Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Draconis · 06-26-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If it had not been for Christianity we may have been out
passed Alpha-Centauri by now.

Yes. it is interesting to consider how much of the "dark ages" was aided and abetted by Christianity, not just by some raiding vikings. (perhaps a topic for discussion elsewhere)

mountainman · 06-26-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draconis

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If it had not been for Christianity we may have been out
passed Alpha-Centauri by now.

Yes. it is interesting to consider how much of the "dark ages" was aided and abetted by Christianity, not just by some raiding vikings. (perhaps a topic for discussion elsewhere)

Start with a study of the ancient historical 4th century precursors to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum - ("List of Prohibited Books").

The "new testament apocrypha" - literally meaning "Hidden Books"
were totally prohibited for the period 325 CE onwards. They have
only in recent centuries been turning up and available for study.

In his book The Gnostic Discoveries, Marvin Meyer summarises
these recent archaeological document discoveries as follows:

List of Codices containing "NT Apocrypha"

(1) Nag Hammadi Library (coptic)

(2) Berlin Gnostic Codex 8502 (coptic)
Discovered in Cairo 1896
Published in German 1955

gMary,
The Secret Book of John,
The Wisdom of JC
the Act of Peter

(3) Askew Codex - Pistis Sofia - Note that this is more correctly
named === "A Portion of the Books of the Saviour" ... more "Hidden Books"

(4) Bruce Codex - two books of Jeu, and an untitled gnostic text

(5) Corpus Hermeticum

(6) Mandean Texts

(7) Manichaean texts

(8) study of "magical gems"

(9) Codex Tchacos <<<==== I added this.
Containing the recently published and translated gJudas

freetrader · 06-27-2009, 01:05 PM

show no mercy:

Quote:

Christianity spread primarily among 2nd and 3rd generation Greeks who were far removed from the events when they were supposed to have happened.

Why didn't these Greeks choose a character from their own culture, rather than a Palestinian-Jewish figure? Why did they reach eastward to Galilee and Jerusalem to find a superhero to satisfy their need? The answer might be that they preferred someone real and historical, not fictitious, and this was the only one that satisfied that requirement.

Why didn't they choose Hercules, e.g.?

Quote:

The culture that these converts came from was one where they were already used to worshiping human beings as gods (the Roman emperors).

But why did they choose to worship Jesus in particular rather than one of their own culture, even making him into the one exclusive figure to be worshiped?

Quote:

Christianity did not spread among the Jews, and was not popular when Jesus was supposed to have lived and in the one or two decades after.

Maybe not "Christianity", but the account, or the report of this particular figure did spread among Jews and from them it spread westward. If not, how did the Greeks gain knowledge of him which they found convincing?

And how popular is "popular"? If you assume there were no crowds who gathered around Jesus and there was no interest in him and his following was small, then why did the Greeks choose him as their god instead of someone with stronger credentials?

If he really did have power which was witnessed by large numbers of Jews, then we have the explanation for this.

Quote:

It wasn't until Christianity started being spread among gentiles and Judaism was responsible for two (or three) huge wars with the Roman Empire that Christianity started becoming popular.

But you're not explaining why or how Christianity started being spread in the first place.

Quote:

Just about everyone in the Roman empire respected the antiquity of the Jews, just not the Jews themselves.

You mean they did not respect the antiquity of other cultures also? You mean they placed some special unique respect onto the Jewish antiquity as opposed to others? Why do you think that?

Quote:

What if you stole the antiquity of the Jews and made a more acceptable religion from it mixed with a human being as both god and caesar?

Why would they choose the Jews for this and not the Arabians or Phoenicians or Persians or Syrians etc. from whom to craft this god? And why Jesus? Why not Zoroaster or some other more recognized figure?

Quote:

That would become an insanely popular religion during that time period.

It's only from hindsight that you can make that judgment. It's just as reasonable to think some other choice of a messiah-figure would have proved more popular than this choice.

Quote:

If Jesus was the wandering miracle worker with an insanely huge fanbase then why don't we see any records of anyone contemporary to Jesus that knows anything about him?

Probably because of the very short time span during which he operated. If he had had a much longer career, like that of John the Baptist or Mohammad or Buddha etc., then there would be more written accounts near or simultaneous to his time. But he was eliminated so soon that most of the "journalists" didn't have time to get to him or to the direct witnesses.

Quote:

Not even Paul knows anything about Jesus other than the "scripturally" significant bits (i.e. no miracles or wisdom sayings).

But why did he attach himself to this Jesus figure if he knew so little about him and had no reason to believe he was important?

Quote:

No Jewish person who lived during Jesus' time period (like Philo) writes about him. Josephus . . . . no Roman account . . .

They don't write about someone who disappeared from the scene so quickly. The word of him spread among masses of unimportant people who didn't matter to the historians.

Quote:

According to the gospels, Jesus was so popular that Herod the tetrarch of Judaea was anxious to see him - yet outside of the gospels he's a nobody.

You mean Galilee, yes, but then why did people choose this nobody to make into a somebody? How did that process take place?

The best explanation still seems to be that those who originally did have direct contact with him knew he really had power, and that gave them extra enthusiasm to spread the knowledge of him to others, and because this case was so unique in history, this "good news" did not fizzle out as in the case of all other stories of a similar reputed figure who drew a following.

Wooster · 06-27-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetrader

They don't write about someone who disappeared from the scene so quickly. The word of him spread among masses of unimportant people who didn't matter to the historians.

And that indicates a very credible source of information to you?

Sounds like a game of first century telephone.

freetrader · 06-27-2009, 07:26 PM

Bacht:

Quote:

Where are the witnesses?

They were in and around Jerusalem and in parts of Galilee. They did not have pen and papyrus in hand to write everything down. But their reports were passed on by word-of-mouth. Obviously no one knows for sure. But this is the best conclusion to draw, because if no one saw him do anything unusual, then he would have been forgotten. There was no reason to preserve memories of him or spread the word about him or make up stories about him if he was just another babbling charismatic with no real power.

Quote:

According to the gospels, Jesus performed miracles before large crowds of people, presumably including some gentiles. No one said anything about it for decades, and then only the christian Mark describes his earthly career.

They said many things about it, from the beginning, in the 30s AD, but it was all word-of-mouth and took years before anyone started writing it down. That must have been what happened, because otherwise he would just have been forgotten and no one would have picked up on it and started this new religion. If none of it was true and he did nothing unusual, then why did anyone start spreading these stories about him?

Why did Greeks or whoever start up a new religion about someone who did nothing special? They had to start out with something. There must have been something passed on to them from the original witnesses. Otherwise, how did they come to to seize upon this Jesus figure as a centerpiece for their new movement?

Quote:

Jews never mentioned him in the Mishnah.

Did everything that happened in the first century AD get recorded in the Mishnah?

neilgodfrey · 06-27-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetrader

Bacht:

Quote:

Where are the witnesses?

They were in and around Jerusalem and in parts of Galilee. They did not have pen and papyrus in hand to write everything down. But their reports were passed on by word-of-mouth. . . . . There was no reason to preserve memories of him or spread the word about him or make up stories about him if he was just another babbling charismatic with no real power.

They said many things about it, from the beginning, in the 30s AD, but it was all word-of-mouth and took years before anyone started writing it down. That must have been what happened, because otherwise he would just have been forgotten and no one would have picked up on it and started this new religion. If none of it was true and he did nothing unusual, then why did anyone start spreading these stories about him?

Why did Greeks or whoever start up a new religion about someone who did nothing special? They had to start out with something. There must have been something passed on to them from the original witnesses. Otherwise, how did they come to to seize upon this Jesus figure as a centerpiece for their new movement?

Mark Twain would reply, as he wrote in his autobiography:

Quote:

You can never find a Christian who has acquired this valuable knowledge, this saving knowledge, by any process but the everlasting and all-sufficient “people say.” In all my seventy-two years and a half I have never come across such another ass as this human race is.

If your argument is valid, then I imagine every new religion starts up because its original founder or person of worship was literally true and performed astonishing feats.

In some places and times, Christianity has been the fastest growing religion, in others it has been Buddhism and Hinduism and Deism and Wikkism and Falun Gong (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_...owing_religion) -- so from your logic I'd expect all to be true and this sort of competition is the natural result.

Neil

freetrader · 06-27-2009, 08:15 PM

The Comparison to Apollonius of Tyana, compliments of Mountainman

There's no basis for equating Jesus of Galilee to Apollonius of Tyana in terms of the historical credibility of the two reputed historical figures. For the latter there is no evidence outside one writing penned 200 years after his life. Whereas for the former there are many written references within 100 years and far more within the following 100 years from when he lived.

Further, due to the blatant duplicating of biblical accounts of Jesus, it is obvious that the Apollonius story is really a copycat version of the former which had been in circulation for some period and was used by the early 3rd-century writer as source material.

And apparently no one earlier believed the Apollonius legend because it was not passed on in any form other than popping up in our one source 200 years distant.

This is not a serious comparison. This would be like someone writing a fictional version of Abraham Lincoln, who supposedly does some of the same deeds, and then 1000 years later Lincoln skeptics could argue that the original Lincoln account must be fictional because of its resemblance to the later fictional version.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetrader

If you start from the premise that Jesus really did perform miracle cures and that his resurrection really did take place, then you have a clear-cut explanation for how the New Testament came about and how the early Jewish-Christian cult spread so rapidly.

Even if the gospel accounts are inaccurate on the details (as most written accounts were in those days), there is still the need to explain how these accounts came to be written and all the claims in them came to be put forth and propagated.

If there is no truth to the basic picture of Jesus as a miracle-worker who did cures on a uniquely-grand scale, or to the resurrection story, then how did this collection of writings come about which makes all these claims?

There were many writings back then, but where in them do we find such a figure, an individual in history near to the time when the documents were written, who is singled out this way and made into a god (not by himself but by others)? There were various messiahs and charismatic figures, most of whom had much longer public careers than Jesus and far more time to accumulate a following, and yet they had no impact comparable to that of Jesus.

And whereas each messiah or charismatic figure attracted a limited following, i.e., a group which identified with the leader's particular crusade or mission, in the case of Jesus virtually all the competing factions became attached to him, e.g., the anti-establishment zealots and Essenes as well as the pro-establishment pharisees, all of whom put their words into his mouth, to the point that they have him virtually contradicting himself from one sermon to the next.

Sometimes he talks like a mainline traditional Jew, but other times like a dissident Jew who bashes the traditions and those who rigidly observe the rituals, and then at other points he sounds like a Greek mystic or gnostic who cares nothing about Judaism. And also at points he is a violent revolutionary (the "cleansing" of the temple) who wants to overthrow the government.

How did this one individual become the mouthpiece for all these differing sentiments or philosophical visions? Why did every group want to seize upon him as an instrument to promote their crusade?

Even today competing ideologies or crusades claim Jesus really belongs in their camp and argue that he was really a this or a that, each one insisting they have the real Jesus and all the others have distorted what he was really about.

What lies at the center of this confused picture, if not an actual miracle-worker who showed the kind of power described in the healing stories? and one who did this on such a scale as to make him stand out uniquely above all the other reputed miracle-workers or healers during this period of history or even any time since?

This hypothesis explains the picture we have of Jesus, with all the differing factions wanting to use him for their mouthpiece. Whereas if we assume he was only another charismatic or wise sage or radical dissident with no unique characteristic setting him apart from all the others, we are at a loss to explain the picture of him we find in the NT accounts.

Taking the inherently unlikely solution (miracles) to the problem of how Christianity became dominant might be a winning solution if we had no halfway-plausible explanation. Since we do have fully-plausible explanations, the miracle explanation must step to the side. I believe it is a combination of things that created a winning religion, similar to what creates a winning presidential candidate or a winning popular band. These are the things:

1) Jesus founded his cult on Judaism, a scripturalism rich in myth, history, theology and morality. This gave (and still gives) the religion an aura of traditional authority.
2) Jesus founded his cult on Judaism, which is monotheistic (belief in one God), which appeals to the authoritarian nature of human groups.
3) Jesus integrated heaven and hell into his cult, and he maximized the promised reward and punishment for the respective believers and non-believers.

There are more things that contributed to the success of his religion (like maybe the morality of love and forgiveness). But I chose those three things because they are well-tested elements that make a successful religion. Islam also has them, and it became the second-largest religion in the world. Would you propose that the prophet Muhammad really did tour heaven and hell with the angel Gabriel? That explanation isn't necessary. Some religious leaders, politicians, athletes, musicians, military leaders and entrepreneurs really are that good, and they don't need the gods to be on top, because some people will be the best regardless of the gods.

neilgodfrey · 06-27-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetrader

There's no basis for equating Jesus of Galilee to Apollonius of Tyana in terms of the historical credibility of the two reputed historical figures.

Further, due to the blatant duplicating of biblical accounts of Jesus, it is obvious that the Apollonius story is really a copycat version of the former which had been in circulation for some period and was used by the early 3rd-century writer as source material.

You might like to read the Apollonius of Tyana story for yourself and see just how different it in fact is from the gospels
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/life/va_00.html

N

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetrader

There's no basis for equating Jesus of Galilee to Apollonius of Tyana in terms of the historical credibility of the two reputed historical figures.

Further, due to the blatant duplicating of biblical accounts of Jesus, it is obvious that the Apollonius story is really a copycat version of the former which had been in circulation for some period and was used by the early 3rd-century writer as source material.

You might like to read the Apollonius of Tyana story for yourself and see just how different it in fact is from the gospels
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/life/va_00.html

N

That is a lot to read. Is there any specific subset of the writings that need attention?

06-27-2009, 08:15 PM	#17
freetrader Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: southwest Posts: 806	Comparison to Apollonius of Tyana The Comparison to Apollonius of Tyana, compliments of Mountainman There's no basis for equating Jesus of Galilee to Apollonius of Tyana in terms of the historical credibility of the two reputed historical figures. For the latter there is no evidence outside one writing penned 200 years after his life. Whereas for the former there are many written references within 100 years and far more within the following 100 years from when he lived. Further, due to the blatant duplicating of biblical accounts of Jesus, it is obvious that the Apollonius story is really a copycat version of the former which had been in circulation for some period and was used by the early 3rd-century writer as source material. And apparently no one earlier believed the Apollonius legend because it was not passed on in any form other than popping up in our one source 200 years distant. This is not a serious comparison. This would be like someone writing a fictional version of Abraham Lincoln, who supposedly does some of the same deeds, and then 1000 years later Lincoln skeptics could argue that the original Lincoln account must be fictional because of its resemblance to the later fictional version.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.