ApostateAbe

Kapyong, I appreciate you being forthright. Since I don't want to address every point in an exponentially-branching debate tree like I did with Spin, I would like to focus on the fundamental stuff. I think your implied criticism of my argument was faulty, as one of the premises of your analogous argument was plainly false, so I am going to repeat my argument again, and you can find a different reason that it is wrong. It is a formal argument, and the way to criticize a formal argument is to either find a falsity in the premises or a flaw in the logic. The logic is a very simple deduction. Here it is:

1) The synoptic gospels directly reflect ancient Christian myth of Jesus as a human doomsday cult leader (among a few other things).
2) All of the myths of a reputedly-human doomsday cult leader seem to be based on an actual-human doomsday cult leader of the same rough profile as the character in the myth.
3) Therefore, the myth of Jesus was based on an actual-human doomsday cult leader of the same rough profile as the character of Jesus in the myths.

Toto

Abe - do you contend that Daniel was a historical character? Do you contend that the book of Daniel was written close to the time of the events portrayed there? If not, does this not disprove your thesis?

ApostateAbe

I'll quarter you, but I won't draw you. I could never draw very well.

You seem to have an elaborate explanation for the beginning of Christianity, and I would like to know what you find improbable about my argument, or more generally what you find improbable about an actual-human doomsday cult leader Jesus of Nazareth. I think the patterns of history count for a lot, but maybe you have a different perspective. For example, you propose that the book of Revelation was originally a fiercely anti-Christian polemic, and I don't think any similar thing has ever been known to have happened in the history of the world, either. I don't want to debate that particular point about the book of Revelation, but I get the sense that maybe the patterns of history don't matter all that much to you, that maybe you really do think that the events surrounding origin of Christianity were extremely peculiar events.

ApostateAbe

I wondered about that. I simply don't know whether or not Daniel was a historical character, nor does the scholarship know. Heck, maybe he wasn't. If it can be shown that he wasn't a historical character and that the myth shows him leading a cult, then that would be a very good counterexample. It wouldn't constitute a counter-pattern, nor would it disprove the existence of the pattern, but it would certainly disprove my claim of the universality of the pattern, and it would take at least a chunk out of the weight of my argument.

Sheshbazzar

Not that I find it so totally improbable. My quotation was from GakuseiDon's post and I was agreeing with Dorherty's view of multiple 1st century sect figures holding up an imagined messianic figure as being the heavenly and earthly representative of their cultus.
This being is that like that shadowy figure portrayed within the DSS, the so called 'Teacher of Righteousness' likely nothing more than a figurehead, one that could be employed as a threat to keep the brotherhood in line, IE. "The Teacher of Righteousness will come and....." but who is always conveniently somewhere else at the time, so that his representatives, the local human cult leaders are really the ones running the whole show.
Really, just like it is now, when the Pope or a Pastor says "Jesus said..." and "Jesus wants you to do... this or that" and the followers act on the words as though they had proceeded directly from the figurehead whom they have never actually seen, always being somewhere just over tomorrows horizon.
It works now, no doubt it worked just as well back then.

ApostateAbe

Shoot, you are right. Some of those cult leaders have too many nicknames. I'll have to replace him with someone else. I choose... Báb of the Bahá'í Faith. I don't know if Marshall Applewhite was ever considered God.

Zenaphobe

I wonder if Joseph Smith is really going to fit the case here. Joseph Smith was historical, but, the Angel Moroni was not.

It would seem that Moroni would kind of undermine the claim that there must be a historical Jesus wouldn't it? If a faith as successful as Mormonism could get off the ground and become as big as it is today without a historical figure behind the scripture, why couldn't have Christianity?

I admit, I'm not an expert on these subjects by any means, and this might be totally off base.

ApostateAbe

OK, so maybe I got the wrong idea. Do you think the patterns of history are at least somewhat important? Or maybe you think the patterns of history are important, but the evidence indicates in your opinion that Christianity breaks some of those patterns?

ApostateAbe

I think Joseph Smith is a very appropriate example, because Joseph Smith was a reputed-human doomsday cult leader who was an actual-human doomsday cult leader, and the Angel Moroni was a reputed angel and nothing else relevant to the argument. Cult leaders almost always claim to receive their exclusive knowledge from a transcendent authority, be it God, gods, angels, ghosts, ancestors or aliens. But never do they claim their knowledge, seemingly, from a merely-mythical-human cult leader, though of course they may claim to have received their knowledge from an actual-human cult founder who preceded them. There is a very plausible explanation for that--given the choice, it is much easier and more convincing to claim that your information comes from God than it is to claim that your information comes from another man who you also claim was God. There is no need to complicate your lies like that.

aa5874

You KEEP on repeating Your FAULTY logic so it will be EXPOSED.


The synoptic Gospels, as the word GOSPELS implies, do NOT directly reflect Jesus as a doomsday cult leader. The synoptic Gospels DIRECTLY reflect Jesus as a GOOD NEWS preacher.

From the VERY first chapter of gMark Jesus preached the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, to the JEWS. From the the 4th chapters of gMatthew and gLuke Jesus preached the GOOD NEWS to the Jews.

It was at the END of gMatthew, gMark, and gLuke that Jesus had a PRIVATE discussion with the disciples about an apocalypse but he did NOT preach about an apocalypse to the Jews.

And it was the DISCIPLES that INITIATED the questions about the apocalypse in the synoptic Gospels.

And again, the NT CANON is a NON-HERETICAL compilation of the Church so there is NO WAY you can find the HERESY that Jesus was just a man in the Canon of the Church.

Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.34-35 are in the synoptic Gospels and Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Your PREMISE is ALREADY faulty. Your conclusion will be illogical.

The following are NOT even humanly PLAUSIBLE.

1. The birth of Jesus where he was the Child of a Ghost and a woman.

2. The temptation of Jesus where he and the Devil was on the pinnacle of the Temple.

3. The baptism of John where the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove.

4. The talking cloud that recognized Jesus as his SON.

5. The cursing of a tree so that it died from the roots.

6. The INSTANT healing of incurable diseases like Blindness.

7. The feeding of thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish.

8. The walking on water.

9. The transfiguration with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

10. The resurrection.

11. The post-resurrection meeting.

12. The ascension.

Your premise is FAULTY. Jesus APPEAR as a TOTAL MYTH, from CONCEPTION to ASCENSION.

Your conclusion is illogical.

The rough profile of Jesus is that of MYTH. See ALL of the synoptic GOSPELS.