Debate Troubles

[mwc]

Why start such a movement?

 

I can see why constantine would accept it. It's just easier to control people under one belief system.

 

But why would they want this story told during the time Rome ruled Jerusalem? To inspire people, to give the people desperately wanting a messiah to have one, to give what they believed is inspired tales from god?

These are hard questions because there isn't just one answer. As Mythra said there were "movements" and so there are many answers. We like to look back today with a single view in mind but it's just not so.

 

One thing you can see is that once the area was taken over many times (Babylon, Greeks then Romans) the people were looking for relief. The messiah. The apocolyptic literature and cults were quite popular at the time (100BC or so). So this is why you would start such a movement. The end times were the same motivation then as they are now. The messiah will come and take care of our oppressors and we will know peace. Isn't that what people are looking for today from jesus? That's the same exact story only jesus didn't quite exist yet...so eventually someone made him up. If being the messiah required one to be divine then why did so many claim to be the messiah and so many follow? All they wanted was relief just like people do all over the world today. That's all. It's really not that hard of question to answer but it is a hard answer to swallow after so many years of brainwashing.

 

The parts about Jews and Gentiles and all that came a lot later. Look at the books. Jesus cames for the Jews and wanted no compensation. Paul says compensation is only fair. Jump on the money train when it passes by.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

The original authorship could have been Rome, or Alexandria, or Syria, or god knows where.

I don't think he knows either..

[KT45]

Hell, lots of people had several religions at the same time. Christianity was one of the first to say - okay - if you wanna worship Jesus, you gotta get rid of that other guy.

What would motivate a Jewish guy to want to worship a guy named Jesus he's never seen even though he knows a false messiah is running around?

-edit-never mind just re-read mwc post

 

What would motivate a gentile who believes in a greek or pagan god to give up all the gods he loved and cherished in the name of Jesus around 50 A.D.? I'm guessing that since it was a much cheaper religion that was made for the poor than judaism or other pagan religions it might have been more attractive. Thoughts?

 

Do any historians believe that Jesus was a myth?

[Dhampir]

Since there were Jewish Christians (although I'm not entirely certain they called themselves that) I would say that they didn't necessarily believe in him the same way Paulian Christians, although the term Christ means Messiah.

[Mythra]

Do any historians believe that Jesus was a myth?

 

Not very many that I'm aware of. It's not a really popular stance to take.

 

I'd say a great number of historians believe that the gospel story itself is not true though. Most historians would say that there was some kind of an obscure itinerant preacher named Jesus who was crucified. Then the story became embellished and before you know it Jesus was God himself.

 

One critical historian who does believe that Jesus was a myth is Robert Price. He's a New Testament scholar who holds two PhD's. He's a professor of theology and scriptural studies and the author of quite a few books. Richard Carrier is also a historian who believes Jesus is a myth.

 

I'm sure there are others that I'm not aware of.

 

What would motivate a gentile who believes in a greek or pagan god to give up all the gods he loved and cherished in the name of Jesus around 50 A.D.? I'm guessing that since it was a much cheaper religion that was made for the poor than judaism or other pagan religions it might have been more attractive. Thoughts?

 

No mystery there. The same reason people go for it today. Someone convinces them it's true. Eternal life. Streets paved with gold. Your own mansion for all eternity. Paradise.

 

People still give up one religion for another. Happens all the time. All it takes is a good snake oil salesman. And Paul certainly was that.

[Mythra]

I really think that Mormonism is a wonderful current example of how a religion gets started.

 

All you gotta do is convince a small group that something is true, and it develops a life of its own.

 

Started with one 14 year old boy who claimed he was personally visited by God the Father (who was in the form of a man) and Jesus and John the Baptist. Some angel dude gave him gold plates with some ancient egyptian cuneiform writing. Special glasses to decipher it. No one ever sees the gold plates. The angel dude takes em back up to heaven.

 

Real believable shit. Kinda like a guy going for an all-day hike across a lake.

 

Now here we are 160 years or so later, and we have millions of people believing it.

 

P.T. Barnum said it best. There's a sucker born every minute.

[Guest Mr. XC]

Other questions that pop up are the issue with pagan religions and symbols. I usually say I see a relationship between symbols and the other pagan cults with Judaism and Christianity. Here is his usual response

 

When I bring up pagan religion similarities with the bible he merely says the bible clearly states that you should stay away from pagan religions so any similarities don’t matter. I usually come back at him saying well if I was going to create a religion that I stole from other religions then of course I would say don’t mess with those religions. That’s the best way to keep a scam alive is to say to stay away from finding the truth. His reply is if the whole culture around the time Christianity started was against pagan religions then where would they pull there resources from? I can understand that, If they are not in circulation in the culture how who they get a hold of them? Since I don’t have a concrete answer I usually leave that question alone. I say that it was most likely the Romans but I have no evidence to back up my claims. Any help here?

This seems to be relevant to this topic and appears to be an informative source: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/

The rest of the content is here: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

[Ouroboros]

Why start such a movement?

I can see why constantine would accept it. It's just easier to control people under one belief system. But why would they want this story told during the time Rome ruled Jerusalem? To inspire people, to give the people desperately wanting a messiah to have one, to give what they believed is inspired tales from god?

There were three major versions of Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians supposedly led by Jesus brother, the Paulinian Christians and the Gnostic Christians. When Nero destroyed Jerusalem and spread the Jews around the "world", the Jewish version pretty much disappeared. And then it evolved more after that to many new versions.

 

Also before Constantine got a hold of it. Why would believers try to spread this message that seemed to be soley for the jews? Why even try to preach to gentiles anyway?

That was Paul big new revelation, me'thinks.

[Abiyoyo]

Most of Jesus’ story is about benefiting the poor and attacking the political leaders at the time to cause reform. To make their cause greater and to make the orthodox Jews listen they would have to be backed by a so called messiah. Therefore making one up would be feasible. Why would they die for a fake messiah?[/

 

Well Taylor. Most of the followers that were persecuted during this timeframe were not in any kind of political involvement religiously, from what I have gathered. The one person that really stands out in the crowd as a devout, involved Jewish educator or leader of some sort was Paul, in whom wasnt with Jesus during His movement.

 

 

Assuming Paul was real I have no reason why others would spread a religion based on lies would spread. I see no monetary or political gain in doing so (there is no monetary because originally you were supposed to spread money out evenly to all people). The only possible explanation would be the government. Since the government could gain from a religion that can easily go from pacifist to militant depending on what part of the bible is taught, it’s easy to see why possibly a government could see that this religion could be quite useful. But again this is an assumption. Any ideas here?

 

Taylor. I hate to break it to you, but the government during the time of Christ could have given a shit less about what Jesus or any other religious sect was doing, unless it was affecting the people in a way that would have led them to believe that an attack would approach. The Jews ( politically or non-politically), however you want to coin it, killed Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

[All Gods Fail]

The Jews ( politically or non-politically), however you want to coin it, killed Jesus.

 

If Jesus really existed, that is.

 

Which he didn't.

[KT45]

Most of Jesus’ story is about benefiting the poor and attacking the political leaders at the time to cause reform. To make their cause greater and to make the orthodox Jews listen they would have to be backed by a so called messiah. Therefore making one up would be feasible. Why would they die for a fake messiah?

 

Well Taylor. Most of the followers that were persecuted during this timeframe were not in any kind of political involvement religiously, from what I have gathered. The one person that really stands out in the crowd as a devout, involved Jewish educator or leader of some sort was Paul, in whom wasnt with Jesus during His movement.

I was just asking what mindset people would be in to create a religion. There direct involvement with politics like you said was probably unlikely. But making a religion that says we should distribute money evenly to anyone in our little christian community and not worry about buying sacrifices to the jewish community is a political statement though. Anyway it's just a hypothesis.

 

Assuming Paul was real I have no reason why others would spread a religion based on lies would spread. I see no monetary or political gain in doing so (there is no monetary because originally you were supposed to spread money out evenly to all people). The only possible explanation would be the government. Since the government could gain from a religion that can easily go from pacifist to militant depending on what part of the bible is taught, it’s easy to see why possibly a government could see that this religion could be quite useful. But again this is an assumption. Any ideas here?

 

Taylor. I hate to break it to you, but the government during the time of Christ could have given a shit less about what Jesus or any other religious sect was doing, unless it was affecting the people in a way that would have led them to believe that an attack would approach. The Jews ( politically or non-politically), however you want to coin it, killed Jesus.

why do you assume I'm speaking of the government during the time when myths about someone named jesus arose? I'm asking why would someone like paul decide to spread the religion. Or why would a government group help spread it on a mass scale (like constantine did).

 

There were three major versions of Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians supposedly led by Jesus brother, the Paulinian Christians and the Gnostic Christians. When Nero destroyed Jerusalem and spread the Jews around the "world", the Jewish version pretty much disappeared. And then it evolved more after that to many new versions.

Any guess as to why Paul's movement won over the gnostics?

[Mythra]

hmm..

 

I think I gotta disagree that the gnostics and the Pauline christians were seperate.

 

Marcion was the follower of Valentinus as one of the primary leaders of the gnostic christians.

 

Marcion got a woody over the Pauline epistles. That was Marcion's bible - the Pauline epistles and Marcion's version of the gospel - which was one of two things:

 

Marcion's gospel was either Luke's gospel with parts cut out - or Luke's gospel was Marcion's with stuff added to it. I don't think anyone can say for sure.

 

I see the early movements as three primary groups:

 

1. the ascetics / essenes / therapeut / contemplative type. Those who shunned the world and went without comforts. They sought god through solitude an lived in closed communities of brothers. Followed along the lines of the Greek Cynics.

 

2. the Judaizers - Those who insisted that the OT law must still be followed to please Yahve.

 

3. the Hellenists / gnostics / Paul / who wanted to make a break with the OT laws and outdated customs - and start a newer, salvation by grace alone faith.

 

 

Eventually, it was the Hellenistic group that won out over the others. Then, some of the more extreme gnostic teachings (including the demuirge and docetism) were excluded from the club.

[KT45]

I see the early movements as three primary groups:

 

1. the ascetics / essenes / therapeut / contemplative type. Those who shunned the world and went without comforts. They sought god through solitude an lived in closed communities of brothers. Followed along the lines of the Greek Cynics.

 

2. the Judaizers - Those who insisted that the OT law must still be followed to please Yahve.

 

3. the Hellenists / gnostics / Paul / who wanted to make a break with the OT laws and outdated customs - and start a newer, salvation by grace alone faith.

I thought Paul verison of the gospel was separate from the rest. Paul was separate from the gnostics because they believed in a spiritual jesus and not literal. I also thought the gnostics followed the other gospels excluded from the bible unlike paul. If wrong then please tell me what gnostics and hellenist believed. I just never taught what paul taught could be anything like what the gnostics taught.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Taylor. I think the early Christians probably were genuine fanatics who believed in their own message. A parallel is the behavior of later Christian sects. MANY were exiled, put to death, etc. by Christian governments for spreading different versions of Christianity, which they believed wholeheartedly. To say "they must have believed it because they died for it" is one thing; to say "it must be true because they believed it AND they were eyewitnesses" is quite another. We don't know that Paul or the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses to any of the events about Jesus. As Mythra said, the early history of Mormonism is an example. They underwent persecution and exile for their beliefs, but even people living at the time of Joseph Smith had not witnessed the Angel Moroni's visitations and the other stuff Smith talked about. No one credible ever saw the golden tablets.

 

I think it takes only one or a few charismatic, exciting madmen to convince a bunch of followers that their message is true, and then the followers go around spreading it and dying for it. The madman who starts it may die for his own message as an effect of his psychosis - he prefers death to giving up the psychotic structure he's made for himself. In fact, I think in religious psychotics, a martyr complex is part of the psychosis itself, and they seek fulfillment in martyrdom. People like Jim Jones or David Koresh were founders of wacky religious cults in our time, and they and their followers were killed. Jones and Koresh probably had some form of psychosis in which a hugely inflated self image was part of the picture. Of course, I guess it's possible that such leaders actually know what they're doing and are just in it for the power and money and sex (with disciples), but then they misstep and get whacked. Their followers subsequently have the psychological need to believe in the message rather than to admit to themselves that they were taken in by a fraud.

 

So the psychological arguments that your dad is using are applicable to such a wide array of religious movements that they fail as proofs of Christianity's uniqueness.

[KT45]

Okay here is my view on how this myth got started inside the culture. Tell me if it's even close to likely or if I'm way off base.

 

The ultimate urban legend

 

To me Christianity started off like this. Around 30 A.D., when Jesus was supposedly crucified, an urban legend started. Since self proclaimed messiahs were popping up all around and constantly executed people would talk about it. They would say things like “I saw a messiah throw around table around Passover” or “I saw a messiah that cast out a demon” or "I saw a messiah heal the sick". It didn’t matter the name of these different messiahs in fact 3 or 4 could have been named Jesus. Since everyone really, really wants a messiah to step forth people would start naming there kids Jesus or “Savior” in hope that they would become that. It is a true that Jesus was a common name at that time.

 

Well over time as the myths are spoken about, just like any urban legend a story begins to form. People start telling very similar stories and since Jesus was a common name that meant savior it’s very easy to see how that name could be thrown into the legend. As this urban legend began to grow people over time began adding stories from other religions they heard about. It’s simple really. One guy says that "my god died and rose again" so they add it to Jesus’ story to compete with it or someone realizes that some of the popular gods were born of virgins so they throw that in for good measure. Hey, you gotta make your messiah better than the rest.

 

From about 30 A.D. to about 45 A.D. was enough time for the legend to grow and for most people to start telling the same urban legend (with a few variations) and believing it. Very small groups and sects form from people truly believing these stories since they desperately want a messiah. Then some unknown writer gets an idea to write down all the stuff he has been hearing from the locals. They are in no particular order but just a list of events and sayings. This writing was probably either the Q or something like the gospel of Thomas. Then one of the sects that either wrote the Q or got a hold of it decides to give it to a local writer named Mark. Now Mark is not a disciple or follower and probably isn’t interested in the details of the story. He merely writes want the sect wants him to write. Most scholars believe that Mark and the Q is what most of the gospels writers were viewing when writing there text.

 

Now after Mark finishes it gets handed out to different sects who in turn give it to another unknown writer to make a copy. This writer is a more devout. He copies practically the whole book of Mark while throwing in some details he heard from his version of the urban legend (like more healings, some angels etc). To make his document more authentic he says that one of the characters that was in Marks book gave this account. He made sure to name it a major character like John or Matthew. He didn't feel obligated to write himself as the true writer but wanted to make his religion more credible.

 

Well this sequence of events happens for a while. One writer gets the book of Mark, copies it and adds what he heard in his version of the urban legend and names it after some biblical figure (some decided not to). Then copies of those copies are made and more stories are added that weren’t in the originals like the story of the adulterous woman. This easily explains all the variations inside the gospels.

 

So whatcha think? Seems probable to me. I mean people believe urban legends today but this urban legend were believed by people who really wanted it to be true.

[Ouroboros]

I see the early movements as three primary groups:

 

1. the ascetics / essenes / therapeut / contemplative type. Those who shunned the world and went without comforts. They sought god through solitude an lived in closed communities of brothers. Followed along the lines of the Greek Cynics.

 

2. the Judaizers - Those who insisted that the OT law must still be followed to please Yahve.

 

3. the Hellenists / gnostics / Paul / who wanted to make a break with the OT laws and outdated customs - and start a newer, salvation by grace alone faith.

I thought Paul verison of the gospel was separate from the rest. Paul was separate from the gnostics because they believed in a spiritual jesus and not literal. I also thought the gnostics followed the other gospels excluded from the bible unlike paul. If wrong then please tell me what gnostics and hellenist believed. I just never taught what paul taught could be anything like what the gnostics taught.

Paul never met Jesus and talks about Jesus almost on a non-physical way, so... heck... maybe. I never thought of Paul being Gnostic before.

 

I see one problem though. Gnostics didn't preach salvation through grace, but through knowledge (Gnosis). But on the other hand, we're not sure if Paul wrote Romans, which is the big grace preaching letter. If even Paul existed... (There are debates about him too being invented.)

 

I think it's pretty close. No one can know for sure of course, but it's fairly close to how I see it. I'm still in the phase of trying to settle my own curiosity too, so my views changes over time when new information pops up. Like we all do here.

[mwc]

Taylor. I hate to break it to you, but the government during the time of Christ could have given a shit less about what Jesus or any other religious sect was doing, unless it was affecting the people in a way that would have led them to believe that an attack would approach. The Jews ( politically or non-politically), however you want to coin it, killed Jesus.

I hate to break it to you if jesus really was the Jewish Messiah then he wouldn't have been killed by the Jews. Imagine that. Why kill your one true hope of being free of your oppressors? Because you're on the take? Your greed is more powerful than Gods prophecies? I don't think so. The OT does not say that God will send the Messiah but there's a chance he'll be killed off and all this second coming crap. The Jews will be yearning for him as a people and he will come. I guess they all missed that part since they still aren't too receptive for the guy you keep trying to tell them is their messiah. When will they understand that xians understand their scripture better than they do? I guess it will be the day xians finally get off their collective asses and can actually prove their blind assertians without all the apologetics and games. Good luck.

 

I also hate to break it to you but the Romans, especially Pilate, couldn't have given a shit what the Jewish religious leaders wanted nor what a crowd of idiots would have wanted...so if Pilate thought jesus was innocent then he would have been freed...period. Pilate didn't put up with that crap in the real world (the one outside the bible).

 

Also, the Romans were extremely interested in anything that looked like treason. Why do you think the bible contains verses like (to paraphrase) "give unto Caesar" and the like? It's to say that "this movement is not to overthrow the current Roman regime. We are no threat Rome." To give the appearance otherwise would have brought a world of hurt down upon themselves. This is why the line of questioning hinted at in the bible by Pilate is important because it sets up jesus as treasonous and in the end Pilate did not think he was and so he did not deserve the Roman punishment. The real Pilate would have then told the Jews to go fuck themselves and if they didn't like that answer he would have helped them figure it out. He was not one to wash his hands and walk away. There is also no record anywhere (Jewish or Roman) of trading prisoners at Passover (so that's just made up for the story).

 

mwc

[Mythra]

Paul never met Jesus and talks about Jesus almost on a non-physical way, so... heck... maybe. I never thought of Paul being Gnostic before.

 

There are a couple of considerations here. As you know, Hans - some of the epistles attributed to Paul (the pastorals in particular) were pseudo-Pauline; second century writings.

 

Romans, as far as I know, is considered to be a genuine writing of Paul.

 

But here is the problem: We know for sure that Marcion was gnostic. We know for sure that his hero was Paul.

 

What we don't know for sure is whether or not the genuine Pauline epistles as we have them have not been monkied with in order for them to fit better with the version of christianity that eventually became orthodox.

 

Paul the gnostic opponent of Peter

[Ouroboros]

Okay. That's quite interesting. I kind of recognize this, maybe we discussed it last year. Sounds familiar...

 

(Some argue though that all Paul's letters are pseudography.)

 

But does really the Letter to Romans jive with gnosticism and docetism? I have to read Romans again to see if it makes sense...

[Mythra]

Do any historians believe that Jesus was a myth?

 

I'm reading a discussion between professional historians on another board. Here is a better answer to your question from that discussion:

 

 

It is true that except for inerrantists, there is a broad consensus both in and out of academia that the gospels are not 100 percent historically accurate. It is also true that within that consensus, judgments vary -- from "most" to "almost none" -- as to how much of them is accurate or, if not accurate, at least based on or inspired by historical fact, however tenuous the connection between the narratives and the reality of Jesus' life and teachings. People whose views fall anywhere within that consensus are historicists. A few of us have rejected the consensus. We believe that there is no connection at all between the gospels and any historical fact about Christianity's origins.

 

People who think that the gospels are only partly myth, even if they think the part is 99 percent, are considered historicists. What is called the mythicist position is that Jesus was entirely mythical, that the gospels have zero basis in historical fact. The majority of professionals do not accept that position.

[KT45]

People who think that the gospels are only partly myth, even if they think the part is 99 percent, are considered historicists. What is called the mythicist position is that Jesus was entirely mythical, that the gospels have zero basis in historical fact. The majority of professionals do not accept that position.

How do they come to the position that it's not all myth? Do historians have some kind of way to test historical accuracy like scientist can test theories with the scientific method? Someone on this site needs to get a doctorate in history and challenge the historic community. Not because I think I'm right, I just like people challenging what everyone thinks is truth.

[Mythra]

How do they come to the position that it's not all myth? Do historians have some kind of way to test historical accuracy like scientist can test theories with the scientific method?

 

Since there is no archaological evidence for any first century christians, what I see discussed are texts. And the whole problem there is that the early christians were notoriious for forging documents, altering texts and destroying the works of opposing viewpoints.

 

So, some of the discussions concern Josephus' phrase "brother of the Lord" when referring to James the Just. Or the testimonium flavianum.

 

They discuss key phrases in some of Paul's writings, such as "kata sarka" = (according to the flesh, or in the realm of the flesh)

 

They talk about what could have been the impetus - the pebble in the pond, if you will - that began the whole thing. Whether there was some obscure person who was unjustly crucified, or whether the religion began, like so many others of that time - purely as a mythical construct.

 

One argument you don't see historians make, is the one seen on ex-c by fundies - "I just know he's real cause I talk with him everyday and he helps me and I feel him in my heart"...

 

[KT45]

why is paul considered by most to be an actual person and not a myth as well?

 

Also why the hell did they pick pauls letters and not the other gnostic writings? What made paul more special than lets say thomas?

[Mythra]

why is paul considered by most to be an actual person and not a myth as well?

 

Actually, there is quite a bit of discussion that the details surrounding Paul are completely made up, also. There is not much evidence to the contrary.

 

It's all quite interesting. There are passages in Romans that read much more fluidly when the "Christ Jesus" entries are removed.

 

There is just not one shred of evidence that any book in the bible has not been worked and re-worked and re-worked in order to make it fit the theology-du-jour. In fact, there is a pretty good consensus amongst scholars that this is indeed what occurred.

 

I've even been reading (hypotheses) that the writings of Paul were actually written by Appolonius. As in Appolonius of Tyana. Apollo. Pol.

 

A genuine person who had other writings, who's bio is suspiciously close to that of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Wouldn't it be a kick if the only reason we worship Jesus and not Appolonius is because Constantine wanted to continue eating red meat. (Appolonius was a strict vegetarian - animal rights dude)