ApostateAbe

gurugeorge, you say:

In all this you are quite right to stress that religions often start with religious founders - but they don't always start with eponymous founders.

This is great! If you know of any religions that apparently did NOT start with an eponymous founder, then I would love to learn of it. It closely relates to my longtime claim that a reputed-human doomsday cult leader is seemingly always based on an actual human doomsday cult leader of the same rough profile, and I think the pattern can be more generally expanded--a reputed-human founder of a cult or religion is seemingly always based on an actual-human founder of a cult. Before I stand behind that more powerfully-generalized version of the pattern, I would like to put it to the test--tell me about a reputed-human founder of a religion that did not correspond to the actual founder.

Human cult founders almost always claim that their knowledge comes from a transcendent external source--God, gods, ancestors, spirits, angels, ancient traditions or scriptures--it is how the cult founders establish their authority. Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni follow this pattern. Jesus reputedly used the Hebrew prophetic scriptures and God.

aa5874

We have the Jesus stories and it CLEARLY stated by the AUTHORS of their stories that Jesus COMMANDED that the disciples TELL NO MAN that he was CHRIST.

Mt 16:20 - Why can't you accept the WRITTEN evidence?

And the very day, according to the AUTHORS of the Stories, that Jesus went PUBLIC and claimed he was CHRIST HE WAS EXECUTED.

In the NT, Jesus Christ did NOT START any religion.

Acts 11.26 The Jesus cult of Christians EVEN in the very NT started when Jesus had SUPPOSEDLY LEFT earth.

You don't KNOW who started the Jesus cult of Christians since there is ZERO evidence from antiquity that there was a Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Now, in the Synoptics, Jesus did NOT EVEN COME TO START a new religion. He came to give the GOOD NEWS that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

gurugeorge

Eh? Most religions aren't named after a central deity or special being that's also their reputed founder, whether real or imaginary. Islam, Judaism and Daoism, for a start. In fact, Buddhism is the only clearly eponymous major religion. Christianity? Possibly, but arguing the toss is what we're all obsessed with here

As I said, your analogy would be more apt if Mormonism was called "Smithism". The proper analogue of Smith is "St Paul".

IOW, Joseph Smith did not start a religion subsequently called "Smithism" in which he was deified. Joseph Smith claimed authority from an imaginary friend - just like "Paul". The religion was named after the imaginary friend, just like with "Paul".

If this supposed Jesus fellow had started a religion with his purported imaginary friend, then, again, for your analogy to be apt, the religion would have to be called "Yahveism" or something like that.

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your claim, you are right. Most religions don't have eponymous founders. But, let's change the argument a little. Instead of looking at the general swath of religions, let's look at the subset of religion that DO have the name of the reputed founder incorporated within the name of the religion itself. That would be a better way to get a handle on the pattern most relevant and specific to Christianity, since religions follow a variety of patterns. Christianity is obviously one of them, Mormonism obviously is not, but here are the other religions that have the title of their reputed founder incorporated in the name of the religion itself:

• Buddhism
• Rastafarianism
• Zoroastrianism
• Bahá'í Faith
• Akromiya
• Swedenborgian Church

Maybe I could find more if I looked long enough, but the specific pattern does seem to be without exception, that eponymous reputed religious founders always existed as human beings. Not that religions are always named after the reputed founder, mind you, but I do think that a better argument can be made for this smaller pattern. Religions can and most often are of course named after something else—the central principle, the god, the mythical predecessor to the reputed founder (as is the case with Mormonism), the scripture, or simply the title given to the group of followers.

So, here is a new argument that I would support in light of the points that you brought up:

Reputed eponymous religious founders are always actual human beings, therefore, it is probable that Christ existed as an actual human being.

The former argument follows the form: If A, then B. A, therefore B.

This argument may be too specific and makes for too few test cases, and maybe it is better to stick with the more general argument:

Reputed founders of religions always existed as actual human beings, and therefore Jesus existed.

What is the brief statement of your argument? Maybe it is just as good.

Toto

You are chasing your tail. "Eponymous" means only that the religion was named after someone. Most of time time a religion is named after someone, that someone existed?

Mithraism is your counter example. No one thinks there was a historical Mithras.

Buddha is not a name, it is a title, and Buddhists do not seem to care if there really was a historical Siddhartha Gautama. For that matter, Christ was also a title, so you could argue that Christianity was not named after Jesus - it's not Jesusism.

Abe - you are showing a lot of creativity. Surely there is a better use for it than these wild attempts to save your favorite theory on the historical Jesus?

ApostateAbe

My argument was that "Reputed eponymous religious founders are always actual human beings, therefore, it is probable that Christ existed as an actual human being." The problem with the Mithraism example is that Mithra is not the reputed founder of the religion, though of course Mithra is the object of worship.

Yeah, but it still counts. gurugeorge is with me on that point. Don't matter one way or the other. I am absolutely sure that there are better ways to make use of my creativity, time, and everything else that I am exhausting.

Toto

You have not faced up to the fact that you don't know enough about history or historical theories to support the level of certainty or dogmatism that you show. You are wasting a lot of time here, including the moderators'.

aa5874

We have a PERFECT counter-example in the EBIONITES.

The EBIONITES derived their name from the Hebrew word for "POOR" yet Tertullian WROTE that EBION was a MAN and LEADER of the Ebionite cult showing that Christianity could have ALSO been based on the Transliterated Hebrew word for "ANOINTED"

"On the Flesh of Christ" 14 Tertullian did NOT even realize the Ebionites did NOT get their name from a man but from the Hebrew word for "Poor".

And we have yet another PERFECT counter example in "To Autolycus" by Theophilus of the author who claimed he is called a CHRISTIAN because he was ANOINTED by the OIL of God NOT because of anyone called Jesus Christ.

"To Autolycus" XII It is CLEAR that being called a Christian did NOT NEED a human Jesus just the Transliterated Hebrew word for "ANOINTED".

And NOW yet another counter EXAMPLE from "AD NATIONES" 1.4 It was NOT at all necessary for there to have been an actual person named Jesus Christ for people to have been called Christians.

...We are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God....

Atheos

As little more than a mental exercise, perhaps enticing because I'm feeling more than a little philosophical at the moment due to brandy and a fine cigar, I'd like to take a stab at the OP.

Caveat: I'm on vacation at the moment and not keeping up with all the goings on at the ol' beeb. I've read a large part of the first page of this thread but haven't rigorously followed the whole thing.

However it appears to me that assuming a historical Jesus, even so Jesus would be more like Moroni than Smith. Here are my facts in support of that proposition:

1. Writings: The single most compelling difference between Jesus and Joseph Smith is that Jesus himself never wrote a single word at all. Jesus did not translate any documents from any language to any other. Similarly, Moroni didn't actually write anything. Joseph Smith couldn't seem to get his fill of writing.
2. Message: The message of Jesus was purportedly much more about God's expectations of human behavior and how to live than about preparation for some doomsday event. John the Baptist would be more of a doomsday prophet than Jesus ever thought about being. Clearly the doomsday messages recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 were put into his mouth by his followers subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem. He didn't enunciate any of those things.
3. Revelation / disposition: Jesus was portrayed as much more of a revealer of spiritual knowledge / wisdom and a guide than an actual preacher. Yes, there are various "sermons" recorded but the language used to introduce (for example) the sermon on the mount indicates that these were collections of the types of things Jesus "was teaching" rather than something to be taken literally as a single homily. Instead of doing all the teaching/preaching himself Jesus prepared his disciples with the tools necessary to teach / preach / write the things necessary to be taught. Similarly, Moroni was an agent of guidance to Joseph Smith and wasn't represented as being the actual messenger abroad himself.
4. Characteristics: Jesus was portrayed as a fantasy figure, being born of a union between God and a human virgin; having powers to do fantastic things such as walk on water, cure diseases magically, appear miraculously in locked rooms and float off into the clouds. Jesus appeared in visions to Paul and others. Similarly, Moroni was a fantastic creature with special powers to lead Smith to the hidden golden plates, prepare him for use of the "seer stone" and disappear along with the golden plates to leave Smith alone to evangelize whoever would listen. Very Jesus-like.

The fact is that Jesus was not an obscure doomsday prophet. Either he was a very famous personage who couldn't find rest from the throngs of people pressing to get close to him or he was an obscure preacher with a few simple things to say about how to live and be pleasing to God. Or he was entirely mythical from the get-go. Anything else is selective reading of the texts biased by the unwillingness to accept anything in the text that doesn't jive with one's preconceived notions. For all his hyperbolic use of caps, fonts and colors, aa5874 makes a very good point about all this that some folks don't appear willing to address.

ApostateAbe

Thanks for putting so much time and thought into this, Atheos. I appreciate it.

You say that, "The single most compelling difference between Jesus and Joseph Smith is that Jesus himself never wrote a single word at all."

If it goes downhill from there, then I judge the position to be very difficult. There are several important points to be said about the significance of this particular difference, and I will list them.

1. The argument from a negative point, that neither Jesus nor the Angel Moroni wrote anything, is something that may be narrowly unexpected of the Angel Moroni if he existed, but it is NOT something that would be narrowly unexpected of Jesus Christ if he existed. The reason for this is because only a very small percentage of anyone living in that ancient time and place wrote anything, let alone leaves evidence behind of the writing. There are other important figures, that we KNOW existed and closely associated with the mythical Jesus, who also never left specific evidence of their own writing. These figures include Peter, John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate probably wrote many letters and dictums, Christians presumably would be interested in preserving them, but none of them remain with us. Not even a historically-reliable attestation or a quote, though we do have a few late forgeries attributed to Pontius Pilate (same as Peter). Joseph Smith, on the other hand, lived in 19th century United States, where the majority of people were literate.
2. If it is argued that the reputed myths are more important than the historical facts, then it is true that Jesus never reputedly wrote anything. However, the Prophet Moroni, before becoming the Angel Moroni, reputedly wrote Mormon 8-9, Ether 12, and Moroni 1-6 and 10, according to the Maxwell Institute of BYU (Mormon and Moroni as Authors and Abridgers).
3. Negative points of similarity are not nearly as significant as positive points of similarity. We typically do NOT and should not categorize ancient historical figures based on what they did NOT do, because we have little knowledge of what they did not do. Unless the ancient sources are explicit about what a figure did not do, then the most significant characteristics rest in what a figure did do, positively, because that is where we have our facts (if only facts concerning the myths), and the positive points more typically define the character, not the negative points.

You listed other arguments, but, since this concerns your most powerful argument, maybe that can be our focus, unless you would like me to move on to the others.