J-D

To you, I take it. Me, I would like to see questions of historicity judged by a consistent standard, independently of any assertions anybody may be making about the religious significance of the allegations under consideration.I agree that either way the original account must have been embellished. But since that's true either way, the fact that there has been embellishment doesn't tell us one way or the other whether there was a historical individual at the root of the original account.Again, this seems to be a red herring. I don't see anybody here asserting that the miracles really happened. That still leaves an open question of historicity.I don't see how you draw this inference. It seems to me that there's a consistent and possible account which says that the Christian movement began as the following of a flesh-and-blood individual ('Jesus', if that was his name) but that Paul subsequently succeeded in entirely replacing its original doctrines with his own views.Ditto.

J-D

But as far as I know, people don't commonly wake up believing that they were in the same dream.
Well, perhaps. Can you point to any examples? In particular, can you point to any examples which form the origin of a religious movement?

Sparrow

Well then you can assert that there were people who believed in UFO’s then as well. I don’t think I said that groups of Christians could not have existed before Paul. All I’ve said is that we have no idea how many there were, how large they were, what they believed or what was the source of that belief. Any writings they may have had are presently lost. I’m not sure what difference there is in CtO and CtI.


We say it is shared after the fact. Actually if there were several independent groups, they could have had very different experiences that were later merged, conflated or suppressed. Other posters have mentioned alien abductions. Abduction claimants stories are different in the details, yet they frequently band together to support each other’s claims for veracity. Alternately consider Near Death Experiences. Again the details vary yet the claimants will support each other, often omitting the conflicting details.


Yes, a person, or possibly persons later conflated into one personage, would provide an explanation for the origin of the Christian movement. Yet there are still questions in this scenario as were listed above. I think the origin of the Christian movement can also be explained without there being an actual Christ, as Doherty has postulated. As I’ve said repeatedly, I lean toward the MJ position from the absence of contemporaneous evidence. I have not said the case is watertight. New evidence could change my opinion. Would you happen to have some?

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that "Messiah-seeking" was a common phenomenon of the 1st century and even before. The DSS appears to reflect this sort of thing with ideas of two Messiahs (1 priest + 1 warrior) rather than the traditional single individual.

What is thought to have inspired this desire to reinterpret traditional expectations is the failure of those expectations implied by the seemingly endless domination of Rome.

ETA: I really don't understand your differentiation between "Christian ideas" and "Christianity-the-movement". They seemed wholly interconnected to me.

Sparrow

I’m not really suggesting, I don’t think, an inconsistent standard. If every one in the discussion understands that all we know of Epictetus is from the writings of one of his students, we can all keep in the back of our minds that Epictetus could be a product of the student’s imagination. But as I’ve not read the accounts of Epictetus student, let me assume that the student has not claimed that Epictetus performed miracles nor rose from the dead in an effort to save humanity from the wrath of a god. Such would be an extraordinary claim and would require, in my mind, more evidence. When you combine the fervor sometimes found with religious claims, with the fact that we have no writings from anyone who claims to have met a earthly Jesus (Epictetus’ student at least met him, right?), we have plenty of reason to consider the historicity of Jesus as somewhat less certain than Epictetus. As I recall, there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus outside of religious documents. Religious documents have in my experience been somewhat less reliable than others.

So we don’t know. One may tend, more or less strongly, one way or another, but one cannot be certain. Yes, I agree with that.

But to take the gospels at face value means to me that you accept the miracles. And to many people, an HJ means accepting the miracles. They may not be posting in this thread. But since the core of Christianity is a resurrection that provides salvation, where is the religion without that miracle? Of what real use is an actual preacher 2000 years ago, not divine, not performing miracles? What unique insight does he offer, not found anywhere else?

Yes, your explanation is possible. Do you have answers for the questions above or just rationalizations or speculation?

Amaleq13

Collective hallucination essentially boils down to an emotionally charged setting + expectations of an experience + at least one member of the group claiming an experience + a tendency over time for recollections of the apparently shared experience to decrease in difference and increase in similarity.

The two most influencial psychological factors appear to be our tendency to want to avoid standing out or being different from "the herd" and our susceptibility to suggestion.

Sensory Deception : A Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (Johns Hopkins Series in Contemporary Medicine and Public Health) (Hardcover) would be a good source for more info if you've got a lot of discretionary income or a good university library nearby.

Clivedurdle

There is some form of correlation between people who have visions and new religions. As we have a written record of Paul having a vision, doesn't that make sense of a place to look?

What happens with people who have visions is that they take pre existing ideas - are there not things about early cave paintings that show possible use of hallucinogens?

We are primed top agerr with each other about what we see - why do ufo descriptions tend to agree with each other?

Paul may have changed pre existing judaic diasporic messianic groups into specialist jesus cult members.

No Robots

Well, this paper has something to say about Daoist alchemical miracles. And belief in miracles is common enough among Buddhists. Let me be perfectly clear. In their essence, Judaism, Christianity, Daoism, and Buddhism are not religions. They are thought systems which are distorted into religions. Thus the miracles which appear central to them when they are considered as religions are understood as trivial or metaphorical when they are considered as thought systems.

His teachings about himself make him unique. In an absolutely unparalleled way he reveals his inner self and thus provides us with a means for managing our own inner selves.


Most people are not secular humanists, either; yet I consider knowledge of secular humanism essential for the well being of humanity. Not everyone has heard or appreciated Mozart's music, yet it would be a loss to humanity as whole if his music were erased from human memory. I'm not saying that everyone has to be devoted to Christ. But there should be no impediments placed before those who do want to know about him. In the past, the priests tried to impede people from gaining direct knowledge about Christ. I believe that mythicists now do effectively the same thing.

Amaleq13

So a fictional character depicted as offering the exact same teachings about himself would not have the same impact on you?

If it is all about the teachings, why does it matter if they actually came from the person in the story or from the author speaking through that character?

Sparrow

I'm not sure I see a difference between 'religion' and 'thought system'. Perhaps you could explain this a bit more. In these miracle cases you raise for Daoists and Buddhists, are belief in these central to the religion or does the whole thing collapse a la Paul's statement about the resurrection? (Sorry, I can't find the passage on short notice)



I was looking for something specific. This sounds to me like something I might have heard from someone who had just finished reading "The Celestine Prophecy". Again, perhaps some additional explanation would be helpful.

Perhaps had you read "Stranger in a Strange Land" you would be a devotee of Valentine Michael Smith. I find valuable insights about humanity from a large number of authors, some of them admittedly writing fiction.

I do not see how mythicists prevent anyone from increasing their direct knowledge unless you prefer an elaborate, well worn lie to the truth. If anything, the modern Christian apologist is more of an impediment to learning about the origin of Christianity. Are you somehow assuming that if mythicists could prove their case that bibles would have to be destroyed or something? I don't get what you're saying here.