Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 07-24-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The question of the OP has answered the Jesus cult was STARTED by people who BELIEVED the story that the Temple was made Desolate because the Jews killed the prophesied Messiah and Son of God.

Which people believed that, and why?

Grog · 07-24-2013, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Well, if I am misunderstanding your position, why don't you correct me? From what I can tell you repeat the position in this very post:Are you not trying to argue that what became Christianity started with an original preacher who preached a message and gathered a following?

Here's the thing that you seem to be missing: You think of this development as a linear process driven by the ideas of specific individuals. What we know about evolution is that it is not as linear as that, it is branching and morphing, similar subspecies can interbred creating new morphs, new innovations, new adaptations. It is very difficult to sort out the specific point when an identifiable new species emerges because it is a gradient and not even a straight line gradient. It's possible that humans interbred with Neanderthal for example. Or, even further back, the diverging ancestral branches of humans and chimps may have also interbred for a time before completing speciation.

When it comes to "what is in the air" the proper analogy is what is available in the gene pool.

I am saying the gene pool included ideas like this:and this;Philo's allusion to Zechariah is to a character with the same name as Jesus:and this:compare that to this:Here the Logos descends to earth:We are already familiar with Isaiah 53 and Daniel's apocalyptic Son of Man. Not to mention works like Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas. And what about these ideas in the Apoc. of Adam, possibly pre-Christian and usually at least considered non-Christian:It goes on and on. I am not talking about parallels, but ancestral ideas. The gene pool that led to emergence of Jesus-belief.Again, you have a simplistic idea of evolutionary processes.

There are some instances of religions whose origin is well documented. There are other instances of religions whose origin is not so well documented.

All the instances of well documented religious origins known to me feature an original preacher. I'm not saying that original preacher didn't make use of pre-existing ideas, but in all instances of the kind I have in mind, that original individual with a message to preach can be identified. (I'm also not saying that the form the religion takes now is identical with the message of the original preacher.)

Since this is something that has actually happened, more than once--an original preacher with an original message accepted by an original audience identifiable at the origin of the religion--it's obviously a possible model for those instances where definite information about the origin of the religion is harder to come by, for example, Christianity.

That doesn't mean I'm saying that 'it began with somebody preaching a religious message that some people accepted' is a specific answer to the question of how Christianity began. Precisely because it is a general pattern applicable to several cases, it's not a specific answer to the question of how any specific religion began. However, until somebody can show me a reason to think otherwise, I regard it as possible that it's a model for a possible answer.

That doesn't commit me to any specific view about the hypothetical original preacher, the hypothetical original message, or the hypothetical original followers. A specific answer would have to provide more details those things, but I'm not offering one.

I'm not even committed to saying that the answer can only follow that pattern. I'm happy to learn of some other sort of answer there could be to the question of how Christianity (or some other religion) began that did not follow the pattern I've described. So far I haven't, that's all.

Your reasoning is circular. By "well-documented" you really mean traceable to an individual founder. I note that you tend to ignore all the examples that I put before you. By your deinition, any relivious movement that could beexplained as having emerged through a process of evolution is considerec not "well-documented."

This is from my mobile, sorry for typos.

aa5874 · 07-24-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The question of the OP has answered the Jesus cult was STARTED by people who BELIEVED the story that the Temple was made Desolate because the Jews killed the prophesied Messiah and Son of God.

Which people believed that, and why?

People called Christians believed the story.

People called Christians believed the story of Jesus was fulfilled prophecy found in the books of the Prophets.

This is a partial list of some of those Christians.

1. Aristides' Apology

Quote:

.... And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous

2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XVI

Quote:

Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One...

3. Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

Quote:

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?....... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor...[/I][/b]

4. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews 8

Quote:

In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated.

5. Minucius Felix Octavius

Quote:

Carefully read over their Scriptures, or if you are better pleased with the Roman writings, inquire concerning the Jews in the books (to say nothing of ancient documents) of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus, and you shall know that by their wickedness they deserved this fortune, and that nothing happened which had not before been predicted to them...

6. Origen's Against Celsus 1.47p

Quote:

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet..

7. Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 5

Quote:

....... the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."....

8. Clement's "Stromata 6.11

Quote:

Whence also Peter, in his Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: “But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him, and His resurrection and assumption to heaven previous to the capture of Jerusalem.

J-D · 07-25-2013, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Well, if I am misunderstanding your position, why don't you correct me? From what I can tell you repeat the position in this very post:Are you not trying to argue that what became Christianity started with an original preacher who preached a message and gathered a following?

Here's the thing that you seem to be missing: You think of this development as a linear process driven by the ideas of specific individuals. What we know about evolution is that it is not as linear as that, it is branching and morphing, similar subspecies can interbred creating new morphs, new innovations, new adaptations. It is very difficult to sort out the specific point when an identifiable new species emerges because it is a gradient and not even a straight line gradient. It's possible that humans interbred with Neanderthal for example. Or, even further back, the diverging ancestral branches of humans and chimps may have also interbred for a time before completing speciation.

When it comes to "what is in the air" the proper analogy is what is available in the gene pool.

I am saying the gene pool included ideas like this:and this;Philo's allusion to Zechariah is to a character with the same name as Jesus:and this:compare that to this:Here the Logos descends to earth:We are already familiar with Isaiah 53 and Daniel's apocalyptic Son of Man. Not to mention works like Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas. And what about these ideas in the Apoc. of Adam, possibly pre-Christian and usually at least considered non-Christian:It goes on and on. I am not talking about parallels, but ancestral ideas. The gene pool that led to emergence of Jesus-belief.Again, you have a simplistic idea of evolutionary processes.

There are some instances of religions whose origin is well documented. There are other instances of religions whose origin is not so well documented.

All the instances of well documented religious origins known to me feature an original preacher. I'm not saying that original preacher didn't make use of pre-existing ideas, but in all instances of the kind I have in mind, that original individual with a message to preach can be identified. (I'm also not saying that the form the religion takes now is identical with the message of the original preacher.)

Since this is something that has actually happened, more than once--an original preacher with an original message accepted by an original audience identifiable at the origin of the religion--it's obviously a possible model for those instances where definite information about the origin of the religion is harder to come by, for example, Christianity.

That doesn't mean I'm saying that 'it began with somebody preaching a religious message that some people accepted' is a specific answer to the question of how Christianity began. Precisely because it is a general pattern applicable to several cases, it's not a specific answer to the question of how any specific religion began. However, until somebody can show me a reason to think otherwise, I regard it as possible that it's a model for a possible answer.

That doesn't commit me to any specific view about the hypothetical original preacher, the hypothetical original message, or the hypothetical original followers. A specific answer would have to provide more details those things, but I'm not offering one.

I'm not even committed to saying that the answer can only follow that pattern. I'm happy to learn of some other sort of answer there could be to the question of how Christianity (or some other religion) began that did not follow the pattern I've described. So far I haven't, that's all.

Your reasoning is circular. By "well-documented" you really mean traceable to an individual founder. I note that you tend to ignore all the examples that I put before you. By your deinition, any relivious movement that could beexplained as having emerged through a process of evolution is considerec not "well-documented."

This is from my mobile, sorry for typos.

When you have put forward specific examples, I have discussed them. If you think there is good documentation of the examples you have put forward, you have not given any indication of what form that documentation takes.

J-D · 07-25-2013, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The question of the OP has answered the Jesus cult was STARTED by people who BELIEVED the story that the Temple was made Desolate because the Jews killed the prophesied Messiah and Son of God.

Which people believed that, and why?

People called Christians believed the story.

And why?

Grog · 07-25-2013, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Your reasoning is circular. By "well-documented" you really mean traceable to an individual founder. I note that you tend to ignore all the examples that I put before you. By your deinition, any relivious movement that could beexplained as having emerged through a process of evolution is considerec not "well-documented."

This is from my mobile, sorry for typos.

When you have put forward specific examples, I have discussed them. If you think there is good documentation of the examples you have put forward, you have not given any indication of what form that documentation takes.

No you haven't. That's ok. I see I am wasting my time.

TedM · 07-25-2013, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The question of the OP has answered the Jesus cult was STARTED by people who BELIEVED the story that the Temple was made Desolate because the Jews killed the prophesied Messiah and Son of God.

Which people believed that, and why?

People called Christians believed the story.

And why?

Yes -- why should the Gentiles need a reason for the desolation of the Temple other than the fact that the Romans prevailed? And, why should the Gentiles care if a Jewish Messiah was killed? Obviously the Jewish weren't led by a victorious God since they were dispersed, so why would Gentiles have an interest in such a God?

The Jews are another matter. They may well have looked for a reason for their Temple to have been destroyed, but why would they make up a story about killing their own Messiah unless there was some reason some people thought a Messiah being prophesied by Jewish scriptures had been killed? Perhaps because the prophecies about a Messiah also referenced the destruction of the Temple..That would have meaning to the Jews. But where was that Messiah? When did he live? Who witnessed his life and death?

Using aa's theory, it seems clear that the JEWS are the ONLY ones who would have been interested in this explanation, yet aa rejects the Jewish origin for Christianity!

aa5874 · 07-25-2013, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The question of the OP has answered the Jesus cult was STARTED by people who BELIEVED the story that the Temple was made Desolate because the Jews killed the prophesied Messiah and Son of God.

Which people believed that, and why?

People called Christians believed the story.

And why?

I have already answered that question in the same post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People called Christians believed the story of Jesus was fulfilled prophecy found in the books of the Prophets.

It is evident that people who were called Christians believed the story of Jesus was composed by the apostles BEFORE the Fall of Temple c 70 CE.

The author of the earliest Jesus story claimed Jesus privately made predictions to his disciples about the Fall of the Temple, the calamity of the Jews and when those events will come to pass since around the time of Pilate c 26-36 CE.

Mark 13

Quote:

1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down .

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately , 4 Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled ?

We know WHY people believed the story of Jesus.

The supposed predictions of Jesus appeared to have been fulfilled.

But there was one more prediction that was about to happen--the Kingdom of God was at hand.

People called Christians believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand sometime in the 2nd century.

aa5874 · 07-25-2013, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Using aa's theory, it seems clear that the JEWS are the ONLY ones who would have been interested in this explanation, yet aa rejects the Jewish origin for Christianity!

Of course the Jews rejected the fabricated fiction story of Jesus up to at least the 4th century.

It is documented.

The Jews had no interest in the Blasphemy of the Jesus cult.

Examine the supposed 4th century writing of Eusebius.

Eusebius' Preparation of the Gospel

Quote:

But sons of the Hebrews also would find fault with us, that being strangers and aliens we misuse their books, which do not belong to us at all, and because in an impudent and shameless way, as they would say, we thrust ourselves in, and try violently to thrust out the true family and kindred from their own ancestral rights.

TedM · 07-25-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Using aa's theory, it seems clear that the JEWS are the ONLY ones who would have been interested in this explanation, yet aa rejects the Jewish origin for Christianity!

Of course the Jews rejected the fabricated fiction story of Jesus up to at least the 4th century.

It is documented.

The Jews had no interest in the Blasphemy of the Jesus cult.

You don't seem to be following what I'm saying, aa. If the Jews had no interest then I assume you think only the Gentiles were interested. Why were Gentiles interested in a Jewish reason for the destruction of their Temple, when they already had their own reason?: It was destroyed by Roman armies! Why would Gentiles care about the Temple and why would they care about a Jewish Messiah?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.