Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-10-2008, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Someone wrote the letters (just as someone wrote the gospels), so there's no problem with the existence of the author.

There is a problem in supposing the singularity of the author. What is the basis for that supposition? What makes you think that some one wrote the letters, rather than some two, some three, or some fifty? And if there was more than one, which of them invented Christianity?And even if there was only one person who wrote 'the letters' (which letters do you include in that, anyway?), you still haven't answered the question: what makes it appear to you that that person invented Christianity?

Read my lips. Did I say Paul or whoever it was who wrote the letters necessarily invented christianity? No, of course not, but the logic that you put forward cannot see beyond itself. It needs to see that there is another possibility, then instead of contemplating it as a possibility, it attempts to discount that possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There were messianists before Paul. He didn't invent the idea of a messiah (christ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Sheshbazzar's assertion, which I was responding to, is that it appears that Saul of Tarsus invented Christianity. Do you agree with that? If not, who do you think did invent Christianity?

You now confuse messianism in general with a specific one.

spin

spin · 04-10-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

J-D conflates founder with central figure. Mohammed was the founder of Islam, but not its central figure. Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith, but is not its central figure. The problem is that the central figure of christianity is presented as a human, so that helps the conflation. Paul's christ is not presented as an itinerant teacher, as the gospels show him. Paul's is a mystical figure, while the gospels' is a more human one. It would seem that J-D is retrojecting the gospel christ into the foundation of the religion, which seems unfounded from the evidence, and in so doing helps to conflate founder with central figure.

Obviously I have failed to make my position clear.

I think you've said that before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Some people believe the following to be true: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian. I see nothing to make this account impossible. In this respect, it differs both from the account of Christ given in the Gospels and from the account of Christ given in the epistles, both of which contain many elements which could not possibly be true.

It is in fact a summary of the gospels and acts minus the supernatural material, which are from after the time of Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

On the account just given, I think it would be reasonable to describe the historical Jesus it refers to as the founder of Christianity, although the present doctrines of the various Christian churches may differ to a greater or lesser extent from his original preaching.

It is more reasonable to start with the earliest material, ie the Pauline letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you have a different account to offer of the foundation of Christianity, I would like to see it set out with the same degree of concrete detail, and also to see what reasons you have for it.

Read what Paul says in Galatians.

spin

Toto · 04-11-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...
Some people believe the following to be true: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

I see nothing to make this account impossible. In this respect, it differs both from the account of Christ given in the Gospels and from the account of Christ given in the epistles, both of which contain many elements which could not possibly be true.

On the account just given, I think it would be reasonable to describe the historical Jesus it refers to as the founder of Christianity, although the present doctrines of the various Christian churches may differ to a greater or lesser extent from his original preaching.

If you have a different account to offer of the foundation of Christianity, I would like to see it set out with the same degree of concrete detail, and also to see what reasons you have for it.

Here's one possibility: Around the middle of the first century, a marginal Jew named Paul had visions of a Savior figure, and started preaching about this savior to his fellow Jews and god fearers, some of whom also had visions. After the Jewish War and the fall of the Temple, the followers of these original preachers got more organized, and someone (call him Mark) wrote a story casting the Savior as a preacher who taught in Galilee a few generations before. This story proved to be a good recruiting device, and eventually it was taken as historical fact.

Here's another possibility: After the fall of the Temple, there was a lot of turmoil and disruption. Jews tried to figure out what happened and what to do next, and a few adopted some earlier preaching about a Savior, and created a historical figure. After another generation, the story was assumed to be fact.

04-11-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can you offer a single confirmed historical example of a religion that originated without a founder?

All religions have founder(s).
But, the issue is whether the central focus of worship was historical or not.

There are many religions based on beings who do not exist -

Mithraism.

Hinduism (Vishnu/Krishna)

The Greek mysteries centered on Demeter.

The cults of Dionysos
and Bacchus,
and Attys
etc.

Roman household gods.

Pagan cults of fairy-folk etc.

The Ebionites.

Scientology (Xenu)

The Jedi religion (Luke Skywalker)

Judaism (mostly myths.)

Iasion

Amaleq13 · 04-11-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Absence of Evidence is Mandatory to show that non-existence is very likely.

Absence of evidence that would be expected given existence is necessary to argue for non-existence but we cannot pretend this is anything more than an argument from silence (the strength of which corresponds directly with the expectation) and we cannot pretend that such an argument is not inherently logically problematic.

With regard to the character depicted in the Gospels, a fairly strong argument from silence can be made.

With regard to a relatively unknown rural preacher making tremendous initial impact on a few which, subsequent to the post-death creation of legends/myths/religious beliefs about him, grew exponentially, that argument is weakened along with the expectation of anyone else noticing the guy while he lived.

Doug Shaver · 04-11-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can you offer a single confirmed historical example of a religion that originated without a founder?

That depends. I can stipulate for the sake of discussion that every religion must have a founder, but that doesn't mean we can always know who the founder really was.

Doug Shaver · 04-11-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Someone wrote the letters . . . . Maybe he wasn't Saul of Tarsus as he claims

He didn't make that claim. The author of Acts did. In his own writings, Paul never said he was ever known by any other name, and he did not identify his home town.

spin · 04-11-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Someone wrote the letters . . . . Maybe he wasn't Saul of Tarsus as he claims

He didn't make that claim. The author of Acts did. In his own writings, Paul never said he was ever known by any other name, and he did not identify his home town.

It was a slip... in repeating a cited phrase. I use Paul elsewhere. :frown:

spin

sugarhitman · 04-11-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Negachrist

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

In the real world, the Roman deity Mithras is referred to in the ancient sources as born from a ROCK ("rock-born"). There is no reference in antiquity associating 25 Dec. with Mithras (a confusion by some ill-educated modern who supposed that Sol Invictus was Mithras). The shepherds thing seems to be a confusion with his depiction in sculpture with 2 associates, who bear shepherd's emblems.

None of this is recorded in antiquity, and it misrepresents horribly the mythos.

Mithras slaughtered the bull -- a motif for the internet, indeed!

The remainder of this is nonsense. Surely people recognise that doing things "for world peace" is a 20th century phrase?

None of these statements are found in the historical record. The mythos of Mithras was not like this.

The archaeology of Mithras suggests that his cult came into existence ca. 50 AD. I'd be most interested to see the ancient evidence that associates him with the Day of the Sun.

No.

Ancient cults often had ritual meals. The cult of Mithras had seven such. No reference to any as the eucharist or lord's supper exists.

The "Mithra said..." bit is something that a couple of us have been investigating in this forum. There is no connection between this saying and Mithra (sic) at all.

The saying is attributed to Zoroaster in medieval Arabic Christian literature, as part of collections of pagan prophecies of Christ. There is so far no evidence that it existed before the 9th century, although it may derive from fictional collections of Zoroaster material in late antiquity, via a book by Aristocritus.

No such annual sacrifice is recorded in antiquity.

Whoever this Mr. Golding may be, he is wrong.

Certainly the priests of Mithras were known as 'fathers'. The remainder... is that correct?

Quote:

Oh wait, you said Jesus. Sorry, my mistake.

Um. Didn't it occur to you, for even a second, that all this was way too convenient? Or to check any of this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Smart man.

Roger, I was reading some things about the Zoroaster religion which correct me if im wrong, rose during the Persian empire. We know from the Bible that Cyrus and Darius the Mede encouraged the worship of the Biblical God. Could the Zoroaster religion be a synthesis of Persian beliefs and Judasim? Your thoughts.

aa5874 · 04-11-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Absence of Evidence is Mandatory to show that non-existence is very likely.

Absence of evidence that would be expected given existence is necessary to argue for non-existence but we cannot pretend this is anything more than an argument from silence (the strength of which corresponds directly with the expectation) and we cannot pretend that such an argument is not inherently logically problematic.

With regard to the character depicted in the Gospels, a fairly strong argument from silence can be made.

With regard to a relatively unknown rural preacher making tremendous initial impact on a few which, subsequent to the post-death creation of legends/myths/religious beliefs about him, grew exponentially, that argument is weakened along with the expectation of anyone else noticing the guy while he lived.

The guy called Jesus in the NT had thousands of followers, was believed to be the son of the God of the Jews and was known among all men, throughout the region and even far away from Judaea. That is the guy that cannot be found in the history books of the 1st century, not even in the history of the Church as written by Eusebius.

There is no rural unknown preacher in the NT named Jesus, whether or not you believed he did miracles or was the son of the God of the Jews.

And if something does not exist, I expect SILENCE, NO EVIDENCE, or ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. SILENCE is an absolutely needed primary element in a case for non-existence and there is nothing on Jesus of the NT, absolute SILENCE compounded with blatant FORGERIES in the 1st century.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.