(February 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: That's about the best we'll ever get where a real man is concerned. It's fun figuring out how Christianity could have got started with a purely mythic Jesus though.

Was there anything wrong with what I offered on page 1 or so of this thread?

Christianity is the bastard child of Judaism and Paganism. A nebulous and hypothetical "mortal Jesus" is neither necessary nor helpful to understand Christianity's origins.

Pagan paternity is found in certain core Christian beliefs that are completely alien or even blasphemous to the Jewish faith. The Jews had little or no concept of an afterlife, much less any detailed description of a salvation message essential to Christianity, and the idea of an intercessor to Yahweh, which Jesus requires, was/is completely unacceptable to a jealous god that explicitly forbade such an arrangement.

Still, religion, like art, casts its influence and gains inspiration from its neighbors, sometimes even from politically or socially hostile ones. Judea stands at a cross-roads of three continents and was occupied by foreign empires. Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome all had their turn and each had their proto-Christian ideas to offer.

Even the modern concept of the Christian god seems closer to Zeus than to Yahweh. Yahweh never once smote anyone with lightning. That was Zeus' shtick. Yahweh preferred columns of fire or using the earth to swallow the sinners. Which punishment works its way into our culture?

Satan, meanwhile, seems like a cross between the Greek gods Pan and Hades.

Reading the NT in the order the books were written is also informative. One sees how the story got better with the telling. The first book, Revelation, depicts a Jesus most consistent with a messiah, a bloody warlord come to bring glory to Israel. Salvation was by works and keeping the laws, also consistent with Jewish theology.

The idea of a faith-based scheme of salvation complete with dumping Jewish laws came with Paul's epistles. These letters speak of a Jesus who was either celestial or lived a long time ago. Paul denies in 1Cor 15:8 that this Jesus had lived within his lifetime.

Mark, a non-witness allegedly a companion of Paul (assuming Mark even wrote the Book of Mark) brought this Jesus down to earth and placed him in recent history. Matthew later corrects Mark in his errors on Jewish theology (evidence that Christianity owes its existence to non-Jews or Pagans) and expands upon it. Luke wrote a book of his own, apparently ignorant of Matthew as evident by all the contradictions.

Search any Synoptic Gospel in vein for any reference that Jesus was part of any Trinity. This came with the Gospel of John that depicted the modern Jesus. This Jesus was one with his father and quite bombastic about his mission.

The tale developed over time in ways that we can look back and see. Christianity is best understood as a syncratic faith, a blending of all the nearby religions into one super-religion that was to unite the Roman Empire.

But to look for a mortal historical Jesus is like pealing away an onion for its center. First, you peal away the miracles and magic. There goes most of the story. Then you peal away the successful and highly controversial ministry, since it got no attention from contemporary sources. Then you peal away the teachings, since we have no clue what those might have been. Then you peal away any specific dates as to exactly when he lived, since Matt and Luke can't get that straight. So, other than all that, we still have... we still have... we still have...?

(February 24, 2013 at 10:34 am)Minimalist Wrote: But this is the very essence of the point. The legends are so absurd and/or obscure that no reasonable picture of the man can be discerned but he still "accepts that he existed?" Why? And why not then also accept all of the other gods who very silly men claim exist?

There is far too much special pleading when it comes to fucking jesus.

Why is the idea that there might have been a man who was obscured by myths and legends special pleading? It relates to the question of how Christianity got started. Was it an offshoot of an existing sect which had been around for a very long time? If so, which sect was it? Could somebody (the real man, not the myths and legends version) have founded a new sect? If so, maybe Christianity was an offshoot of that.

Richard Dawkins didn't insist that Jesus never existed.

Quote:Dawkins, citing G. A. Wells, sees the gospels as rehashed versions of the Hebrew Bible, and writes that it is probable Jesus existed, but that a serious argument can be mounted against it, though not a widely supported one.[268]

Reference 268 is for - Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin, 2006, pp. 202–203.

I managed to find the actual quote although I can't double check it because I don't own a copy of The God Delusion. (I can't explain why the page numbers are different in the two references. Maybe somebody made a typing error.)

Quote:In Chapter 3 of “The God Delusion”, Dawkins cites a professor of German, G. A. Wells, as an authority on the historical claim that Jesus did not exist.

“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122

I honestly can't see Richard Dawkins being worried about offending Christians if he insisted that Jesus never existed. Do you think that he was going in for special pleading too?

I looked up Professor G A Wells

Quote:He is best known as an advocate of the thesis that Jesus is essentially a mythical rather than a historical figure, a theory that was pioneered by German biblical scholars such as Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews.

In his books The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells allows for the possibility that the central figure of the Gospel stories may be based on a historical character from first-century Galilee: "[T]he Galilean and the Cynic elements ... may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents)."[1] Sayings and memories of this preacher may have been preserved in the "Q" document that is hypothesized as the source of many "sayings" of Jesus found in both gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, Wells concludes that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task.
The updated position taken by Wells has been interpreted by other scholars as an "about-face", abandoning his initial thesis in favor of accepting the existence of a historical Jesus.[2] However, Wells insists that this figure of late first-century Gospel stories is distinct from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early Christian documents, and that these two figures have different sources before being fused in Mark. Wells argues that Paul's Jesus was "a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time."[3]In his books The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells allows for the possibility that the central figure of the Gospel stories may be based on a historical character from first-century Galilee: "[T]he Galilean and the Cynic elements ... may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents)."[1] Sayings and memories of this preacher may have been preserved in the "Q" document that is hypothesized as the source of many "sayings" of Jesus found in both gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, Wells concludes that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task.
The updated position taken by Wells has been interpreted by other scholars as an "about-face", abandoning his initial thesis in favor of accepting the existence of a historical Jesus.[2] However, Wells insists that this figure of late first-century Gospel stories is distinct from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early Christian documents, and that these two figures have different sources before being fused in Mark. Wells argues that Paul's Jesus was "a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time."[3]

That's an interesting idea. You can read about the Hypothetical Q Source here.

(February 24, 2013 at 11:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Was there anything wrong with what I offered on page 1 or so of this thread?

So, other than all that, we still have... we still have... we still have...?

The question of how Christianity got started without anybody at all behind the myths and legends. The reason why I posted this topic is for people to tackle the practicalities concerning how Christianity came into existence when it did if there wasn't a real man somewhere.

(February 24, 2013 at 11:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Pagan paternity is found in certain core Christian beliefs that are completely alien or even blasphemous to the Jewish faith. The Jews had little or no concept of an afterlife, much less any detailed description of a salvation message essential to Christianity, and the idea of an intercessor to Yahweh, which Jesus requires, was/is completely unacceptable to a jealous god that explicitly forbade such an arrangement.

Did the pagan elements get added after the teachings of a Jewish sect were taken to the Gentiles or was there a bizarre Jewish sect in Judea which followed a mixture of Judaism and pagan beliefs? Can you come up with any ideas concerning what this original Jewish sect was about? Was there an original Jewish sect? If not, why did a religion about a divine being who was supposed to be the real Jewish Messiah come into existence outside Judea?

In Post #161 I came up with an idea based on The Problem Of Paul. I had to get round the fact that the author regarded Jesus as a real person but I managed it.

(February 24, 2013 at 6:32 am)traveller Wrote:

(February 24, 2013 at 12:24 am)EGross Wrote: I went to the web site. It's a kind of a new cult - so new I couldn't find it on wikipedia. Note to cults: always make a wikipedia entry when you get going!

From their site:
[snip]

---

Hi, I see you quote Wikipedia.........what a laugh. I have myself entered three entries that are fictitious which have been entered. Entries can be entered and amended by anyone, so don't rely on wikipedia.

Actually, had you read the post, You would have seen that I was saying that it was NOT on Wikipedia, and I was being sarcastic about how cults should always strive to make a decent entry when they start up. What I quoted was from their ugly web site home page. Alas, sometimes sarcasm is best avoided.

(February 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: The question of how Christianity got started without anybody at all behind the myths and legends. The reason why I posted this topic is for people to tackle the practicalities concerning how Christianity came into existence when it did if there wasn't a real man somewhere.

Regardless of whether or not there was a jesus there is still "somebody behind" the myths and legends. Stories don't write themselves. There could be hundreds of "real men" behind them - and nary a "jesus" among them.

A similar question was asked thousands of years ago about pagan faiths and one of the answers offered was Euhemerism. The trouble with both Euhemerism and a historical jesus is that neither are actually asking the question of whether or not their respective religious figures existed - they both simply assume that those figures existed and then wax on about the details of their existence. Step one, provide a euhemerist god or a historical jesus. Step 2 - wax on about the details. It's always step one that's missing.

Without step one we are simply weaving (yet another) fictional narrative - to explain a fictional narrative. Turtles all the way down. Any insight we gain from this will be insight into ourselves - not euhemerist gods or historical jesus-es.

(February 24, 2013 at 10:34 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Am I inclined to accept that Jesus existed? Yes, I am. But I am unable to say with any conviction what he may have said and done, or what his words and deeds might tell us about who or what he thought he was.

But this is the very essence of the point. The legends are so absurd and/or obscure that no reasonable picture of the man can be discerned but he still "accepts that he existed?" Why? And why not then also accept all of the other gods who very silly men claim exist?

There is far too much special pleading when it comes to fucking jesus.

Indeed - the Problem with this thread is that the Title again is worded as a theist would - that it is lack of belief. (We do not believe there was a jesus)

However - if you look at the subject on a rational level - no theist has ever provided ANY proof of the existence of the christ - AND - even if there was a human person upon which PART of the MYTH is based - it would still be impossible for the christ to have actually existed based on the incredible number of contradicting claims made for the character.

One can use the bible to identify the christ myth as a FALSE PROPHET - for example - based on definition from the bible.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22, "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

OF course - the bible also says

."Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Obviously - the christ IDENTIFIED himself as a false prohpet

Jeremiah 28:9, "The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him."

ANd - there has been almost continuous war in the middle east since ancient times.

(February 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: The question of how Christianity got started without anybody at all behind the myths and legends. The reason why I posted this topic is for people to tackle the practicalities concerning how Christianity came into existence when it did if there wasn't a real man somewhere.

With all due respect, this is a classic argument from ignorance mixed with a dash of argument from incredulity.

Paraphrased slightly, this is "we don't know how this religion got started, we can't imagine how it got started without a Jesus, so we're going to assume one existed and the skeptic has to prove otherwise." Even putting aside my entire post explaining how Christianity evolved from earlier religions, this is not valid reasoning.

Quote:Did the pagan elements get added after the teachings of a Jewish sect were taken to the Gentiles or was there a bizarre Jewish sect in Judea which followed a mixture of Judaism and pagan beliefs?

Pagan elements got sprinkled into Judaism all along. Again, religion, like art, picks up from its neighbors constantly. Consider how the Jewish faith believes in "Sheol" as the afterlife. This term means "the grave". Various passages in the OT suggest there is no afterlife and yet we have the story of King Saul who raises the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel from the underworld, suggesting they'd incorporated some ideas of Hades from the Greeks or perhaps some afterlife ideas from the Egyptians.

Quote:Can you come up with any ideas concerning what this original Jewish sect was about? Was there an original Jewish sect?

As I've posted before, likely Jews chaffing under foreign rule wondering WTF happened to their covenant with Yahweh and why isn't the "seed of David" sitting on the throne. Some decided their messiah lived in a higher world and so Revelation was written.

Notice how Paul also mentions that Jesus is of the "seed of David". Jesus, in Revelation at least, was born in Heaven and sits on a celestial throne and he will come to earth to vanquish Israel's enemies.

Again, read the NT in the order in which the books were written and you have Christian sources themselves telling us how the faith in Christ evolved over time.

Quote:If not, why did a religion about a divine being who was supposed to be the real Jewish Messiah come into existence outside Judea?

Because Judea was under Roman rule and so an earthly Messiah seemed unlikely to some. Some of them looked to a higher realm for their salvation.

Quote:...The Problem Of Paul...

There are MANY problems with Paul. Here are a few:

Paul denies that Jesus had lived within his lifetime:

Quote:1Cor 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was an outsider to the Jewish faith who was strangely brought in as their chief prosecutor and then he suddenly changes sides and nobody in the Jewish community had one comment on that betrayal.

Paul promotes the idea of a Jesus who was born of a woman and of the seed of David. But it was Marcion who first discovered and promoted the letters of Paul as the scripture of the Marcionite Christians. Yet, the Marcionites believed that Jesus was a higher god who came to earth as a fully formed adult. How could he be born of a woman of the seed of a man of history? One must conclude that either:

1. Marcion never actually read what Paul wrote
   
2. Marcion promoted Paul hoping no one else would read what Paul wrote
   
3. What we have of Paul isn't what was originally written by Paul assuming there even was a Paul
   

I think the first two scenarios are pretty unlikely. The third is consistent with the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation, which abounds with holy scriptures of the time.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A similar question was asked thousands of years ago about pagan faiths and one of the answers offered was Euhemerism. The trouble with both Euhemerism and a historical jesus is that neither are actually asking the question of whether or not their respective religious figures existed - they both simply assume that those figures existed and then wax on about the details of their existence. Step one, provide a euhemerist god or a historical jesus. Step 2 - wax on about the details. It's always step one that's missing.

From my opening post -

Quote:The object of the exercise is to explain how Christianity started when it did and why when there wasn't a real man who was obscured by all the Christian myths and legends. Any ideas from rational to barking mad are allowed.

Christianity started around 2,000 years ago. How and why did it start? That's what I'm asking people to come up with ideas about.

The topic has wandered off the point on numerous occasions but it's not meant to be about deities or whether Jesus actually existed.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm)ThomM Wrote: Indeed - the Problem with this thread is that the Title again is worded as a theist would - that it is lack of belief. (We do not believe there was a jesus)

I admit that my title is a bit confusing because of the word 'historical' but it was too late to edit it after somebody pointed it out. I don't think theists would use the word historical, though, because theories about an historical Jesus are about a real man who was as human as everyone else on the planet, not the divine being portrayed by Christianity.

Some atheists don't believe that there was a real man behind all the myths and legends - Minimalist is one of them. I've read innumerable comments by atheists on blogs and various other articles and they don't all share Minimalist's opinion - some think that Jesus did exist as an ordinary man who got killed while others think he probably existed or might have existed.

There's no law which states that atheists have to insist that Jesus never existed at all. Even Richard Dawkins said he probably existed in 'The God Delusion' but he wouldn't have meant the divine being of Christian belief because he's an atheist.

I invited atheists who don't think there was anyone at all to come up with ideas because atheists who do think there was a real man might assume that Christianity got started because of him.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm)ThomM Wrote: However - if you look at the subject on a rational level - no theist has ever provided ANY proof of the existence of the christ - AND - even if there was a human person upon which PART of the MYTH is based - it would still be impossible for the christ to have actually existed based on the incredible number of contradicting claims made for the character.

Again, this topic isn't supposed to be about who Jesus might have been as a real person. It's asking for ideas about how Christianity got started when people are supposed to be taking the approach that there wasn't some ordinary human guy wandering around Galilee preaching to people. We know that Christianity did get started somehow because it's with us today.

I'm one of those atheists who think that there might have been a real man who was obscured by myths and legends so I don't go as far as Richard Dawkins who said he probably existed. In order to get this topic back on track I had a go at coming up with an idea where no real Jesus was involved but most posters don't seem interested in suggesting anything.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:16 pm)ThomM Wrote: Obviously - the christ IDENTIFIED himself as a false prohpet

He didn't in this topic because there isn't supposed to be anyone who identified himself as a prophet of any kind where the object of the exercise is concerned.

Well, if Paul believed in a "son of David" and he knew someting about Judaism, then he must have held that Jesus was (1) human and (2) had a human father. To have a non-Jewish father (god is not Jewish) creates a lot of legalisting problems. Unlike David, where they could retroactively validate him as being a proper leader, having a non-Jewish father tosses the entire premis into the can. So I would suggest that Paul would have not held with the virgin birth story (which he never mentions) or a non-Jewish supernatural father.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Paraphrased slightly, this is "we don't know how this religion got started, we can't imagine how it got started without a Jesus, so we're going to assume one existed and the skeptic has to prove otherwise."

I've actually come up with two different ideas in this topic for how Christianity could have got started without a Jesus. One's a bit far fetched but something like it isn't necessarily impossible. Even though I think there might have been a real man behind the myths and legends I was able to take the view that he didn't exist because Christianity still had to get started somehow if there wasn't anyone at all.

In Post Post #161 I quoted from the Problem With Paul article so I could use something in it as a basis for Christianity without any real Jesus behind the myths and legends. The quote I used is as follows -

Quote:A source of information about Paul that has never been taken seriously enough is a group called the Ebionites. Their writings were suppressed by the Church, but some of their views and traditions were preserved in the writings of their opponents, particularly in the huge treatise on Heresies by Epiphanius. From this it appears that the Ebionites had a very different account to give of Paul's background and early life from that found in the New Testament and fostered by Paul himself. The Ebionites testified that Paul had no Pharisaic background or training; he was the son of Gentiles, converted to Judaism in Tarsus, came to Jerusalem when an adult, and attached himself to the High Priest as a henchman. Disappointed in his hopes of advancement, he broke with the High Priest and sought fame by founding a new religion. This account, while not reliable in all its details, is substantially correct. It makes far more sense of all the puzzling and contradictory features of the story of Paul than the account of the official documents of the Church.

I then said -

Quote:The rest of the article goes on the assumption that there really was a Jesus and the Nazarene sect had been founded by his followers but maybe the above is enough to explain Paul's actions. Realising he wouldn't have a glittering career because he was a convert without Pharisaic training he decided to leave Judea and start a religious cult. People are still starting religious cults and lying about their backgrounds so it wouldn't be impossible for Paul to have done this.

In Post #108 I came up with a somewhat far fetched idea based on something I read in a discussion about Yeishu ha Notzri - I won't quote it all again here because people can find it in Post #108.

Quote:There are several interesting references to a Yeishu ha Notzri (note the resemblance of the name to "Jesus of Nazareth"), who traveled around and practiced magic during the reign of Alexander Janneus, who ruled Palestine from 104 to 78 BCE.

My idea based on that was -

Quote:It doesn't matter if Yeishu ha Notzri really existed because we're going on the assumption that Jesus didn't exist. All it would need is a Jewish sect whose members believed that Yeishu ha Notzri had been a real person.

One of the members - I'll call him Fred - developed schizophrenia and had delusions of YHN talking to him and saying he was the son of God. Fred's knowledge that the Romans crucified criminals was incorporated into his delusions so he believed that YHN had been crucified by Pontius Pilate. As Yeshua was a common name at the time his delusions also told him that YHN's real name was Yeshua. Bits and pieces of YHN's story were combined into a jumbled history of Yeshua along with the idea that Yeshua must have been resurrected because Fred was having a conversation with him.

Fred was thrown out of the sect so he went to the Gentiles and the rest is history. (Paul of Tarsus was based on him).

This one was inspired by something in Paul's letter to the Galatians because it made me think of someone holding conversations with a delusion -

Quote:11 For I would have you know, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it,
but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul would still have claimed that if he'd decided to start his own cult, of course.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Pagan elements got sprinkled into Judaism all along.

As I've posted before, likely Jews chaffing under foreign rule wondering WTF happened to their covenant with Yahweh and why isn't the "seed of David" sitting on the throne. Some decided their messiah lived in a higher world and so Revelation was written.

You've now got an original Jewish sect which Christianity could have split away from. This is the kind of idea I've been asking people to come up with.

Quote:Me - If not, why did a religion about a divine being who was supposed to be the real Jewish Messiah come into existence outside Judea?

(February 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Because Judea was under Roman rule and so an earthly Messiah seemed unlikely to some. Some of them looked to a higher realm for their salvation.

This is a good idea for how the original Jewish sect could have started outside Judea.

The final step is suggesting how the Gentiles could have learned what either of your suggested Jewish sects believed so they could develop it into Christianity.

(February 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: But it was Marcion who first discovered and promoted the letters of Paul as the scripture of the Marcionite Christians.

[*]What we have of Paul isn't what was originally written by Paul assuming there even was a Paul
[/list]

The third is consistent with the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation, which abounds with holy scriptures of the time.

If Marcion c.85 – c.160. invented Paul, how did the teachings of a Jewish sect get taken to the Gentiles? I had a go at inventing Fred just to see if I could come up with an idea about how Christianity could have got started without a Jesus or a Paul. I found no Jesus easier to explain than no Paul so I had to resort to somebody Paul could have been based on.