steve_bnk

I think you only have to look around today at all the different religions and the sects within each religion to answer your questions. Our fundmanetal nature hasn't changed much in 2000 years.

freetrader

Diogenes the Cynic:


Even if he never existed, still those who passed on the story of him either by word-of-mouth or in writing must have believed he existed and that he did something noteworthy.

Or if they knew this figure was a fiction, there must have been a reason why they chose this particular fiction to pass on, when there were many other fictions that were better than this one, or they could have easily invented a better fiction. Since they were designing a story for Greek-Roman consumption, it makes no sense for them to choose a Galilean figure (whether real or fictional) to serve this purpose.

I have already pointed out the stupidity of choosing a character from a background in which idol-worshipping is condemned -- even the mere fabrication of idols. This only made the recruiters' job more difficult in selling their hero figure to the intended market. No one promoting the fictional Jesus theory has answered how anyone could seriously create a hero figure for Greeks and Romans who comes out of an anti-idol-worshipping culture.

Until you give a reasonable explanation why they chose such an unlikely figure, we should not assume they created such a figure, but rather that he was already in existence and was a compelling choice for them. And then of course, AFTER adopting him, they might proceed to add their own fictional or theological elements to the already-existing figure. This makes far more sense. The theory holds up much better if the myth-makers start out with an ALREADY-EXISTING hero figure around whom to then add their own fictions.

There's more and more evidence that this is really the way myths evolve. Discoveries at the ancient site of Troy, for example, give evidence that some of the characters in Homer were real historical figures. But of course after choosing these characters as his starting point, Homer then proceeded to add his own fictions to make the story fit his vision, and also to fill in details not provided in the word-of-mouth traditions he had available to him.

So the theory that the gospel-creators started out with a totally fictitious Jesus figure, disconnected from any historical individual who actually existed, goes contrary to the facts of how myths actually come into being. You cannot provide any credible examples of such myths coming out of the ancient world, though obviously in some cases there is no way to know if there was any real historical figure and you could speculate that there was not.

But by the time of Jesus, or even a bit sooner, when written records were becoming more common and oral traditions soon became put into written accounts, you probably cannot give any credible example of a mythical hero figure, believed to be historical, who actually began originally as a totally fictitious figure, or at least not one who became popularized within 100 years from the alleged time he lived.

"Oh! there's hundreds of examples, they abound all over, go educate yourself!" etc. etc. OK sure -- how about an example. This was not common -- saying Jesus was a fictional figure singularizes him into a special one-of-a-kind category with a too-low probability -- far more likely is the common scenario of a real historical person around whom a body of fiction later accumulated.

How did the different factional groups -- essenes, pharisees, zealots, gnostics -- come to get their ideas put into these accounts? If Jesus was a real historical figure, and especially if he had an early reputation as a miracle-worker, this is easy to explain -- each group or each individual contributor simply took its own ideas and put them into the mouth of Jesus, and later these separate writings were collected by editors or redactors who pieced together what they hoped would be a reliable picture of the original Jesus figure.

But if that original Jesus figure did not exist, and the writers made him up as a fictional character, how did they come to agree on the particular details of where he lived, when he lived, how he was killed, and so on? Why didn't they each invent their own separate Christ figure in their several separate accounts?

How did the separate factions all come to invent one figure with one name from one province (Galilee) and at the same period (near the end of Pilate's term) and one trial scenario, and with the same cast of characters, etc.? This is like the proverbial hundred chimpanzees set to work at keyboards typing random keystrokes to see how long (assuming they could go on forever without dying) it would be until one of them types out the entire Encyclopedia Britannica by chance. (Or was it 50 chimpanzees?)


No, both the miracle-worker as well as the teacher/prophet traditions are found in the earliest roots of the cult.

But where did the teacher/prophet tradition come from? To say he was a prophet or teacher means more correctly that he was a recognized figure into whose mouth was placed a large mass of teachings from the different factions wanting to use him as a communicating tool for their various ideas.

But why did they choose this particular instrument for such a purpose? No one has explained how such a choice as this was made. How did this name or this hero figure come to be the depository for all these different teachings from various rival camps? Why would opposing groups use the same figure as their mouthpiece?

It's OK to say he was understood to be a teacher or prophet, but there must be a process that produced that understanding, or that made him into such a figure. If he actually performed the miracle healing acts, we have the explanation how his reputation got established and he became the mouthpiece for the various teachings from rival camps. But otherwise we have no explanation how he became this teacher.

If his only activity was teaching, then he would have attracted only the teachings of the ideological school he belonged to and spoke for, without other groups also trying to use him as their mouthpiece. It's unrealistic to think he spoke all the conflicting teachings of the different camps, or that each camp would want him for their mouthpiece if they saw him speaking for other competing camps. But if he had a reputation as someone with real supernormal power, then they would all want to claim him for their school.

This is another unique feature of Jesus: he was used by conflicting camps to be their mouthpiece. This could also be said of certain past teachers once they had gained their reputation as a great teacher, after many centuries of being revered by millions of disciples, but not of a teacher whose reputation goes back only a few decades. To become the mouthpiece for conflicting schools, Jesus had to have been recognized for something of greater impact than just being another babbling prophet.


No, you're missing the question here. In this case "forgotten" really means forgotten, not remembered in a distorted form. Jesus has been made into a god. So he must have done something unusual or important or noteworthy to attract that attention, no matter what distortion of him might have taken place. What did he do that was unusual or important or noteworthy, such that people made him into a god?

He was a teacher? Yes, in some cases a teacher could be made into a god. Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, etc. But, only if they had a long public career in which to establish their reputation. You cannot give an example of a widely-recognized great teacher who had a public career of less than 5 years. That just does not happen.

"Oh yes it does, all the time, millions of examples!!" etc. OK, let's hear an example. Where is there another example of a great teacher who had a public career of less than 5 years? JC seems to be the only example, a unique one-of-a-kind case. Such singularity suggests that there may be something more. Maybe it's something simple and easy to recognize rather than something complicated.

Whatever it is, it has to be something that could be transmitted or communicated to others, so these would grasp it easily and pass it on to still more recipients. Was it his wonderful teachings which were superior to those of other great teachers? I.e., all those ideas he borrowed from pharisees and essenes and zealots and gnostics (or rather, which they put into his mouth)? Not likely.

Was he more charismatic than any other great teachers? That would be helpful if he had a long public career in which to show off his charisma to enough listeners.

However uplifting his teachings and his charisma may have been, it's virtually impossible that these would cause him to be made into a god without a long public career in which to amass his following. But if the miracle stories are true, we have the explanation.


But there is some connection between the two:

By drawing this analogy you are suggesting there really was an historical Jesus figure, but that he was much different than the Christ of Christianity. And that's all you really mean when you say "he never existed." But what is the original part that really did exist?

The St. Nicholas figure really did exist and did something to cause the legend to get started. However, unlike Jesus, he had a long career as a Catholic cleric attaining to the office of Bishop. Add to this his good deeds and special attention to children, and he became mythologized into a wonderworker.

Is there any example of an historical figure who later became mythologized into a wonderworker and who did NOT have a long illustrious career in which he attained a position of recognized status during his lifetime? It seems Jesus the Galilean is the only example, which suggests that maybe in this case the "wonderworker" may have been the real historical figure.

Even though everyone is saying there's plenty of other examples, no one comes up with any. Santa Claus, Vespasian, Sai Baba, Apollonius, etc. etc. -- all of them had long careers in which they established their reputation and status.

Shouldn't a curious "inquiring mind" want to find an explanation for this, even if avoiding the miracle-worker hypothesis? Shouldn't the rational truthseeker see something amazing about this and say "yes, this is one of the real mysteries of history" rather than pretending "Oh! there's hundreds of other examples! bosh! same as all the others! nothing unique!"


No, the "him" they're talking about is their own Christ figure they are presenting. Why are they talking about this figure?

Paul is talking about some Christ figure. Why is he talking about this imaginary figure he concocted? Who wants to hear about such a figure? Why does he want to talk about something irrelevant and of no meaning to his audience? Why would anyone listen?

And the gospel writers are presenting their version of a Christ figure which they invented. Why are they inventing and presenting this figure to somebody of a different culture which worships idols? Why would the Greeks and Romans be interested in such a Jewish figure? Why would anyone want to sell them such a figure? for what purpose?

Don't say they aren't talking about this figure. They are inventing and putting forth a meaningless hero figure for no reason to a culture uninterested in such a Jewish figure. Why are they engaging in such nonsense? Why are they writing and publishing such an irrelevant story about an irrelevant hero figure they invented for no purpose and that no one wants to hear about?

Yes, people create myths and hero legends. But these begin with a kernel of truth in them, and the legends are designed to appeal to the audience they're presented to, not to offend them and mock their traditions, as the Christ figure does to the Greeks and Romans. Why are they inventing a figure who has no importance, no meaning, no identification, no relevant point of contact to the audience they are presenting him to? You cannot cite other examples of such myth-making as this.


There's no reason to say Paul targeted "the most disenfranchised classes" or that such groups were especially persuaded by him as opposed to other groups.

And in what sense "persuade" them? Persuade them to what? What is the object or substance he presents to them to "persuade" them about? You think anyone can come along and babble out any nonsense and people will be "persuaded"? That makes no sense. You cannot name another example in history where someone just babbled out nonsense to people who had no connection to what was being babbled but somehow were turned into believers or followers of the babbling one. It is not so. Give an example.

Preachers and prophets babble to their audience subject matter that the audience relates to, not unrelated nonsense that means nothing to them. As you have framed it, the terms "Christ" and "crucifixion" and "resurrection" were nothing but meaningless babble or grunting sounds which meant nothing more to the listeners than the shrieks of a lunatic locked away in a padded cell. To say he "persuaded" anyone with such vocalisations is itself babble and means no more than saying he "aardvarked" them or "shlonkered" them.

No, the only way his preaching such language could be well received by them is that they had the same word-of-mouth tradition he had about the Jesus figure from Galilee who went to Jerusalem and was crucified. And this story would have been of no interest to them if it did not contain some important ingredient in it that made the Jesus figure important to them even though he was of a totally different culture than theirs.

But to suggest they would "convert" or be "persuaded" by empty babble with no content, or that they would just believe anything promised to them without any connection to something they recognized, or that they would somehow "convert" to an abstract disembodied hero figure who offers nothing tangible and exists nowhere except in empty words from a babbling mouth -- IT IS NOT TRUE that the people he preached to were that stupid, or that any people anywhere or anytime in history were that stupid. You cannot name a case where people were stupid in that sense.

Yes, you can give examples of people believing irrationally or believing something that wasn't true, but they were given something tangible to believe in, something they related to, they were lied to in some cases, or were promised something tangible and were given some sign or credible authority figure as a source they could believe in, i.e., an authority figure they already related to. They had to be given something credible from their experience which then persuaded them that this one promising something to them was the genuine article.

If you think people are so stupid as you describe, then go out on the street and start babbling nonsense phrases at passers-by and see how many of them "convert" to your babble. Find some poor people somewhere and promise them hope based on some babble words you made up. It is not true that they will follow after you and "convert" to any hocus-pocus you babble at them. Yes, you can deceive them with lies and false promises, but you must connect your words to something they relate to and already believe in.

To get any further with this, you need to clarify how much you separate Paul's version of the Christ figure from the gospel account version. Specifically, you have to do something with 1 Cor. 11:23-26 -- either (1) the "last supper" was Paul's invention and later taken over by the gospel writers, or (2) they inserted this into Paul's writing later and he knew nothing of it, or (3) at least this one event about a human Jesus in history is part of a (word-of-mouth?) tradition prior to both Paul and the gospel writers and Paul identifies his Christ figure with this historic Jesus. Probably one of these three has to be the case.

It's difficult to answer you without knowing which of the above three is your theory. If (3) is the correct explanation, then it is admitted that there was an oral tradition separate from Paul and the gospel accounts and which Paul relied upon. Paul's claims that he derived it all directly from God doesn't mean anything. A scientist or scholar could claim all his information comes "directly from God" because God inspired him to do the research and helped him to interpret the data -- such a claim means nothing and can be dismissed.

Paul's pretense that his information was "handed down" to him independently of human sources is irrelevant to the point here. From 1 Cor. 11:23-26 it is clear his story connects into that of the gospel accounts, and this has to be clarified when you claim he invented his own Christ figure independently of them or a common oral tradition.


Because no one is answering. No one yet has explained how a nobody whose public life was so short (or who didn't even exist at all) could be made into a god. It wasn't enough for him to be a good speaker. Perhaps over a period of 20 years or more of preaching he could earn enough of a following to become famous and eventually deified. But not less than 5 years. I keep repeating it to challenge you or someone to come up with another example of such a case.


If that is so, then there should be another example of a non-existent fictional character, who was believed to be historical, who was made into a god within a hundred years of the time when he allegedly lived. No examples have yet been given, and so you cannot claim such a thing is likely to have happened or that this explains the Jesus case.


Again, for this to be clear, you have to explain the connection of Paul's "last supper" text (1 Cor. 11:23-26) to the gospel version. Then we can go from there.


Turned who into a God? Now you're assuming Paul's Christ already existed before him, and he took that figure and turned him into a God. Is that it? If that's the hypothesis, then you're assuming there was already a word-of-mouth Jesus tradition, and Paul adopted that figure and added his interpretation. And you don't know what else was already a part of that tradition. You cannot decree that this or that part was or was not part of the tradition.
(You cannot say the miracle stories of Jesus were not part of the tradition.)


"inherited"? You mean they didn't adopt it willingly but it was in their genes or something? Why do you want to avoid the idea that they made a CHOICE? Is it because you realize that by your theory they would have been stupid to make such a choice? Why would anyone CHOOSE Paul's Christ figure, if this figure was an abstraction that had nothing in it of any substance but was only a run of meaningless babble? What was there to choose?

Since there really could have been no such people who "inherited" such a meaningless babble regimen, there was no one there to make up any miracle stories. Why make up miracle stories about a hero figure who is nothing but empty babble? Again, you cannot give any example of such myth-making anywhere else in history.

You can give examples of legends that were invented by hero-worshippers, but first you have to identify the hero, you have to show some substance or a core of reality from which the myth-makers begin the process of creating the tales about the hero. You have not shown this.

I.e., you have to start from something -- let's call it a number, like 1 or 2. And then from there you can explain how the myth-makers multiply it to produce 4 or 5 or 6. But to start from zero -- you cannot start from zero and multiply the nothing into anything more than zero. You're saying they started from nothing, except empty babble. You shouldn't call it "Pauline Christianity" but Pauline "babble" or "babbleology".


Make WHO more competitive? There has to be a who, a substance, something there to identify with. You're saying they had a nothing, some empty words, abstract grunting sounds from Paul, vocal noises which signified nothing and had no importance or relevance to anything -- no more meaning than if you were to randomly stop a passer-by and grunt in his face and expect him to "convert" to your grunting and "inherit" your cult from you because your grunting somehow made a special impression on him.

Where does anything like this happen? Where is someone made into a god through a process like this? Show us an example of such a thing.

Yes, everyone wants to compete. But you have to start out with a product to sell first. You don't just start "competing" in the abstract without a product. Without identifying the product they were trying to sell, you can't claim they were trying to make it more competitive.

show_no_mercy

I assume no answer to this simple question is forthcoming.

freetrader

Diogenes the Cynic, continued

Only if they had an established reputation earned through a long career. I know you don't like this repetition, but you keep ignoring this point. Give us an example of someone who was deified whose public career was less than 5 years and who was a nobody. Until you give an example, you're missing the point to just keep repeating that humans were made into gods, like the Roman emperors etc. That does not explain how Jesus was made into a god.


Decided WHO was this dying and resurrecting god? Again you're assuming the Jesus figure already existed PRIOR to Paul and that he then gave an interpretation to this figure. Again you need to clarify if the Jesus figure in 1 Cor. 11:23 was the same as an already-existing Jesus figure in a word-of-mouth tradition or if Paul invented this and thus is the founder of the "last supper" scene.

If this Jesus figure was an already-existing part of a current word-of-mouth tradition, then Paul did not make up or invent this figure but was adopting it from others before him, and you have to acknowledge the likelihood that this tradition contained more in it than Paul makes mention of.

If Paul invented this Christ figure entirely, so there was no other word-of-mouth tradition current, then again you're saying this empty babble was the essence of Paul's preaching and his "converts" were "persuaded" by this empty babble which meant nothing to them and had no more importance or relevance to their lives than some random animal noises at the zoo.


It's extraordinary if a new religion starts up from these random grunting noises Paul was making that caused people to "convert" and "believe the gospel," i.e., these random meaningless vocal noises Paul was bellowing out. It's extraordinary in the sense that there are no other examples in all history where a new religious movement springs up and spreads based on empty words or grunting sounds that mean nothing to the listeners.

True, it's not extraordinary (unheard-of) that people make incoherent vocalisings -- an insane asylum has such people in it, and there are a few nut cases roaming the streets of any city muttering incoherently, and there are meaningless groans and grunts that come from extreme drug addicts and alcohol addicts and others, and there are some sidewalk preachers (maybe in the above "nut-case" category) who bellow incoherently in public places as people walk by and ignore them.

But what is extraordinary (and actually non-existent) is for any of these vocalisers to go out and systematically seek an audience and try to convert listeners to their incoherent babblings and further for such listeners to actually respond and become "converts" to the babbler and start holding meetings and form local communities to promote such babblings and record them for future posterity and form a new religion based on the babblings, as though they say anything relevant or anything of substance.

This describes Paul and his converts, if he did and spoke as you say, preaching an abstract imaginary "Christ" figure detached from anything real, calling the figure "crucified" and "resurrected" with no meaning and no relevance to the hearers of this. And to think people would respond and "convert" to such empty ranting and raving is ludicrous.

Surely you cannot name any other example in history where such a farce took place, outside of perhaps a tiny isolated cottage cult here or there where a few lost wackos happened to stumble upon each other and exchanged a few grunts back and forth. You can't name a case where a new religion or cult got started this way and spread.

No, what happens is that the "founder" of a cult speaks a language the hearers understand and offers them fulfillment of their hopes with symbols and promises they can relate to, using ideas they are already familiar with, citing ancient authorities recognized by the hearers, appealing to the gods they already worship and to traditions they already honor or to familiar experiences they can remember and reflect on for confirmation of the new sayings being presented to them.

Something "new" can be good as long as it is presented in certain familiar formats -- there has to be a balance between the "new" and the familiar. If there is nothing familiar to give context to the "new" symbols or language being presented, then it is only chaos and meaningless noise -- you can't name a case where a new religion or cult formed from the "converts" only being bombarded with meaningless noise to which they responded.

No, the ones responding favorably heard or saw already-recognized symbols or traditions they approved of and so they made a personal change or "conversion" or "rebirth" within that ongoing framework that remained constant for them.

If Paul was talking about a word-of-mouth tradition already understood by his listeners, which included the Galilean Jesus figure who had been crucified and then rose again, then this "crucified Christ" and "risen Christ" language meant something to them and they could react to it and receive Paul's new interpretations of it.

But if the whole language spoken by him was of an unknown Christ figure and unfamiliar "crucifixion" and "resurrection" symbols understood only by himself, then to the hearers he could only have been an incoherent babbler or nuisance noise fit only to be silenced, like a broken car horn that won't stop honking, or an annoying TV commercial you zap with the mute button.


Just him alone? In other words, if Paul had not existed, or if he had gotten trampled by a camel and killed, then Jesus never would have been made into a god and the Christian movement would have been snuffed out?


This silly-talk answer is just your way of admitting you have no idea why they chose this nobody Jesus to be their messiah figure.

The silly suggestion that it was only Paul alone who thought to make Jesus into a god comes from recognizing the virtual impossibility of such an irrelevant character being made into a god by an alien culture and so implying that it wasn't really their choice but something foisted upon them against their will somehow.

But this feeble explanation is also impossible, because no one without any political power can force others to adopt a new god, and you cannot cite any examples from history where people were forced by someone who had no power to adopt a new god figure. Your continued reliance on such nonsensical one-of-a-kind historical firsts indicates you just have no explanation how Jesus got made into a god.

Can't you make your case without continuing to propose these impossible one-of-a-kind historical-first scenarios? By continuing to do this, you are unwittingly making Jesus (or Paul?) into a "god" yourself. Never in history did one person by himself succeed in making someone minor into a god that was then believed in by thousands of followers.

All that was special about Paul is that he could write. To suggest he was the only one who thought of making Jesus into a god is just less than silly. He's the first one we have writing such a thing -- that's all. Just because he wrote down such ideas does not mean he was the only one who thought such a thing. Do you imagine that no one ever had a thought except those who knew how to write? Everyone else had no brain and never did any thinking? You're talking as though you imagine everyone in those days knew how to write.

For every case of it being written down, the overwhelming probability is that hundreds of others (if not thousands) were thinking the same thing and not writing it down. That no one else thought such a thing is even less likely than the possibility that some miracle acts took place.


You are getting into an unlikely scenario now. This Jesus prophet figure you're talking about did nothing noteworthy to suggest he had any special power. So that a follower would later have these visions of him promising to return is peculiar. It would make more sense if the prophet figure had done something to demonstrate some kind of supernormal powers (or the followers believed he had).

There was belief among some Jews that maybe Elijah could make a reappearance, but Elijah was believed to have demonstrated supernormal powers, plus he had centuries of tradition under his belt by the time he was revered this way. It's highly irregular for someone to imagine a deceased person is returning from the dead who was not of high repute and not believed to have done something of a supernormal nature.


Now your scenario has become highly improbable. We should not assume anything like this took place. Not if Jesus did nothing to show any supernormal powers (or no one believed he did). You cannot give an example of such a thing -- the followers believing a prophet is coming back who had never in his earthly life shown any kind of supernormal power. The only slim chance of this is if the followers are a very tiny group of misfits, like a small order or clan of a dozen or so members.


This is silly. Nothing like this has ever happened, where a cult that lasts one year at most starts imagining its dead leader is coming back as a hero figure but had no ideas of him ever having any supernormal power. Only if they believed he did real miracle acts, thus showing some unique power, would they start having such illusions of him coming back from the dead afterwards.

If "revived" here means a half-dozen followers get excited for a brief period, maybe it's plausible. But if anything significant is intended, you're strrrrrrrretching it into another one-of-a-kind historical first here. This scenario has never happened -- nothing even close to it, where the followers succeed in convincing a large number to believe in their hero figure and their movement spreads rapidly, and yet the real historical figure himself was not reputed originally to have done any miracle acts and had a short public career.


This is more fairy tale than the miracle stories are. If he didn't believe this Jesus figure had ever done any miracles, he would not have such visions of him and would not believe this figure could offer any salvation. Rather, he would find some other hero to be his savior figure. There would be nothing here to "export" to anyone. There would be nothing for the miracle traditions to accrete onto. When you have no product to begin with, you have nothing to export or accrete miracle stories to.

This dead prophet was nothing. YOU CAN'T START WITH NOTHING. You need the ready-made tradition of miracle acts done by the prophet as a start-off point. These Gentiles would have no attraction to an alien savior figure who has no credentials and no reputation among them for anything of importance, and they would have no motivation to invent any miracle stories. Rather, they would look for a hero from their own culture to make into a miracle-worker, or they would look for an already-existing miracle-worker or at least for some prophet who had a long career mesmerizing audiences with his oratory.

For the product to sell, there has to be a demand for it, and there's no reason to believe there was any demand for an irrelevant unknown Jew to become a god for Greeks and Romans.


Your case falls flat as long as you persist in demanding we believe in such impossible historical firsts. Give us a Jesus scenario which doesn't require us to accept your premise that an historical first must take place which never before happened, as in this current scenario.


It's totally implausible because there is no example in history of anything resembling it. If you add the ingredient that the prophet figure enjoyed a long illustrious career giving speeches in public and could move the crowd with his charisma, then it might become plausible, as he would have time to accumulate a following. But to make it similar to the Jesus case it would have to be a very short public career with no time to accumulate a following.


If Jesus really did the miracle acts, then there is an explanation for all that followed. But with your scenario, there is no explanation of what followed, without assuming one-of-a-kind unprecedented events such as we know never occurred before in history.

But we do know that there are thousands of anecdotes of healing acts which allegedly happened outside known medical science, though we don't know if any ever really occurred.

Believing something which reportedly has precedence in the form of anecdotes (reported miracle healing acts), though no cases are proven, is at least as rational as believing something which we know has never happened before (your scenario above or anything like it).

What is certain is that the reputation of Jesus as a miracle-worker can be explained easily by the hypothesis that he really did perform the miracle acts, whereas no other hypothesis can explain without great difficulty how he got this reputation, i.e., without supposing highly improbable one-of-a-kind historical-first scenarios.

Furthermore, in most or all other cases of reputed miracle-workers, we can explain easily how those reputations were acquired without needing to assume those miracle acts really took place. So the same case for the miracles of Jesus does not necessarily apply to other reputed miracle-worker examples.


We have as much evidence that he was a miracle-worker as we have evidence for the above. Only if you start from the premise that miracle stories are automatically ruled out no matter what can you dictate that there is less evidence for them, i.e., by simply defining "evidence" so as to exclude such stories.


We have the same evidence of his being originally perceived as a miracle worker that we have of him being perceived as a teacher.


translation: you don't have an answer. You need to start giving real answers. There were many who chose to make Jesus into this god figure, not just one person. You have to explain how they made this choice. To say Paul made the choice for them, Paul alone, and then everyone felt compelled by this is just too ludicrous to take seriously. You don't believe that -- you're reaching down to very low levels of desperation with such nonsense.

No other precedent from history comes remotely close to the kind of silliness you are concocting here, i.e., that one person alone somehow coerced thousands of others into making a god out of a nobody.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not a mythicist. I don't think Paul invented Jesus. I think he just adopted and filtered a preexisting Jesus movement through his own psychosis. Whatever the original movement or historical figure behind it may have thought or represented has essentially been lost. All we have is what evolved from Paul's fever dreams about it.

From what little information we CAN infer about the original movement, Jesus was not originally seen as a god or a miracle worker (though some kind of ritual faith healings and exorcisms are possible and would have been as unremarkable then as they are now), but as some kind of wisdom teacher or apocalyptic prophet (depending on how you want to layer the sayings traditions) whose death by crucifixion was later interpreted by Paul (informed by his own psychosis) as some kind of cosmic Pascal-surrogate event. There were also some other radically different kinds of Jesus movements spinning off in other directions, but Paul's won out eventually, and the desire by others to know more about an original historical figure who had become obscured almost to the point of pure legend led other to compose hagiographical narratives (largely cut and pasted from Hebrew scripture) which included attributions of miracles to bring him into accord with competing pagan gods. Whatever Jesus really was is irrelevant to the accretion of his myth.

Diogenes the Cynic

One person convinced a few hundred. It was Constantine who did the coercing.

Sai Baba has convinced millions that he can do miracle. By your logic, that means it must be true, huh?

freetrader

Diogenes the Cynic, continued:

As is the case with most historical figures before printing was invented (and probably up to the 20th century).


That is not true. The earliest literature on Jesus includes claims of miracles done by him. (The notion that the Q Document contains no miracle stories is false.)


Only if we accept your impossible hypothetical scenarios which are unlike anything that ever happened in history. You cannot show any other examples of a nobody being made into a god, nor any fictional figure who was believed to be historical and became worshipped as a god within 100 years after the time he allegedly lived.


Instead of refuting assertions that were never made, you need to respond to the following, which was asked and has not been answered yet:

When in history did anyone ever get made into a god who was a nobody who had no credentials or established reputation, such as a long career as a wise sage or other revered figure? If you can't give an example, then you must admit that Jesus is a unique case who stands apart from all other examples ever of prophets, hero figures, reputed miracle workers, etc.


Then why are you finding it so difficult? Why is it that every explanation you offer requires an impossible scenario such as there is no precedent for ever in history?


Why don't you get me somewhere by giving an example of such a thing from anywhere else in history.


If so, then he was chosen at random to be this messiah figure -- they (or Paul) could just as easily have chosen any bum off the street. So they just grabbed him at random, from among thousands of passers-by? or from thousands of names? or from hundreds of "Jesus" (Joshua)-named individuals? You need to explain how they settled on this one figure.


Saying this happened explains nothing. What was the "seed"? Why was this "exported"? For what purpose? Why the Jesus figure? Why to the Gentiles who cared nothing for this obscure Jewish figure? Why would they do anything other than laugh at Paul and his hallucinations? He had absolutely nothing to offer them.


Yes it's obvious you believe this happened -- but you still are not explaining how these stories got started, how they were accreted to this nobody, why anyone would want to accrete them to him. This goes contrary to everything we know about how miracle stories get accreted. They accrete to known and respected figures, not to a nobody of an alien culture.


Yes, change occurred. But the original account of the Jesus figure was the same, including claims of his miracle acts. You've not explained how this element got added, without assuming scenarios which are unprecedented and impossible.


We can draw conclusions about all those historical figures. Just because much (most) of the facts about them are lost does not mean we cannot draw some important conclusions about them which have a reasonable possibility of being true.

We generally rule out miracle stories about them, but we cannot automatically rule out ALL miracle stories -- in some cases there is partial truth behind it. For some legendary heros we should expect there may have been unusual events, and so the improbable in some cases should be considered, not absolutely excluded.


Assuming they're fictional, such legends required centuries to evolve. Nothing about these legendary figures gives any explanation how the Jesus figure was made into a god in less than 100 years.


You mean about his grunting noises -- his "risen Christ" language? What was there to know or verify? It was all nonsense to them (if your theory is correct) and they would have laughed him off the stage. There wouldn't have even been an audience -- who would stand (or sit) around and listen to such dribble?


Why do you keep repeating that they had no choice? -- that's garbage. They did not have to put up with such nonsensical babbling sounds. People don't respond to babbling noises and suddenly "convert" to empty words. They had plenty of choice, and if your scenario were correct, their choice would have been to just ignore the babbling idiot or maybe run him out of town.


No, you're proving my point. You can't give any explanation why or how this Jesus figure was made into a god or why the Greek or Roman audience would do anything but laugh at such nonsense, even though you're desperate to find an answer and come up with impossible scenarios in your exasperation. All of which indicates there must have been something noteworthy about the original Galilean Jesus figure to make him unique in history, which you can't bring yourself to admit.


Believe what was true? According to you, his "resurrection" babblings were not about the Galilean Jesus figure who was believed to have done miracles and risen from the tomb. So what were they about? They were about nothing -- they were meaningless grunting noises about nothing anyone comprehended, just empty words and vocalisations any nut case on the street could have uttered.

If Paul had preached the cockeyed nonsense you're saying he did, then of course they wouldn't "believe" it -- they would have done nothing but laugh at it and shove him off the nearest cliff. People do not respond to or "convert" to or "believe in" empty worthless grunting sounds that say nothing.


There's only one way to make sense of Paul: He was expounding upon an event ALREADY FAMILIAR to his audience -- i.e., he was interpreting to them the resurrection of Jesus (giving his explanation of it) as they ALREADY KNEW about it from other sources, i.e., from an oral tradition (and possibly some preliminary written accounts).

He claimed direct contact with the risen one, hoping to gain recognition from the audience based on that. So he made claims about this special source or this special authority given to him. Yes, they were gullible to buy that, but then again, they half agreed with him already and so were willing to go along with his claim to authority.

They would not have given him this leeway if they did not already recognize the Jesus story from word-of-mouth sources and were not already predisposed to like Paul's interpretation of it.

The same is true today -- it's so obvious. Can you imagine any preacher today having any success preaching some totally new savior figure out of the blue, with no credentials? Despite all their rhetorical skills, they can have no success unless they start with something the audience already identifies with. Then, from that starting point where the audience is ready for it, the preacher can go on to interpret and be creative with the pre-existing story already familiar to the audience.

Without these pre-existing conditions, such as the state of mind of his audience and the existence of an oral tradition about Jesus ALREADY IN CIRCULATION, the whole scenario of Paul traveling to these people and preaching to them about this resurrected savior figure would be sheer nonsense. They already knew of the resurrection story about Jesus and were prepared to hear Paul's (or anyone else's) interpretation of it.


You mean the Jesus figure pre-existed? So they were not fabricating a new hero figure, but taking a previous one already with some reputation? And what was his reputation? Why this person and not a Greek or Roman, which would have been a more logical choice?


Yes we do. We believe Herodotus and Polybius and Tacitus and so on for many events they wrote about centuries after those events. Just because there's an increasing element of doubt as the gap widens doesn't mean we reject those reported events.


Such claims have a lower probability of being true. They are more doubtful, but not to be absolutely always ruled out.


There is evidence. But there are degrees of evidence, both as to the quality of it and also the quantity. Plus there is the interpretation of it, or fitting it in with whatever else we know.

We have evidence that Jesus did miracles but don't all draw the same conclusions from it. We can argue whether the evidence is strong or weak, but that evidence does exist. You cannot dictate that every claim about something unexplainable by current known science is ruled out as evidence. More doubtful, yes, but not absolutely ruled out.


I.e., in surviving documents. You assume this, but you're not sure. But you're sure it's true that he was assassinated, even if the evidence for it is not in surviving documents from a contemporary. You believe many events happened without requiring such contemporary witness.


It is agreed that "impossible" claims require stronger evidence. But evidence can still be strong even though it's not a surviving document from a contemporary.


Yes there is. They discovered an interview of a Roman centurion who hid inside the tomb and saw Jesus sit up and rub his eyes. And he overheard Jesus say "Well, time to get back to work" as he departed.


You mean the first recorded claim in a surviving document -- yes, most events worthy of note were passed on by word of mouth for decades before finally being recorded in writing, and of course the vast majority of documents did not survive.


Dogmatic absolutism is no guide to determining the truth about anything. You seem to not grasp the concept of degrees of evidence or of probability. Increments of additional evidence can increase the probability of something incrementally. Each additional piece of evidence does count. Some claims have more evidentiary value than others.

The black-and-white dogma that nothing about a miracle event can ever count as evidence is just your own personal faith-based dogma, not a principle of science. It is not unscientific to just say "We don't know -- this claim has lower probability."


That 2 + 2 = 5, no we never consider such a claim. But something improbable, something that goes contrary to the current known science, is recorded and relegated to the less probable category. It goes in the "we don't know" or "it's improbable" category. To arbitrarily exclude it just because it contains something dubious is not scientific. Saying "we don't know" or "we have doubts about this" is the true scientific response, not dogmatic pronouncements that certain things are absolutely ruled out for all time no matter what.


We agree that it would be wrong to present in a history textbook that Jesus performed miracle acts. No one suggests that a historian should present such a thing as fact. Rather, the historian should say "These claims are made and we don't know whether any of it is true or not."

The historian's job is not to dictate to students what to think. Rather, it is to report the facts that are proven and explain something about the sources and the higher and lower probabilities or reliabilities of different kinds of sources.

Any pronouncement that something is absolutely "impossible" and must always be excluded no matter what is not a historian's job. A good historian will make it clear that there is a huge volume of material that goes in the "we don't know" category. Or what we don't know is much more than what we know for sure.


It is not the historian's job to judge what is physically impossible and consign certain claims to such a category to be excluded. Rather, he notes the greater improbability of some claims, or higher degree of dispute or controversy, and puts them in the "we don't know" category and leaves it up to each student's personal judgment.


Yes, it's dogmatic to brand something as "impossible" when it is only improbable, lumping all things you don't like into one "impossible" category and pretending they are all the same, when the truth is that there are varying degrees of improbability, and at some point some of the "improbable" items actually turn out to be true, even though they were once in the improbable category.

It's dogmatic to think your own claims are 100% certain and those you disagree with are 100% impossible and there's no degrees of probability in between.

Yes, it's dogmatic to not recognize any shades of doubt, not even a minute degree or tiny increment of doubt when it comes to empirical data and reports of past events, or to condemn a wide range of claims just because they cast doubt on current established science paradigms. To condemn doubt and insist on absolute certainty is being dogmatic.

And it's dogmatic to presume to define for everyone what is a priori when it is only your own opinion you are imposing. Only a dogmatist pretends to prescribe for everyone else what is "impossible" and what is "a priori".


But you don't know what Paul's "mission" was. You said he had a "mission" but can't say what his "mission" was? or what he was trying to accomplish?

The reason you won't answer that is because as you've described it, his "mission" was just to babble empty nonsense words which Greeks and Romans were supposed to "convert" to in some way, and you know that doesn't make any sense.

You know that if Paul really did what you said, then he would have been laughed at by the listeners or taken out and lynched. Because he was peddling silly nonsense phrases about a "risen Christ" and so on which would have been utter nonsense if you're right that there was no already-existing oral tradition about Jesus having performed miracle acts and resurrected as the gospel accounts describe.


It was a Jewish concept, not familiar to Greeks. It was a very uncommon word in Greek, until the Christians adopted it. Why did he choose a Jewish concept to peddle to Greeks? If he wanted Greeks to "convert" to his new cult, why didn't he use Greek concepts to sell to them?


If it's not extraordinary, then why don't you give us any other example from history, from any period, when someone went to a foreign land to "convert" people with babble they didn't relate to, peddling to them an unknown alien hero figure which had nothing to do with their culture, and thereby succeeded in recruiting thousands of believers and starting up a new religion that spread to thousands more.


That's not an answer. Here's the question again:

Why did Paul use the Jesus Christ figure (or the dead Galilean) to make his point? (Whether it was only Paul or also others, like the gospel writers -- that's not the issue.) Why did he (or they) choose this figure as a vehicle to promote his (their) cause or "mission"? Why didn't he choose some Greek hero, like Hercules or Socrates or someone the Greeks could relate to? Or a Roman hero?

Just because we today think Jesus was significant does not mean people back then in Athens and Ephesus and Corinth thought he was. To them he was nothing. Why would Paul pick this unlikely figure to serve his "mission" purpose among these alien Greeks?

Susan2

Of course one person alone can coerce thousands of others into making a god out of a nobody. That one person would just have to know how to do it.

Here are two examples of how it is done. Through public schools. Indoctrination of children, with or without parental consent.


I am sure this is what happened in ancient Rome, and all across Europe. We see it in Islam today, and Catholic Schools, Christian schools and in public schools.

A modern example of the same process is shown below.


People who are considered undesirable are excluded from curriculums, even if they were worthy or desirable people for our societies to know, their story forgotten or become myths.

Susan2

I think if you start with the premise that the miracles are added to the story to make Jesus palatable, especially to children then one has a clearer explanation for how the New Testament came about, and spread so rapidly. Gain the support of the upper class. Add competition into the mix, such as perks to coerce adult compliance, give it a few generation........madatory state education of children........BOOM! One big bang. Encouraging racism would be necessary, and of course playing on peoples fears through intimidation, and even psychological.

Diogenes the Cynic

Buddhism.