Toto

How did the Christian religion get started? Probably as a Jewish variant on the Hellenic mystery religions. For details, check out <a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle.</a> In the late first and early second centuries, the developing Christian church started to create its foundation myths in the Gospels. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it had the political muscle to wipe out all of the stories that undermined its official version of the early church.

I think you edited the second paragraph there and took out some key phrases, so I am not sure what the book title is.

luvluv

I got a few questions:

If in 20 years, I wrote a book about a friendship I had with a friend that lasted for 3 years, would you assume that book was mostly false, due to the time that had elapsed? Aren't most modern memoirs or biographies written from that kind of distance?

Isn't 20 or 30 years kind of a short amount of time to start saying that a person walked on water or that he healed all kinds of people? I mean, that would kind of be like me saying right now that Martin Luther King parted the Mississippi river. Wouldn't there have been many people still alive to dispute the fact, at least when the first Gospel was written? Particularly when most of the cities in which the miracles occur are named?

Isn't there an extrodinary amount of consistency to the teachings of Jesus, specifically the parables, for them to be the work of many men?

What of the Book of Acts, which mentions the ressurection of Jesus, and which I believe was written closer to Jesus death.

Similarly, the various other epistles which mention Jesus's ressurection and certain of his teachings. These all predate the Gospels yet do not seem to contradict them. Though written earlier than the Gospels, they all seem to presume that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.

Since you admit there is really very little evidence, can any of your conjecture be any more reliable than that of more learned men on the subject? What's that saying, eliminating all other possibilities, the simplest explanation must be true?

I understand that many of you folks consider the gospels to be largely fiction. I also think that most of you think that three of the gospels are copies of an original text. Is there any scientific data on that, or is that presumption based on the simliarities of the miracles described? Isn't it true that scholars believe that because the miracles described are impossible, and since the four gospels have nearly identical accounts of some of the same miracles, that the stories must therefore be copies of one another. It seems to me that isn't proceeding from evidence, it is proceeding from philosophy: namely, the philosophy that miracles are impossible.

turt, you say that the folks gathered around the cross of Jesus would not have simply gone home to live their lives forgetting the dream. A) I don't understand exactly what to make of this statement in light of your belief that a real Jesus did not exist. How then was he crucified, and who watched this figment rot on the cross. B) Doesn't the Bible say they did exactly that? Doesn't it say they went away thinking the entire thing was over, and were only later inspired to perservere?

Lastly, if the Gospels were total fiction, are we not dealing with an undiscovered literary genius? Whoever could compose the parables is a formidable rival to aesop. (Did the parables have antecedents? is there evidence of these same stories with minor revisions being used by others at that time)

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Toto

According to the Gospels Jesus was crucified around 30 C.E., but most scholars date Mark, assumed to be the earliest of the Gospesls, to around 70 C.E. or later, after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and decimated the population. The Gospels do not seem to be widespread before the next century. By this time, there would have been few eyewitnesses. But it is doubtful that the gospels were written as fact - they appear to be allegory, and their readers may not have assumed that they were factual accounts in the first place.



No.



Scholars date Acts to anywhere from 80 C.E. to 150 C.E. I don't know of any who date it to "close to Jesus' death." Do you?

They all speak of a resurrected Savior, but with no specific detail about time or place. They could be speaking about a spiritual resurrection.

There is no consensus among learned men or women about this subject. Do you seriously consider the idea of a miraculous resurrection to be a simple solution?

The first three gospels are assumed to be based on each other or a single outside source because of their language, not because of the miracles in particular. It would be nice if you learned something about this, so you could make an intelligent observation instead of these wild speculations.

There is a lot of evidence that miracles don't happen. If a miracle did happen, I would need more evidence that an ancient document.

Many of the sayings of Jesus are similar to sayings of philosophers of that era. Maybe we are dealing with an undiscovered literary genius. What's your point?

Vorkosigan

If in 20 years, I wrote a book about a friendship I had with a friend that lasted for 3 years, would you assume that book was mostly false, due to the time that had elapsed? Aren't most modern memoirs or biographies written from that kind of distance?

Why yes. That is why, in the case of serious modern non-religious writing, most authors are customarily expected to engage in research of their topic. The writers of the gospels did not do this.

Also, what makes you the the authors of the 40 or 50 gospels of Jesus actually knew the man personally?

Isn't 20 or 30 years kind of a short amount of time to start saying that a person walked on water or that he healed all kinds of people?

When the Plains Indians chiefs met with Wovoka, they went home a few days later saying that he had flown over their heads on a magic horse. Sai Baba's followers today, every day, say he performs miracles, including raising the dead. William Farnhold's (freeham's?) followers claimed that he did miracles, which he denied, and that his mother was a virgin, though the poor alcoholic woman published her memoirs affirming that WF came into the world the usual way. Every day I can turn on the TV and watch healings....no, Luv, five minutes is time enough.

I mean, that would kind of be like me saying right now that Martin Luther King parted the Mississippi river. Wouldn't there have been many people still alive to dispute the fact, at least when the first Gospel was written? Particularly when most of the cities in which the miracles occur are named?

Lots of fiction, including fiction of the time, takes place in real settings. There may have been people alive who disputed that Jesus had done the things said of them, presumably their were because apologetic writings occur very early, and complaints of forged Church documents also occur quite early. However, little of the writings of the critics have survived, a notable exception being Celsus.

Isn't there an extrodinary amount of consistency to the teachings of Jesus, specifically the parables, for them to be the work of many men?

Not if he had good editors, as scholars know he did. In any case, scholars believe that not all the sayings attributed to Jesus originated with him. Additionally, Jesus said little that was new, so the consistency derives in part from the fact that he was quoting established bodies of ethical and religious literature, such as the OT.

What of the Book of Acts, which mentions the ressurection of Jesus, and which I believe was written closer to Jesus death.

Believe as you please. What evidence do you have that Acts was written close to Jesus' death? What date would you give it? Most people date it between 60 (conservative scholars) and 150, with the bulk falling in the 80s and 90s.

Similarly, the various other epistles which mention Jesus's ressurection and certain of his teachings. These all predate the Gospels yet do not seem to contradict them. Though written earlier than the Gospels, they all seem to presume that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.

Which epistles? In any case, all writing by Sai Baba's followers all affirms that he has raised the dead, read minds, and done miracles. It is only the non-followers who question that.

Since you admit there is really very little evidence, can any of your conjecture be any more reliable than that of more learned men on the subject?

My conjectures are those of learned men and women!

I understand that many of you folks consider the gospels to be largely fiction. I also think that most of you think that three of the gospels are copies of an original text.

You are confused here. The three gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are closely related. The exact relationship between them has been amatter of dispute since the end of the 18th century. It is called "The Synoptic Problem."

As for the text, the earliest scrap of a gospel is 70 words from John that dates from 125-150. Since you believe that the gospels were written much earlier (note that the vast majority of scholars date Mark, the first gospel, in the early 70s) they must indeed be copies of copies.

Is there any scientific data on that, or is that presumption based on the simliarities of the miracles described?

See Mark Goodacre's site on Q. <a href="http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/" target="_blank">http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/</a>

There is introductory material there. He has just published a book on the issue. Burton Mack's The Lost Gospel is also a good read.

Isn't it true that scholars believe that because the miracles described are impossible, and since the four gospels have nearly identical

I do not know any scholar who believes the four gospels are nearly identical. The three Synoptic gospels are closely related, and the exact relationship to John, and the other noncanonical gospels is a matter of severe controversy.

turt, you say that the folks gathered around the cross of Jesus would not have simply gone home to live their lives forgetting the dream. A) I don't understand exactly what to make of this statement in light of your belief that a real Jesus did not exist.

Excuse me, as many will affirm, I do believe someone died and inspired this story....

How then was he crucified, and who watched this figment rot on the cross.

...so this question is absurd.

B) Doesn't the Bible say they did exactly that? Doesn't it say they went away thinking the entire thing was over, and were only later inspired to perservere?

Yes, I am glad we can agree on the psychosocial origins of Christianity.

Lastly, if the Gospels were total fiction, are we not dealing with an undiscovered literary genius?

Undiscovered? I thought Mark was among the most well-known writers on earth!

Whoever could compose the parables is a formidable rival to aesop.

I agree. That is probably why the NT writers borrowed them from earlier writings, and sayings circulating in Jewish and Hellenistic communities.

(Did the parables have antecedents?

Yup. Ever heard of the Torah?

is there evidence of these same stories with minor revisions being used by others at that time)

Well, there is the Old Testament...

Luv, please read a solid intro text like
Bart Ehrman's or Raymond Brown's. It will give you a good background into what scholars think and what they know about the NT writings.

Michael

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

lpetrich

However, they were an in-groupish community, and they weren't as persecuted as much as some people seem to believe.

There is a simple possible answer: the Gospel writers were not Palestinian Jews -- they were likely from elsewhere. Consider where Paul had come from and the places he visited: mostly outside of Palestine.

They would react the way that many followers of end-of-the-world predictors have behaved when the predictions were falsified -- they would continue on following the predictor. As just one example among many, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses claimed that Jesus Christ would make his Second Coming in 1914, but his non-Second-Coming that year did not stop the JW's.

And since when were the followers of new religions willing to accept the verdicts of outsiders? Consider:

Mormonism
Christian Science
Moonism
Scientology

They've aroused an abundance of skepticism, and has that ever stopped their followers?

Although memory can be fairly good, it can be "rewritten", especially if there is some agenda for doing so. Consider how the memories of certain Enron executives have acquired big blank spots in recent weeks. That's why historians and biographers prefer to work with documents that are as close to the events described as possible.

luvluv

Firstly, I do not understand how anyone can take the Gospels to be allegory, unless I misunderstand the word. Are you saying that the original readers of the Gospels read it as I might read the Canterburry tales? And on the basis of this they consented to be mauled by lions?

And at any rate, Jesus healed and interacted with many children it would seem. Would it really be foolish to assume that many of the people whom he fed and preached to, hundreds... possibly thousands of people, would not have been alive in the cities mentioned in the Gospels at the time these things are said to have happened?

Also, given that the Christian church did indeed thrive and experience an explosive growth before the Gospels were wide-spread, is it at all unlikely that it spread based upon the same stories as the ones that are mentioned in the Gospels? In short if Christianity had spread on the belief that this dead guy Jesus had some good philosophies, and then the Gospels all of a sudden show up claiming that he was divine... might not the Christians who had converted based solely on his teachings not be suprised at his sudden divinity and his ability to heal? Surely there had to be some basis for this belief already present in the Christian population, and the stories probably existed within that community before they were set to paper. Given that Christianity was an unpopular variation of an unpopular religion, is it at all likely to have converted anybody if most of it's stories were demonstrably false?

turt, how do you know that other criticisms of the Gospels exist, if they were never found?

also, you said:

"(Did the parables have antecedents?

Yup. Ever heard of the Torah?

is there evidence of these same stories with minor revisions being used by others at that time)

Well, there is the Old Testament..."

Would you care to point me to the Old Testament passages which correspond to the following parables: the prodigal son, the ten virgins, the Good Samaritan, the parable of the sower, the parable of the sheeps and goats, and the sermon on the mount. Thanks, I should learn a lot from your answer.

you also say:

"When the Plains Indians chiefs met with Wovoka, they went home a few days later saying that he had flown over their heads on a magic horse. Sai Baba's followers today, every day, say he performs miracles, including raising the dead. William Farnhold's (freeham's?) followers claimed that he did miracles, which he denied, and that his mother was a virgin, though the poor alcoholic woman published her memoirs affirming that WF came into the world the usual way. Every day I can turn on the TV and watch healings....no, Luv, five minutes is time enough."

Well, true enough, but the fact is that most of the early Christians were risking their lives to believe what they did. Why would they consent to be eaten by lions or hung on a cross for idle fancy?

you said:

"Why yes. That is why, in the case of serious modern non-religious writing, most authors are customarily expected to engage in research of their topic. The writers of the gospels did not do this."

Excuse me, authors research their own memoirs?

Also, does anyone have any theory on what seminal event prompted someone to collect all these random stories and to promote them as a singular man with a singular ministry. If the catalyst for the Christian explosion was not the death of Christ, what force motivated Christianity to flourish 100 years after he (whoever he was) died?

Jayhawker Soule

Curious - do you have any theory as to what seminal event prompted Hinduism?

luvluv

Hinduism is about as disjointed a system as can still be categorized as a single belief. Hinduism has hundreds of thousands of Gods and hundreds of thousands of variations on belief. That would seem to validate my argument, not detract from it. Christianity is a very singular propisition. It has a very unified theory even by the time of the writings of the Gospels. Now I am not a Biblical literalist, yet and still it ought to be pretty obvious that the New Testament is a more orderly and coherent system of beliefs than Hinduism. Hinduism very much looks like it was created by many different people over a long time. Christianity, as written in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, does not.

cb

[BOLD]
[BQ]
What makes you think the Gospel writers were Palestinian Jews?
[/BOLD]
[/BQ]

Well, how bout this: Jews in general hated them. I can think of no concievable reason why any Jew would go out of their way to support and defend an empire that they despised and wanted over thrown. The Jews had no love for the Roman Empire.



[BOLD]
[BQ]
Crossan is exactly right. Jesus' body rotted on the cross like that of most people
executed by the Romans. In fact, given human nature, that is the most likely
scenario, the best explanation for the emergence of a Resurrection doctrine.
Resurrection doctrine emerged precisely *because*
his death was witnessed by members of the movement, and precisely *because*
he rotted and didn't get up again. It's not very far from "He will return" to "He has
returned," especially if those who "witness" the return will be rewarded with
enhanced status in the new in-group identity.
[/BQ]
[/BOLD]

Hmmm...
If you will allow for the sake of argument that the gospel writers were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that Paul actually did write the letters we attribute to him, then you would have to believe that the gospel writers were complete liars. I do not mean to call them liars because of their weakness and need to "explain away" Jesus' death in order to preserve their identity, but rather because of the fact that they knowingly altered the facts, rather than just expand upon them. I could understand a scenario that described Jesus death and spiritual resurrection off the cross, I can understand even them saying that they saw Jesus rise off the cross. I can concieve of countless ways that the disciples could be looking up at Jesus rotting on the cross and come up with some sort of mythological story. However, what they did was say to everyone "No, he was buried (which would be a lie), in Joseph of Aramethea's tomb (Perhaps a fictional character? Perhaps a true character? Either way, a lie), and that the women went to put spices on his body (lie), and saw him risen (another lie). So you can see that this goes far beyond just a sorry attempt to preserve an identity. These people would be blatantly lying, while knowing the truth.
Incidently, I do think there is quite a leap from "He will rise", to "He has returned". The disciples clearly state that they saw Jesus. They were willing to be tortured for that fact.
Also, when confronted with the annoying pesky Christian movement that completley centered around the fact that the apostles saw Christ risen, Why didn't the Jewish leaders simply say "Look, the guy rotted on a cross, who are you kidding? You saw him yourself!"


[Bold]
[BQ]
One can easily imagine at the base of the cross, looking up at one very dead
would-be messiah, were Jesus' bosom friends, whoever they were. And
what did they do? Like the Lubavitchers, and the followers of Tzvi, and the
maji-maji warriers, and the followers of Hong, and a thousand other
groups confronted by reality, they shrugged, went home, and rewrote the script in
order to rescue their new identity from a terrible blow. Cognitive dissonance is a
powerful force for change, especially in religious doctrine.

[/BQ]
[/BOLD]


Like I said above, there is quite a difference between early Christianity and these other cults
that you are speaking of. For example, the Rebbe Schneerson story. Confronted with the hard
facts, his followers quickly came up with a scenario that said "He is still the Messiah, He will come back". The early Christians said "Lets completely re-write the details that we already know. We will pretend that we didn't see Jesus rot on the cross. We will instead say that we buried Him in a tomb. Lets make up some places and situations. That will be a good idea. Then we will travel the world trying to convince people of our integrity. It would kind of be like the followers of Rebbe Schneerson saying "He didn't actually die, He's right here, He's been hanging around with us for awhile. Funeral? What funeral? You might THINK there was a funeral, and sure, you might even have saw me there, but what actually happened was He got up out of his hospital bed and has been chillin with us ever since."
Also, There are biblical accounts of people that were sceptics that came to faith after Jesus died. Why would anyone, that had nothing to gain from this religion, convert to it, if they saw Jesus die on the cross and rot there? Why in the world would they be willing to follow what they KNOW to be a lie?

cb

Hi,
[BOLD]
[BQ]
I doubt that I can be as thorough as the other Michael is on this, but I believe your
argument is based on the presumption that Judaism at the time was terribly
dogmatic, and, more importantly, had the power to enforce dogma. I'm sure the
"inner circles" of Jewish thought would frown upon a bunch of hippies and their
messaiah, but they would play well in the stix.
[/BQ]
[/BOLD]
If this was in fact true, then why would the Jews have felt the need to crucify Jesus Christ? Why not just let him "be a hippy" and wander the country side preaching and teaching to his "hippy followers"?


[BOLD]
[BQ]
Consider the birth of the Mormon religion. Like christianity, it's really just an
ammendment to its parent religion, it arose in a rather insignifcant place, and was
started as a small group of practitioners (a "cult" if you will.) Sure the more
conservative elements of its parent religion frown on it, but it's hardly "persecuted"
and mainstream christians adopt a much more live-and-let-live attitude towards it.
[/BQ]
[/BOLD]


There was not a "live and let live" attitude towards the early Christians at all. From any side. The early Christain church WAS persecuted, and persecuted very severely.

[BOLD]
[BQ]
As for the romans, they probably didn't care much about the new cult from an
out-of-the-way province, so long as it didn't try to obtain political power. In fact,
the empire was populated by many such religions centred on god-men like Mithras, Dionysis, Hercules, &c.
[/BQ]
[/BOLD]


Well, Perhaps at FIRST they didn't care, but as soon as they got word that Christianity was rapidly spreading, it started causing problems. The Romans were remarkably tolerant of the Jews, since the Jews did not go around trying to evangelize anyone. However, the Christians got themselves into pretty hot water, pretty early on. The Romans certainly did NOT tolerate a religion that denied their gods, including the current emporer, and tried to actively convince everyone they could to follow their lead.
Also, the early Christians tried to evangelize the Jews first, but Jesus + Pals certainly were happy to express that they considered them a bunch of dicks.




Remeber that chistianity is mostly a roman religion, not a palestinian one.
Christianity perhaps started in palestine, but much of its development, including the
decisions as to which gospels were official cannon, occured in roman hands.
Besides, would an evangelist with any sense take their faith to rome with a holy
book that said "romans are assholes"?

Christianity started as an offshoot to Judiasm, which is very much a Palestinian religion. We may be able to trace early Hellenistic influences in Christianity, but we can't really see much of a Roman influence until Constantine. Certainly, the beginnings of Roman Catholism has incredible Roman influence, but the Roman Catholic church, and the early christian church were quite different. Also, The Canon was officially decided upon in Carthage, not Rome. There had been a church in Rome very early on, but that Church held no "authoritative" status until later on.