large sect of followers perhaps? He did that. Build buildings? That was not his mission. Cure disease? Neither was that. I submit that under the parameters of his mission (be it from God, in his own head, whatever), he accomplished enormous things, perhaps even all that would be possible given the circumstances. If you (or the original poster) still ask more of the historical Jesus, then you (etc.) are asking him to be an entirely different person, with an entirely different message.

Amaleq13 · 09-29-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

OK, fine. However, doesn't it seem a little wrong to you to only measure a person's impact in their lifetime?

Not if that person is alleged to have been the Son of God and sent by God to be the sole source of salvation for the eternal fate of my soul.

TrueMyth · 09-29-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Not if that person is alleged to have been the Son of God and sent by God to be the sole source of salvation for the eternal fate of my soul.

So, you ignored my question: What more do you want? What could this alleged Son of God have done which would equal sufficient impact, and why must it only be in his lifetime for you to accept it as sufficient?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.