|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 04:34:11
|
In light of this request, I thought I would direct people interested in discussion some posts by Bill Scott, e.g., this and this.
I have some things to say, but it will take me some time to pull together some resources. In this while, anyone else should feel free to have at it.
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 06:08:46 [Permalink]
|
I am perfectly willing to accept the probable existence of the historic Jesus. I further have only a few problems, with the stories of his ministry -- that of raising of the dead & turning water into wine and that sort of hoo-hah. I am willing to embrace the distinct possibility that he got railroaded by the system and wound up nailed to the crosstree of a pole, rather like some of the southern lynch-hangings of a few decades ago, but messier.
I am not willing to accept the Resurrection myth unless and until it can be shown that such is even possible with a corpse three days cold, and to do that it must first be demonstrated that some sort of god or other even exists.
Good luck with that....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 07:24:51 [Permalink]
|
I'm in the "Never Existed" camp. Here's some of my reasons(based on my readings of works by Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, Earl Doherty, and others):
1. No documentation from the time of his supposed life.
2. No mention of his ministry until the gospels, several generations after his supposed death.
3. Silence of the first and early second century apologists. These are people trying to defend/explain Christianity to the non-Christians and they do not mention a living, breating, miracle worker as the founder of their religion.
4. Silence of Paul - While trying to defend his version of Christianity and trying to settle disputes in the new Christian churches, he never mentions anything Jesus did or said that would support his views. Instead he quotes "Old Testement" scripture. It's as though Jesus never lived on earth. Very strange if Jesus was the real life founder and Son of God.
5. Christianity started out with considerable diversity, numerous sects over a wide area with very differing beliefs. The field narrowed down over time due to competition until one view prevailed. This would not be expected of a religion started by a single founder.
My view would be that many Christ-based religions developed over a wide area of the Roman Empire as Hellenistic and Judaic traditions interacted, melding the idea of a savior god with the Jewish texts. These interactions developed differently in different areas resulting in widely divergent beliefs, although mostly all based on a savior god called Christ. Most early Christianities considered Christ to be a spiritual being who acted in the spiritual realm where he may have beed crucified and then risen to heaven, as in Paul, or not. In any event, their doctrine was derived by revelation and Jewish scripture. Eventually one sect came to believe in an earthly Christ who was the source of their doctrine, and a suitable biography was writen based on events in the Jewish scripture.(this one biography being the source of all the gospels). This sect grew in influence during the first and second centuries until it was the majority view by the middle of the second century. Having won, it called itself orthodox and recast history to portray the other Christianities as heresies that developed after-the-fact.
Now, I'm no expert by a long shot, but, if asked, I will try to defend my above statements as best I can.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 17:31:28 [Permalink]
|
From the not just a theory part 2.
emphasis added
Originally posted by Bill scott
The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).
|
This Quotation from Will Durant bothered me. It indicates that even though Will may have been a popular historian he was clearly not a thorough one.
Why? Simply because they were either fabrications with the intent of prophesy or co-opted from existing tradition. From the virgin birth, to quotes, to a rising savior god. These stories didn't have to be invented by a few simple men within a single generation. They simply had to be edited and recorded. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 21:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Occam's Razor doesn't cut to the truth of the historicity issue, either. There are at least three "simplest" explanations:
1. The whole Jesus story was true.
2. A cult synthesized the Jesus story out of the Jewish Messianic tradition and the elements of other classical religions.
3. Later cultists attributed all the miraculous details of the New Testament to one of many unsuccessful but historical Jewish "Messiahs".
Number 2 is quite credible, as the Greeks and Romans had long practiced a habit of fitting other cultures' deities into their pantheon. And almost every element of the Jesus story can be found in other contemporary cults.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the third option is mainly what went on, with elements of the second option liberally thrown in.
Option one seems vanishingly unlikely. Though it is amazingly simple to state, it's really by far the most complex option.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the third option is mainly what went on, with elements of the second option liberally thrown in.
|
I lean toward #2. Reading Paul and the early apologists, it becomes apparent that the Jesus they are talking about never existed on earth, but is a spiritual being, the intermediary between us and God. His did things (was born, crucified, risen, had a last supper), but these things were probably seen as done in the spiritual realm.
The then-popular pagan conception of heaven being multi-layered, and their god's actions taking place in those layers, gives support, IMHO, to that idea. Mithras was said to have slain a bull whose blood washed away sin, but nobody believed he did so on earth. He did it in the spiritual realm, in the layer closest to earth. That Paul, for example, believed in this multi-layered heaven is shown in one of his letters where he describes his vision of visiting the "third layer of heaven". And it makes sense out of how Paul can mention Jesus doing things, yet have no real biographical detail to go along with it, no mention of his earthly ministry which modern Christians assume to be the whole foundation of the religion.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 08:17:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by Bill scott
The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian... |
Shows what Bill's sources know. Durant began life devout, lost his faith towards the end of high school, had planned to "impregnate" Catholicism with socialism from the inside, but then regained his faith at the birth of his daughter. He was a "Christian scholar" who, at the time of publication of the volume that Bill's source quotes, was also writing about how all human races are "children of the same Divine Father."
Of course, Bill's source seems to grant the Christianity of particular individual Catholics, while denying that the Catholic church is a Christian church. The author may simply have decided that Durant was not "truly spiritually reborn" and thus "not a Christian."
Of course, such an infantile distinction doesn't preclude someone from believing in the existence of Jesus, which is what the whole "not a Christian" comment implied. It's quite probable that more people believe that Jesus lived who don't call themselves Christian than who do (and quite certain that more believe than Xenos would call Christian), so the whole point is ludicrous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 14:08:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
Originally posted by HalfMooner
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the third option is mainly what went on, with elements of the second option liberally thrown in.
|
I lean toward #2. Reading Paul and the early apologists, it becomes apparent that the Jesus they are talking about never existed on earth, but is a spiritual being, the intermediary between us and God. His did things (was born, crucified, risen, had a last supper), but these things were probably seen as done in the spiritual realm.
The then-popular pagan conception of heaven being multi-layered, and their god's actions taking place in those layers, gives support, IMHO, to that idea. Mithras was said to have slain a bull whose blood washed away sin, but nobody believed he did so on earth. He did it in the spiritual realm, in the layer closest to earth. That Paul, for example, believed in this multi-layered heaven is shown in one of his letters where he describes his vision of visiting the "third layer of heaven". And it makes sense out of how Paul can mention Jesus doing things, yet have no real biographical detail to go along with it, no mention of his earthly ministry which modern Christians assume to be the whole foundation of the religion.
|
The only reason I have a very slight tendency to favor option 3 with elements of option 2, is that Jesus cults became highly diverse very early on, making me think there may be a sort of evolutionary tree leading back to one historical Jesus. But I admit the weakness of this argument, and I certainly do see the elements of the cult of Mithras and other religions (maybe even Buddhism) in Christianity.
Also, and this is the most important point, if we reject option 1, the remaining options aren't really very important.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 19:51:25 [Permalink]
|
From the not just a theory thread part 2
Originally posted by Bill scott
You failed to comprehend my point. No one doubts that the suicide bombers fully believe in their cause. And that is why I said, "Some men will be willing to die for what they believe to be true." But would suicide bombers be so willing if they believed that paradise and all the virgins was just a lie? I say no.
|
And I say that you just made my point for me. The early christians and suicide bombers simply believed what they were/are told. The possibility that it might be a lie probably never crossed their minds. And besides both put such a premium on faith, a firm belief in assertion without evidence.
Originally posted by Bill scott
And that brings me to my point. At the cruxefiction the apostles denied Christ to save their own hide. Obviously they were not entirely convinced Christ was who he said he was. Yet after the resurrection they were all of a sudden willing to die a hideous death rather then to deny the risen King.
|
Co-opted and embellished from tradition prior to the time in question. A fabrication of the anonymous authors of the 4 gospels.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now if they never truly witnessed the risen King then what changed their minds to now all of a sudden be willing to die rather then to deny the risen King?
|
In regards to this story you are using the contents of the bible to substantiate the contents of the bible.
Originally posted by Bill scott
In other words, if Christ is still buried and dead why would so many be ready to die rather then deny when previously they were more then willing to deny rather then die? What changed the mind of so many to now face death rather then to deny?
|
Christ's resurrection is just another rising savior god myth. There is no evidence to support that story. A lot of people believing something does not constitute evidence. A few people willing to die for their beliefs does not constitute evidence.
edited to add: Get over it. Sincerely repeating the same argument does not make it any more compelling. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 08/01/2007 19:55:27 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 20:17:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by leoofno
Originally posted by HalfMooner
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that the third option is mainly what went on, with elements of the second option liberally thrown in.
|
I lean toward #2. Reading Paul and the early apologists, it becomes apparent that the Jesus they are talking about never existed on earth, but is a spiritual being, the intermediary between us and God. His did things (was born, crucified, risen, had a last supper), but these things were probably seen as done in the spiritual realm.
The then-popular pagan conception of heaven being multi-layered, and their god's actions taking place in those layers, gives support, IMHO, to that idea. Mithras was said to have slain a bull whose blood washed away sin, but nobody believed he did so on earth. He did it in the spiritual realm, in the layer closest to earth. That Paul, for example, believed in this multi-layered heaven is shown in one of his letters where he describes his vision of visiting the "third layer of heaven". And it makes sense out of how Paul can mention Jesus doing things, yet have no real biographical detail to go along with it, no mention of his earthly ministry which modern Christians assume to be the whole foundation of the religion.
|
The only reason I have a very slight tendency to favor option 3 with elements of option 2, is that Jesus cults became highly diverse very early on, making me think there may be a sort of evolutionary tree leading back to one historical Jesus. But I admit the weakness of this argument, and I certainly do see the elements of the cult of Mithras and other religions (maybe even Buddhism) in Christianity.
Also, and this is the most important point, if we reject option 1, the remaining options aren't really very important.
|
It just seems to me that it would take too long to develop the diversity seen in the early Jesus cults if Jesus's death is dated correctly. These diverse cults appear across the Empire almost over night. There's no way a small group of apostles can spread the faith that fast and screw it up so badly. 
Still, I agree that if #1 is wrong, then the rest really don't matter. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 21:07:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by leoofno
It just seems to me that it would take too long to develop the diversity seen in the early Jesus cults if Jesus's death is dated correctly. These diverse cults appear across the Empire almost over night. There's no way a small group of apostles can spread the faith that fast and screw it up so badly.
|
One would think not, anyhow. Unless they were the Twelve Stooges. But maybe they were.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 05:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Maybe someone slipped him so sleeping stuff,and he never actually died ("mostly dead?", with nods to the Princess Bride).
I have no problems with the existence of Jesus Christ. I also have no problems with him (A Nazarene, steeped in Messianistic tradition) orchestrating his crown (Daniel says I need a mule, find me a mule to ride into the city), and cauing enough of a comotion as to be crucified for insurection. The Romans would not have crucified him over something petty. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 09:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Me no care.
|
I thought about replying to this. And thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it. Ultimately I decided not to. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidence for Jesus
