Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Analyst · 02-16-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your argument is bogus.

The supposed founder of Islam is not worshipped as a God with the power to forgive sins after he died.

The supposed founder of Mormonism was not worssipped as a God with the power to forgive sins after he was killed.

Buddhism does not involve worshipping the founder as a God with the power to forgive sins.

I fail to see the difference. Adding a star to the Christmas tree doesn't really change it. It's like Superman wearing glasses to become Clark Kent.

ph2ter · 02-16-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The old religions (Islam and Hinduism) started from tribal mythologies. The newer religions always start as cults (one strong person leading an extremist group), and they evolve into something broader, more elaborate, more diverse, and more adaptive, with the leading figure becoming progressively more powerful and perfect. You see that with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, and so on. The Jesus-myth theory would require a break in the pattern.

You infer a break in a pattern which is not there.
We certainly can not be sure that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism were started with one person. Buddha and Zoroaster are probably fictive figures.
Ancient religions like Zoroastrianism and Buddhism (nobody can be sure when and how they started), are not comparable with the modern religious movements such as Mormonism and Scientology. You also put Islam in both camps.

ApostateAbe · 02-16-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The old religions (Islam and Hinduism) started from tribal mythologies. The newer religions always start as cults (one strong person leading an extremist group), and they evolve into something broader, more elaborate, more diverse, and more adaptive, with the leading figure becoming progressively more powerful and perfect. You see that with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, and so on. The Jesus-myth theory would require a break in the pattern.

You infer a break in a pattern which is not there.
We certainly can not be sure that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism were started with one person. Buddha and Zoroaster are probably fictive figures.
Ancient religions like Zoroastrianism and Buddhism (nobody can be sure when and how they started), are not comparable with the modern religious movements such as Mormonism and Scientology. You also put Islam in both camps.

Sorry, I meant Judaism and Hinduism. The pattern I am speaking of applies to all religions where the origins are well known and documented. If you want to extend the ambiguity to Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, that is fine.

Transient · 02-16-2009, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My view of Jesus sort of fits into the way I think religions are born and evolve. The old religions (Islam and Hinduism) started from tribal mythologies. The newer religions always start as cults (one strong person leading an extremist group), and they evolve into something broader, more elaborate, more diverse, and more adaptive, with the leading figure becoming progressively more powerful and perfect. You see that with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, and so on. The Jesus-myth theory would require a break in the pattern. When it is proposed that the burden of evidence rests on everyone else to prove for sure that Jesus existed, or when weak evidence is promoted as strong evidence, it sort of makes the Jesus-mythers look zealous and irrational. I find the subject interesting, and my front to religious adherents is that I am a critical thinker whose theories align best with everything that is observed.

I don't see where you get the impression that Marcion thought that a person called "Jesus" walked the earth recently whether holograph or not.
Sounds more like he considered that this "Jesus" was in another realm not earth.
Just what do you think that Marcion says about this holographic "Jesus" in terms of his interactions with humans on earth?

Sheesh you talk crap Transient!
The gospel of Marcion reads just as though he believed that a guy called "Jesus" walked the earth, healing people etc - try actually reading it maybe.
Maybe he thought the guy was more god than human etc but that's about it.

fatpie42 · 02-16-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My view of Jesus sort of fits into the way I think religions are born and evolve. The old religions (Islam and Hinduism) started from tribal mythologies.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Islam came after Christianity.

aa5874 · 02-16-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am not sure where the evidence comes from about the Marcionite Jesus being a holograph, but it is analogous to the early gnostic belief (docetism).

That's very odd.

You are the one who claimed Marcion's Jesus was holographic, now you are not sure there is evidence for your holograph.

But, there are written statements from texts of antiquity that Marcion's Jesus was a phantom.

There is nothing about any holographic Jesus. You just made that up.

gdeering · 02-16-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The newer religions always start as cults (one strong person leading an extremist group), and they evolve into something broader, more elaborate, more diverse, and more adaptive, with the leading figure becoming progressively more powerful and perfect. You see that with... Rastafarianism....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Rastafarianism make a great case for the power of Myth? Are their followers of Selassie who went to Jamaica to preach the word? Or was it as the myther's like to think - "Spooky Action at a Distance?"

Gregg

aa5874 · 02-16-2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, I meant Judaism and Hinduism. The pattern I am speaking of applies to all religions where the origins are well known and documented. If you want to extend the ambiguity to Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, that is fine.

Again, your arguments for an historical Jesus are bogus. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

You seem to forget that it is the Church who have claimed that Jesus was a God that existed before the world was created and then became a man.

Their Jesus is clearly a myth.

Why do you think that you are obligated to prove that their Jesus was not a myth, when the Church have produced all the information to support their myth.

How in the world are you going to prove Jesus was a man before he became a God without any historical evidence?

Maybe you are going to manufacture your own historical evidence.

Let the Church people prove Jesus was a man before he became a God.

This is what Church people say about their Jesus.

"De Principiis" by Origen

Quote:

4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being— God from the first creation and foundation of the world .........

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made —

He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit:

that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation........

It is confirmed that Church people of antiquity have claimed Jesus was a God before he became man.

You can never prove Jesus was a man before he became a God without historical evidence.

So please stop wasting time. Either provide the historical evidence or quit.

ApostateAbe · 02-16-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My view of Jesus sort of fits into the way I think religions are born and evolve. The old religions (Islam and Hinduism) started from tribal mythologies.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Islam came after Christianity.

Sorry, I meant Judaism and Hinduism.

ApostateAbe · 02-16-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The newer religions always start as cults (one strong person leading an extremist group), and they evolve into something broader, more elaborate, more diverse, and more adaptive, with the leading figure becoming progressively more powerful and perfect. You see that with... Rastafarianism....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Rastafarianism make a great case for the power of Myth? Are their followers of Selassie who went to Jamaica to preach the word? Or was it as the myther's like to think - "Spooky Action at a Distance?"

Gregg

I don't quite understand what you are saying. I think the power of myth is very well attested in all religions. The mythical founder has very little in common with the de facto founder.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.