gurugeorge

Ha! Well spotted. I'd completely forgotten about Ned Ludd.

aa5874

1. It is highly illogical that since it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth and did NOTHING there, Walked on the sea and Transfigured that he was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity even though described as NON-HUMAN and NOT a doomsday preacher.

2. It is highly illogical that the supposed baptism of Jesus is evidence that Jesus was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity when he was described as NON-HUMAN and NOT a doomsday preacher.

3. It is highly illogical that since there was supposed division in the family of Jesus that he was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity when he was described as NON-HUMAN and NOT a doomsday preacher.

4. It is highly illogical that Jesus was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity because it is claimed Jesus was betrayed and crucified when he was described as NON-HUMAN and NOT a doomsday preacher.

If Jesus was human then we would expect him to be described as human. Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, WALKED on water and Transfigured.

If Jesus was non-human then we would EXPECT him to be DESCRIBED as NON-HUMAN.

Pilate the Governor, Herod the Great, Herod the tetrarch, Caiaphas the high Priest, Tiberius were described as HUMAN in the Gospels.


Mt 1:18 - This is PRECISELY what we EXPECT once Jesus was NON-HUMAN.
'

Littlejohn

The problem, at least according to my personal experiences(*), is not to establish whether Jesus really existed or not, but rather to try to figure out who really was Jesus of Nazareth, his mother, Joseph, John the Baptist, Simon Peter, etc.. etc..

I do not know what happens in the American religious world and, specifically, in the one Christian, but I know that in Italy the one that gives more discomfort to the Catholic clergy(**) is the research about who Jesus really was, not the quest to determine whether Jesus existed or not! ..

All 'negationist' theories (ie who deny the historical existence of Jesus), both mythological or other, are also stimulated by 'Pasdaran' pro-clerical, 'unleashed' by the clergy on the WEB Network, so much that certain topics, to the purpose to be more successful to reach their goal, they even posting as atheists, since they presume that some topics proposed by atheists, have a more welcome reception for a particular intellectual world ....

As it said in 'poor-words', the clergy does not want one goes digging in his 'orticello' (small vegetable garden), with the concrete risk of bringing to light 'skeletons' that the forger clergy thinked were now buried forever in the 'sand' of history, first of the advent of Internet! ... As far as I am concerned, of these 'skeletons' I have been able to bring it to light a lot' ...


Greetings

_________________________

(*) - Which, believe it or not, have led me to understand just about everything of the one there is to understand about the true origins of Christianity and the true identity of the characters involved in the evangelic story.

(**) - so much to get to measures of boycott on 'industrial' scale, in order to impede to get 'uncomfortable data' through Internet: namely the quickest and most effective way to achieve this goal! Wikipedia.it and Google.it, are instruments become practically a 'feud' of the Catholic clergy, according to the aberrations that I have found personally, at least starting some years now ..


Littlejohn

.

andrewcriddle

One could parallel this by stating that the historical Jesus was a Jew not a Christian.

The words and actions of the historical Haile Selassie, (eg his contacts with Rastafarians during his 1966 visit to Jamaica), played an important part in the development of the Rastafari movement.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Haile Selassie did NOT start the Rastafarian movement. Haile Selassie was NOT a Rastafarian and did NOT ask people to become Rastas.

The historicity of Haile Selassie cannot be transferred to Jesus of the NT.

Whether or NOT Haile Selassie lived or did or did NOT start the Rastafarian cult, the historicity of Jesus STILL require a SEPARATE inquiry.

Now, the worship of a man as a God is NOT acceptable in Christianity and is CONDEMNED as Heresy.

In the very Jesus stories, Jesus was condemned to be guilty of death for claiming he was the Son of the Blessed.

In gMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted and wanted them to REMAIN in Sin.

Whereas Haile Selassie is documented as a real character of history Jesus is characterised as a Child of a Holy Ghost.

Jesus was Myth but was historicised.

Selassie was history but was mythologised.

ApostateAbe

I appreciate your patience and critical thoughts on this topic. I can't remember if it was you or if it was someone else who said that Jesus was more analogous to the Angel Moroni than to Joseph Smith, and I thought that seemed absurd, but not obviously not everyone has the same idea of what seems absurd and what does not. So, I would like to fully list the things that are common among cult leaders (though maybe not all cult leaders). These are the things that the reputed figures of Jesus and Joseph Smith have in common but the Angel Moroni does not.

• Reputedly, founder was a human being at the time of the cult's founding
• Reputedly, founder draws knowledge, power or status from a special authority, such as God, gods, outer-space aliens, angels, government, secret tradition, ancestors, natural spirits, extra-dimensional beings, intelligence, enlightened state of mind, or psychic powers
• Reputedly, founder is the first human leader of the cult, and he or she communicates with all initial members of the cult much as a human leader of a small group
• Reputedly, founder uniquely proposes a "better" or "truer" variation of the common religion of the society
• Reputedly, founder encourages members of the group to separate from one's family if the family does not also join the group
• Reputedly, founder predicts a doomsday
• Reputedly, founder either dies or appears to die

If the items on this list appear obvious, like they hardly need to be said, then we are of one mind. You can claim that Jesus is more analogous to anyone than to Joseph Smith, but the two respective characters seem to be such a close fit that I think you may need to explain such a claim.
So, you may have noticed that I narrowed my set of criteria to only two: plausibility and explanatory power, and those criteria are drawn from among the five criteria so-called Argument (or Inference) to the Best Explanation. Those two criteria, in my opinion, are most important, and the other three can be incorporated into that simplification.

I will call this formulation the methodology of Reciprocal Expectations. Simply stated:

For a theory to be most probable, the evidence should expect the theory (plausibility) and the theory should expect the evidence (explanatory power). If, for a given theory, both criteria are fulfilled significantly more than for all competing theories, then the given theory is probable.

Toto, your hypothesis is that "the Christian movement had invented a founder for itself and backdated him," and you claim that the evidence is what we expect from this theory. I will grant you that your hypothesis has at least some explanatory power. If we are adhering to the methodology of Reciprocal Expectations, then that gets you half way there, and it puts you on level with the Bible-believing Christians, whose theory has more explanatory power than anyone. Both you and they are missing plausibility. If you propose that one theory is more probable than another, then your own theory should be a better fit to the patterns that we know about. As far as I am aware, there is no other cult or religion in either history or the present that "invented a founder for itself and backdated him." If there is such a cult or religion, then it is certainly not common. Without plausibility, then you do not seem to have greater relative probability.

So, how do I explain "the missing human element" of Jesus? If Jesus were an actual founder of Christianity, then why don't we have early writings from this human Jesus or an immediate observer?

I think we need to avoid the common mistake of expecting evidence that what would be reasonable only if Christianity began in the modern environment. First-century Palestine was not a time and place when much was written down and preserved. Most people were illiterate. If we are focusing exclusively on the lower class, then almost everyone was illiterate. If we are focusing exclusively on the inhabitants of poor rural areas (i.e. Nazareth), then everyone was illiterate. Period. So, please explain to me this expectation more fully:
Why?

Steven Carr

Didn't he refuse to leave the plane when he saw his worshippers?

And then in 1970 dispatch an Archbishop to launch a mission for Christianity?

I suppose rather in the way that the historical Jesus tried to convert people back to Judaism?

Steven Carr

Historicists keep explaining why they have no evidence.

Why do they do that?

Do they think that a really convincing explanation of the lack of evidence is a substitute for evidence?

ApostateAbe

We do have evidence. See the OP under the heading, "Explaining ancient myths vs. judging ancient myths"

Steven Carr

You have prima facie evidence, just as there is prima facie evidence for the existence of the Maitreya.

The Maitreya exists according to your invented rule that all claimed human founders of religions must exist.

But who doesn't exist according to the rule that 'reality is what exists even when people deny it does.'

How come you are trying to get away with a claim that all religions that claim an existent human founder really did have that human founder exist, when if you lived in Britain, you would know that there is no Maitreya living in the East End of London?