There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Ouroboros]

In my mind here there are two possible scenarios and that is based on the information we have that other competing doctrines/accounts were destroyed. Can we really even prove they were destroyed? From 350ish we start to have better records about early christianity, are we to take this at face value too? Perhaps there were records copied and recopied and embellished and would have been deemed as sacred and as we were taught "faithfully" copied w/o error. Well we now know that is not the truth.

Well, we do have documents that christianity existed earlier, made by the same people we trust regarding other "facts" of history. We can be fairly sure christians (whatever they were at that point) existed in the 2nd century, and most likely started in the 1st.

 

The one scenario is that these accounts multiplied and by the time of the councils were all collected and collated, redacted and edited. What happened is unknown and we have to take church records on face value. By then the oral tradition would have been very fuzzy and there would have been many versions of the same story. This is what I deem most likely.

That's the thing though. "These accounts" didn't come about at different places because people felt like writing the same or similar stories at different places. They must have some common sources to begin with before they start to diversity. When Shakespeare, or whoever he was, wrote Romeo and Juliet, there wasn't a hundred different writers writing similar stories about Romeo and Juliet at the same time. The variations over the years of "Romeo and Juliet" came from that one person wrote one story first.

 

Let me put it this way. Evolution. Evolution is true. DNA is the factor that we share which provides common traits. Scientists can track who share common ancestors and deduce from the DNA when and what kind. A story that has evolved into a large number of variations have a "DNA" too. The same mutations don't occur at the same time at different locations. It's extremely improbable. Christianity share stories and myths with other religions, so those parts come from there. No problem. Christianity also share unique traits that do not come from other religions, those traits (or phenotypes) of Christianity points to a common ancestor of the Christian religion. I'm only applying what I know about evolution on religious evolution, and I can't help but come to the same result as evolution, we share a common ancestor, so does the Christians. That common ancestor they have does not have to be Jesus even. There are of course cross breeding and overlapping and false branches and much more, but to convert Romans to a Jewish cult requires more than just "it's another Zeus."

 

Would the early xians really have been Hellenists and influenced by the other god tales and slowly they crept into the "true" accounts as time went on?

It was also Jewish. But they didn't love the Jews. They caused trouble. Jerusalem was even destroyed and the Jews deported. They brought the cult with them... but how and why would a Roman convert from Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodites, and all the other gods to Jesus the Jew? It didn't happen until Constantine? Then we can't really trust any author before 300 AD. That's a stretch.

 

A side note here, the evangelical woo that influenced my conversion said that it takes only 3 generations for a break away church formed to lose the original vision and founding principals before they reverted to the more mainstream beliefs. Whether that is true or not I can't say but that stuck with me. His premise was that the RCC had corrupted the church and introduced pagan stuff contrary to what Jesus and the OT allegedly taught. That much is true to a point. That however still holds true today as churches will adapt to culture and revise doctrine. My church never had issues with gays until they were allowed to marry. I still edited the AoF to exclude gay marriage from the church. The culture changed and now this tidbit had to be introduced as "church doctrine" of course it was watered down with love the sinner not the sin crapola. Can you see the picture I am trying to paint?

Absolutely. And I'm painting the same picture, but I don't see you understanding my painting yet. The key here, 3 generations from what? The proposed idea of mythologized random social viral memes doesn't work for generations. There are no generations in chaos. If there were 3 generations... then there a first generation. That first generation came from 500 different generations of 500 different religions at 500 different churches and locations just by random? No. There must have been mutation and selection and a genetic bottleneck in this. I can totally see the evolutionary processes at work here.

 

As the early church spread, it was inevitable that paganism and perhaps even huge embellishments could have crept in to incorporate pagan concepts. I think we can agree that this is more of less what happened.

 

This is the easy part of dissemination and I seriously doubt any of us see it very differently.

Correct. I believe 99.99999% of the bible stories are embellished and myth. Mixed with other faiths... but also, here's the kicker, hidden stories. Some of the conflicts between some of the people in the Gospels have an underlying meaning. They're not true stories, but they're put there for specific purposes that were more political than religious. Jesus v Judas is one. Jesus v Barrabas is another. Or the good Samaritan... I think it's talking about something else.

 

So did the councils collate all these varying accounts and draw up a master one (or four) and embellish the stories further? Well we do not know for certain other than what was reported is church history which was now starting to take shape. Let us assume that there was say for the Mark account, there were 20 -30 variances. How does one determine what was truth and what was added 300+ years after the fact? Even then they would be no better off than us discussing it today and we have access now to so many other resources and opinions.

We don't. I'm not looking for the original trouble makers based on the gospel stories. I think the gospel stories even are intentionally pointing in the wrong direction. They are misdirection to steer the early believer/follower away from the real truth, that the person who got them started was an asshole. But it doesn't change the concept of a central asshole getting the first followers going.

 

I was thinking just how easy records are lost is a mere 40-50 years or even less. Recently I have been scanning in all my photographs and there are hordes missing and I only moved from my next door house in the last 26 years, digital stuff is lost due to a crash on a PC that I had saved a lot of info on dedicated to back ups. I once captured all my analogue vids, that is gone and I have to do it all over again. If I battle with my personal records and I have so many mediums like I have to collate them, can we really think in the 1st two centuries it was superior? No it was not.

I don't think it was superior. But do we think that Christianity never came about? It's been existing for eternity? Or was it magically created by pure chance by thousands of people just coming up with the same memes? I don't. The unique commonalities have a commons source. Exactly what, who, when, why, that's up for debate.

 

I cannot comment on Mo but from what I have read, the evidence is not damning either.

Well, that just doesn't make sense to me. What you are believing then is that religions just pop into existence randomly and only through some mob factor. I don't think they do. I think there are people responsible for coming up with new memes, and to convert a large group of people, you need more than just some shared ideas. Look at Al Quida for instance. They are terrorists working for one belief... or so they say, but they need a figure head. Osama bin Laden never existed?

 

In the end you simply have to weigh up the opinions (not evidence) and make your own damn mind up.

I think I have. And as I stated earlier, I can see the principles of evolution here, and I know how it works. Therefore, I'm more convinced the way I think.

[LivingLife]

Hans to touch on what you mentioned, looking for the source of the myth is another angle of attack and that trail also goes cold quickly but I will concede there was a source. You also are on the same page that the occupiers would not suddenly be abandoning their gods in the 1st century.

 

What I think is wrong in assumption is that this "early church" was so widespread and if anything is to be taken on face value, it developed amongst non Jews. I have seen it suggested that the Jews reverted rather quickly to their roots considering the political situation at the time, that makes sense. If that were the case, then whatever gentile growth there was would have been fragmented and disjointed. The gospels even suggest that teaching/contact was made with gentiles, the swine story is one piece that suggests this as was the good Samaritan.

 

Thus is probably when the Paul fella appears on the scene. That I think would have been post 70. Maybe his Damascus road experience was meeting a charismatic in the flesh that convinced him he was wrong in his persecution and not some vision.

 

More thoughts later.

 

Paul's stuff is "evidence" for the invention and merging with other concepts.

[Ouroboros]

Hans to touch on what you mentioned, looking for the source of the myth is another angle of attack and that trail also goes cold quickly but I will concede there was a source. You also are on the same page that the occupiers would not suddenly be abandoning their gods in the 1st century.

 

What I think is wrong in assumption is that this "early church" was so widespread and if anything is to be taken on face value, it developed amongst non Jews. I have seen it suggested that the Jews reverted rather quickly to their roots considering the political situation at the time, that makes sense. If that were the case, then whatever gentile growth there was would have been fragmented and disjointed. The gospels even suggest that teaching/contact was made with gentiles, the swine story is one piece that suggests this as was the good Samaritan.

 

Thus is probably when the Paul fella appears on the scene. That I think would have been post 70. Maybe his Damascus road experience was meeting a charismatic in the flesh that convinced him he was wrong in his persecution and not some vision.

 

More thoughts later.

 

Paul's stuff is "evidence" for the invention and merging with other concepts.

Now we're talking.

 

It's a matter of looking at it on a "meta" level. Instead of looking at the actual data, look at how different pieces of data is put together at all.

 

Put it this way. The Christian myth, we agree there are parts in there that comes from Egypt, paganism, Hellenistic religion, Roman religion, and much more. A big mash of religious ideas put together. This is not something people just do out of the ordinary. We know that people (like ourselves) don't change religion on a whim. And especially, we don't invent our own religion here and there and suddenly discover we invented the same one. It's highly mysterious if two people have the exact same idea and they never got it from each other or from another source. If I was religious and heard about a "better" religion and then converted to it, the key is that I heard about it, not invented it. You have inventors, of course, but they're the "spiders in the net" that did the "inventing" to begin with.

 

To take Paul. There's been suggestions that Paul isn't Paul at all but Simon Magus. First, Magus isn't his real name either. And we don't know if he was a Samaritan or from some other place (don't remember right now). The stories varies, so he's an enigma too. Wheels within wheels. It's possible that this mysterious Simon was the original Paul and later religious people took his story and embellished it and merged it with their savior. But here's the kicker though... he did convert to whatever that proto-Christianity that he converted to, and we have to assume that it was a cult that believed in some kind of "Jesus" or "Messiah". If he didn't, the fake letters wouldn't make any sense for the writer to write or the readers to read. If the fake letters were intended to steer churches in some religious direction by using the authority of "Paul" (Simon), then those churches must have some kind of reference to a "Paul" regarding their beliefs. Think about if you read an article from Einstein about relativity, or you read an article from Bob Bupkis about relativity. One would influence you, the other not as much. Unless you knew Bob Bupkis was a high esteemed physicist, then you would listen to him too. There has to be some reference to authority for a letter to have that affect. So the faker must've known that Saul/Simon aka Paul had that influence, otherwise people would say, "who the Hell is Paul?" and disregard the fake letters immediately. So from that, some kind of "Paul" most likely did exist. Do you see how I'm reasoning here?

 

When Darwin deduced the common ancestor thing, he did so from observation of external features. He didn't know about genes. He didn't know how it worked. But he could see the branching of species and specialization going on and it was reasonable. I think (and I'm not alone in this) that reasoning can be done in a similar fashion when it comes to religion, cultural, social memes, etc. We can observe the outside of it, and still come to conclusions. Total random chaos and pure chance doesn't fit. Lineage of memes do.

[mcdaddy]

Holy shit y'all have written a lot in one day.

[Ouroboros]

Holy shit y'all have written a lot in one day.

I type fast.

 

Many years ago, I was consulting, fixing, installing computers. One customer had a department of secretaries (this was before wordprocessing and computers were on everyone's desk), and I typed just as fast as them. I was told I could get a job there if I wanted. (This post took about a minute--getting old and slow...)

[qadeshet]

The intent of the Gospel writers was to put words in the mouth of a supposed Historical Founder and provide Theological teachings for the Church.

I don't think you can say that you know their intent. We don't know their intent. Their intent might have been to just write down what they've heard from their parents/teachers/leaders to be the "Truth." And as such, they didn't intent to put words in the mouth on anyone, other than just record what they believed to be true. The story could have been invented earlier and/or compiled by others. Just saying. We don't know their true intent and purpose.

 

I don't know that we have anything other than speculation to help us decide "intent". An intent to pass along and codify doctrinal teaching seems probable. Before the Gospels became cannonized, anyone could claim to have a new vision from Jesus and proclaim new teachings. Mark may have been re-writing Homer and creating a new Odysseus. He may have adapted Philo's Life of Moses as an Allegorical Life of Jesus.

 

Professor Carrier has condensed Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance and added some of his own observations. Of course, Carrier is only an Historian, not a Bible Scholar.

 

The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000)

 

The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).

[Ouroboros]

I don't know that we have anything other than speculation to help us decide "intent". An intent to pass along and codify doctrinal teaching seems probable. Before the Gospels became cannonized, anyone could claim to have a new vision from Jesus and proclaim new teachings. Mark may have been re-writing Homer and creating a new Odysseus. He may have adapted Philo's Life of Moses as an Allegorical Life of Jesus.

Then perhaps your wording of "The intent of the Gospel writers was to put words in the mouth of a..." isn't that great. You're stating it as a fact that you know their intent. You agree that we don't know--you included--their intent, correct? Just making sure of where you stand.

 

Besides, you now used a word "probable." I got my fingers slapped--harsly--for saying that. Since I'm told I don't know and therefore shouldn't say probable or likely, then... hmm... should you?

[Akheia]

Aw, you're making me feel bad, Ouro. Sorry.

 

I'm just so leery of assigning intent to anything. Sometimes in history I see all sorts of shit that I look at and go "WTF, why did they DO that?" and sometimes it's very obvious, but often it just isn't. Had a prof in history in college who had a real bee up his ass about intent, especially with regard to the tendency of modern folks to assign "religious significance" to every single thing we don't understand. Figurines of fat gals? RELIGIOUS. Tattoos on the Iceman? RELIGIOUS. It's okay for me to see something and know I have no idea why something happened, but know that it did. Why did the first schmuck to spin yarns and tall tales about Jesus do it? What did he have in mind? What were his short-term and ultimate goals? I'm not sure we can answer those questions at this point with what we have. I could say the same things about "Gangnam Style"'s popularity. I want to stick to what we *can* answer, what we *can* know. Simon Magus is another dude whose name I'd reach for when looking at the spread of Christianity; there are others besides. The timeline of Christianity doesn't seem to begin at all until the Gospels got written. Why? I don't know. I just know there's nothing in any writings anywhere about it till the Gospels and Josephus. Doesn't speak well for the cult though.

[Ouroboros]

Aw, you're making me feel bad, Ouro. Sorry.

 

I'm just so leery of assigning intent to anything.

I do too. We can't know their intent, so we can't know if their intent was x-y-z. Qadeshet's probably didn't want to phrase it like he knows their intent. It's a speculation to say someone wrote the Gospels for this or that purpose.

 

Sometimes in history I see all sorts of shit that I look at and go "WTF, why did they DO that?" and sometimes it's very obvious, but often it just isn't. Had a prof in history in college who had a real bee up his ass about intent, especially with regard to the tendency of modern folks to assign "religious significance" to every single thing we don't understand. Figurines of fat gals? RELIGIOUS. Tattoos on the Iceman? RELIGIOUS. It's okay for me to see something and know I have no idea why something happened, but know that it did. Why did the first schmuck to spin yarns and tall tales about Jesus do it? What did he have in mind? What were his short-term and ultimate goals? I'm not sure we can answer those questions at this point with what we have. I could say the same things about "Gangnam Style"'s popularity. I want to stick to what we *can* answer, what we *can* know.

There's a level of discussion where we talk about what we *do* know. But sometimes it's good to talk about the things that *could* be true (or not). That's how we figure out new things.

 

Thomas Edison was an inventor. Inventors look at things from a new perspective and think "what if..." Researchers, scientists, ... etc all do it. That's part of human nature. We want to figure out how and what, even when we don't have the full picture. As long as we know it's just "what if" that we're talking about. Hence, qualifiers like "I think", "Perhaps", "Maybe this..." are good to put in our paragraphs. I miss it sometimes too.

 

Simon Magus is another dude whose name I'd reach for when looking at the spread of Christianity; there are others besides. The timeline of Christianity doesn't seem to begin at all until the Gospels got written. Why? I don't know. I just know there's nothing in any writings anywhere about it till the Gospels and Josephus. Doesn't speak well for the cult though.

That's why I think that perhaps it started with the terrorist organization. The Gospels were the white-washing stories to cover up their violent origins, and doing so by incorporating words of "wisdom" from other sources.

 

And by the way, don't feel bad, I was an asshole in some of my posts. I have my bad days... but I try not to let it affect discussions I have here. Sometimes I fail.

[mymistake]

Now that we have all made up can we agree that there just isn't enough data available to know how the myth got started? I'm annoyed by statements like "There never was a Jesus" because this sounds like a claim of knowledge. Of course claiming "That guy was the real Jesus" is just as problematic. Yes, we can sift through what is available and make educated guesses. But the result is going to be maybes and uncertainty. The only reason this stuff even interests me is that I wasted my best years studing the Bible and that skill set isn't useful for doing anything else (except for separating fools from their tithe but my moral compass won't allow that). In the first century there were many religious sects and a boatload of men named Jesus. None of them were historically significant.

[Ouroboros]

Now that we have all made up can we agree that there just isn't enough data available to know how the myth got started?

Yup. We can't know, but we can guess.

 

I'm annoyed by statements like "There never was a Jesus" because this sounds like a claim of knowledge. Of course claiming "That guy was the real Jesus" is just as problematic.

Exactly.

 

But it's okay to say "I think/believe that there never was/there was..." Because it states a person's subjective and person view, and is qualified with a word that removes the objective state of the meaning. It's okay to have opinions even when we don't have facts.

 

Yes, we can sift through what is available and make educated guesses. But the result is going to be maybes and uncertainty.

Yes.

 

The only reason this stuff even interests me is that I wasted my best years studing the Bible and that skill set isn't useful for doing anything else (except for separating fools from their tithe but my moral compass won't allow that). In the first century there were many religious sects and a boatload of men named Jesus. None of them were historically significant.

Well, now you're making a statement as it was a fact. "None of them were historically significant." Then... hmm... the sum of all zeros are still a zero, so nothing happened in history of religious significance, well... then Christianity was never a challenge to the Roman empire and the empire never converted and Christianity never existed. The sum of all zeros somehow must add up to more than a zero. All these insignificant cults that had no historical value somehow were the basis for a religion that actually did flip over an old religion. It became state religion. That must have been significant for the Romans at least? And they are in the history books.

 

I think you just have to rewrite the sentence "None of them were ..." to a bit more "In my opinion..." or "Most of them..." or something that removes the absolute status.

[Akheia]

Ouro, could you explain a bit more about the terrorist thing? That sounded really interesting. Christianity does seem like a religion washed in and steeped in violence. I'm thinking now of that story about Sapphira and her husband, murdered by God in Acts 5 for not giving Peter all the money they'd made selling something (verrrry proportional punishment, isn't it?). I wonder how many more of those stories were running around about the cult.

 

I don't mind making strong statements if the evidence backs 'em up. I'm also very confident in saying that no human being has ever flown unaided or lived without eating or breathed methane safely. I mean yeah, maybe evidence will poke its head out of a hole somewhere to the contrary, but the sheer physiology of the situation rules it out. In the same way, the sheer number of parallels between the Jesus stories and older myths and the total and complete lack of anything written about Jesus or his followers before Mark's gospel seems like it'd rule out a specific guy starting it. But I'm open to hearing otherwise. I really start to think that Jesus is a sort of Asclepius, isn't he? Maybe some absolutely awesome physician was making waves somewhere and someone began to say he had to be Apollo's son he was so good at it, and things took off from there. But just as it's okay that there might never have been a "real" physician who started the myth of Asclepius, it's okay either way with me whatever the truth turns out to be about the existence of a sparking force for Christianity. (There seem like a number of parallels between the two demigods, speaking of which, and they're not that far removed from each other time-wise, so it's difficult not to draw some interesting conclusions from their similarities.)

[mymistake]

The only reason this stuff even interests me is that I wasted my best years studing the Bible and that skill set isn't useful for doing anything else (except for separating fools from their tithe but my moral compass won't allow that). In the first century there were many religious sects and a boatload of men named Jesus. None of them were historically significant.

Well, now you're making a statement as it was a fact. "None of them were historically significant." Then... hmm... the sum of all zeros are still a zero, so nothing happened in history of religious significance, well... then Christianity was never a challenge to the Roman empire and the empire never converted and Christianity never existed. The sum of all zeros somehow must add up to more than a zero. All these insignificant cults that had no historical value somehow were the basis for a religion that actually did flip over an old religion. It became state religion. That must have been significant for the Romans at least? And they are in the history books.

 

I think you just have to rewrite the sentence "None of them were ..." to a bit more "In my opinion..." or "Most of them..." or something that removes the absolute status.

 

significant =/= value

 

not significant =/= no value

 

not significant =/= zero

 

historical =/= religious

 

Significant means it stands out or is above average. When I used the term "historical significance" I used it in the sense of being a primary cause in influencing current events. And for those events to be current they had to happen in the first century rather than the fourth. I was specific about the first century. Show me a first century event recorded in history where Christianity is documented as a primary cause. How about one where Christianity is documented as a contributing cause?

 

Now with all that said I don't personally buy the idea that Rome was challenged by Christianity. I consider that to be Roman propaganda. In my opinion Rome raped Christianity in the fourth century. Rome took many religious ideas, striped them away from their origins, mixed them together to fit Rome's needs and then destroyed everything and everybody who did not like the result. This was done to unify the Roman Empire through culture. One thing Rome took from various Jesus cults was appeasing the poor. Tell the poor that they are valued in heaven above the rich and they will be rewarded in the afterlife and then they will riot less in this life. That makes the idea culturally significant. I find it less likely that Constantine was contacted by Jesus and that Jesus interfered in a human battle. I find it more likely that Constantine made up a story to solve his political needs. That puts Constantine in the driver's seat.

[Ouroboros]

Ouro, could you explain a bit more about the terrorist thing? That sounded really interesting. Christianity does seem like a religion washed in and steeped in violence. I'm thinking now of that story about Sapphira and her husband, murdered by God in Acts 5 for not giving Peter all the money they'd made selling something (verrrry proportional punishment, isn't it?). I wonder how many more of those stories were running around about the cult.

I think it was something I read a while back that the stories of Jesus v Barrabas, or Jesus v Judas, were really stories constructed to create a separation between different factions, to distance themselves from an old policy/politics.

 

Let's say the early church knew about Barrabas (a zealot terrorist), Judas Iscariot (iscariot might be a rewriting of Sicarii, also a terrorist faction, not sure if it's the same as the zealots). When Christianity developed, the stories of Jesus being punished and Barrabas being freed, is nothing but a way of rewriting their past. Jesus and Barrabas were perhaps the same person, or co-operated, but by putting Jesus as the martyr, they put him on pedestal and demoted Barrabas. Jesus being the "better" person.

 

The reason why I find Menahem Ben Judah to be interesting is that he called himself Messiah and "the comforter that should relieve." He was also one of the last ones to do so after 70 AD (if I understand it right). "The comforter" is a phrase used in the Gospels... it's a name Jesus puts on the Holy Spirit. Maybe Jesus and the HS were the same person, i.e. Menahem being both, but story rewritten. Or maybe his predecessor as leader of the Sicarii was named Jesus? Anyway, as in any terrorist organization, there are splits and division and new mergers. It's not hard to think that there were several Sicarii factions, and they were the ones Nero and the other emperors got upset over for disturbing the peace. If any of the records are true, Christians were violently defying the rulers and set beliefs. But that's if we accept that some of the records are true.

 

I don't mind making strong statements if the evidence backs 'em up. I'm also very confident in saying that no human being has ever flown unaided or lived without eating or breathed methane safely. I mean yeah, maybe evidence will poke its head out of a hole somewhere to the contrary, but the sheer physiology of the situation rules it out. In the same way, the sheer number of parallels between the Jesus stories and older myths and the total and complete lack of anything written about Jesus or his followers before Mark's gospel seems like it'd rule out a specific guy starting it. But I'm open to hearing otherwise. I really start to think that Jesus is a sort of Asclepius, isn't he? Maybe some absolutely awesome physician was making waves somewhere and someone began to say he had to be Apollo's son he was so good at it, and things took off from there. But just as it's okay that there might never have been a "real" physician who started the myth of Asclepius, it's okay either way with me whatever the truth turns out to be about the existence of a sparking force for Christianity. (There seem like a number of parallels between the two demigods, speaking of which, and they're not that far removed from each other time-wise, so it's difficult not to draw some interesting conclusions from their similarities.)

I think the magical side of Jesus was added after Simon Magus got into the business. He added the miracle part to the legends. But he converted to a new religion that he didn't have before, and it was a Jewish cult religion, if we can trust anything in the history books about Simon Magus. So something existed before he modified it. Something that wasn't plainly Roman pagan.

[Akheia]

Yeah, the cult definitely merged old pagan myths with Judaism in a way that hadn't really been done before, for sure, which is why most Jews at the time thought it was freakin' insane.

 

Is that "comforter" phrase perhaps just one left over from the OT/Psalms or something? Every other thing the cat said came from the OT somewhere--I'm wondering if the whole idea is a rehash of some misinterpreted prophecy or Psalm.

[Ouroboros]

significant =/= value

 

not significant =/= no value

 

not significant =/= zero

 

historical =/= religious

 

Significant means it stands out or be above average. When I used the term "historical significance" I used it in the sense of being a primary cause in influencing current events. And for those events to be current they had to happen in the first century rather than the fourth. I was specific about the first century. Show me a first century event recorded in history where Christianity is documented as a primary cause. How about one where Christianity is documented as a contributing cause?

Don't have to. If Christianity was purely based on pagan beliefs, they existed during the 1st century, and they changed in that case into Christianity, so a significant change in pagan belief must've happened if the myth-only hypothesis is true. There was a significant change in religious beliefs during that time, of some sorts. There must've been or no one would have made a stink about it.

 

Now with all that said I don't personally buy the idea that Rome was challenged by Christianity. I consider that to be Roman propaganda. In my opinion Rome raped Christianity in the fourth century.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense, at least not to me. That Romans (They) would do things like that. It's too much conspiracy theory for my taste.

 

Rome took many religious ideas, striped them away from their origins, mixed them together to fit Rome's needs and then destroyed everything and everybody who did not like the result. This was done to unify the Roman Empire through culture. One thing Rome took from various Jesus cults was appeasing the poor. Tell the poor that they are valued in heaven above the rich and they will be rewarded in the afterlife and then they will riot less in this life. That makes the idea culturally significant. I find it less likely that Constantine was contacted by Jesus and that Jesus interfeared in a human battle. I find it more likely that Constantine made up a story to solve his political needs. That puts Constantine in the driver's seat.

So Constantine created Christianity around 300 AD in your view? I find that highly unlikely. He modified it, yes, but from an existing platform.

 

But for a second, let's go with that. Let's say Christianity wasn't significant or even existing before Constantine, that means you made my original point. My thought process was that someone (perhaps a Jesus, but not necessarily) was the big player who got the ball rolling. In your opinion, that was Constantine. So we're making the same conclusion that someone, somewhere, at some time, had a huge influence on the inception of this new version of religion (reworked from old religions or not, it was different enough to be a new religion).

 

 

Rome raped Christianity in the fourth century. Rome took many religious ideas, striped them away from their origins, mixed them together to fit Rome's needs and then destroyed everything and everybody who did not like the result. This was done to unify the Roman Empire through culture. One thing Rome took from various Jesus cults was appeasing the poor. Tell the poor that they are valued in heaven above the rich and they will be rewarded in the afterlife and then they will riot less in this life. That makes the idea culturally significant. I find it less likely that Constantine was contacted by Jesus and that Jesus interfeared in a human battle. I find it more likely that Constantine made up a story to solve his political needs. That puts Constantine in the driver's seat.

It was mostly the work of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches that started to form.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, the cult definitely merged old pagan myths with Judaism in a way that hadn't really been done before, for sure, which is why most Jews at the time thought it was freakin' insane.

Exactly. But I think some Jews did go with it because of the hate and despise they had for the Romans. It was a way of dissenting and revolting to join the Sicarii or Zealots. Now, this sect/cult proclaimed their leader as Messiah and had different religious ideas, like One God, instead of the pagan polytheism, and so on. Then, perhaps with Simon, the interest started to spread to non-jews as well. Maybe he was the recruiter for the cause? That would've been a perfect time for more "socially acceptable" teachings would've entered. And what other teachings than different quotes from some wise sages from before 70 AD? Pick and choose what sounded nice. That's the new teaching after Menahems death. Funny thing. He didn't die at the hands of the Romans, but was killed by another Zealot. Maybe the "sacrifice" was a way of painting him as a martyr?

 

Is that "comforter" phrase perhaps just one left over from the OT/Psalms or something? Every other thing the cat said came from the OT somewhere--I'm wondering if the whole idea is a rehash of some misinterpreted prophecy or Psalm.

It is from OT too. But in John, I think it is, Jesus supposedly says that "after me, the comforter will come and teach you everything." Something like that. If I remember it correctly, though, top of my head and such... But anyway, that's depending on how it translated too, of course.

[Akheia]

Interesting idea about the martyrdom thing. We know in the modern age that most people who "die for Jesus" aren't doing any such thing--they're being politically inept or overly offensive. Most people (at least those in non-theocratic countries) are pretty content to let other cultures be whatever religion toodles their fancies. I've read about a wide number of early Christian martyrs whose martyrdom was far from verified but which just entered the mythology and stuck there as fanon (to borrow the fanfic term).

 

John wrote his gospel after Mark did. I'm not sure anything any of the gospel authors wrote can be taken as a foregone conclusion, especially stuff that is a direct lift from the OT. Doing that, I think, lent the gospels/epistles a lot of their authority, which is why most of the NT is precisely this sort of plagiarism. If it came straight from the OT, chances are it didn't really happen.

[mymistake]

When I used the term "historical significance" I used it in the sense of being a primary cause in influencing current events. And for those events to be current they had to happen in the first century rather than the fourth. I was specific about the first century. Show me a first century event recorded in history where Christianity is documented as a primary cause. How about one where Christianity is documented as a contributing cause?

Don't have to. If Christianity was purely based on pagan beliefs, they existed during the 1st century, and they changed in that case into Christianity, so a significant change in pagan belief must've happened if the myth-only hypothesis is true. There was a significant change in religious beliefs during that time, of some sorts. There must've been or no one would have made a stink about it.

 

Pardon? I thought we were talking about what it would take for me to see I was wrong. I'm not following what you mean by Christianity being based purely on pagan beliefs. There were many different religious sects. People back then were not all that different than people today. Sects formed much the same way new sects form today. The names might change but the formula has recurring themes.

 

Now with all that said I don't personally buy the idea that Rome was challenged by Christianity. I consider that to be Roman propaganda. In my opinion Rome raped Christianity in the fourth century.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense, at least not to me. That Romans (They) would do things like that. It's too much conspiracy theory for my taste.

 

Surely you don't believe the Pope's version of events. Do you deny the heretics being burned at the stake or their writings being destroyed?

 

So Constantine created Christianity around 300 AD in your view? I find that highly unlikely. He modified it, yes, but from an existing platform.

 

Okay let's put it this way. Let's say I have the most powerful army on Earth and I use that army to conquer the USA. Then I go to the Coca-cola plant and kill their owners and staff. Then I destory their factory. Then I start selling water with food coloring and I call it "Coke Classic". And anybody who openly criticized me gets burned alive.

 

Did I simply modify Coke? As they die would the owners of Coca-cola think I was just modifying their company? Or would something like that be more akin to destroying Coca-cola and stealing their name?

 

But for a second, let's go with that. Let's say Christianity wasn't significant or even existing before Constantine, that means you made my original point. My thought process was that someone (perhaps a Jesus, but not necessarily) was the big player who got the ball rolling. In your opinion, that was Constantine. So we're making the same conclusion that someone, somewhere, at some time, had a huge influence on the inception of this new version of religion (reworked from old religions or not, it was different enough to be a new religion).

 

I'm sure there were many players who contributed along the way. Seeing how popular the name Jesus was some of them had to be named Jesus. Yes people create cults, if that is what you are getting at.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry that I pushed too hard. I'm going to leave this topic for a while.

[Akheia]

... this wasn't because of my post, was it? I thought we were doing okay again.

[Ouroboros]

... this wasn't because of my post, was it? I thought we were doing okay again.

Oh, definitely no. We're okay.

 

I was pressuring the topic a bit too hard on MM.

[mymistake]

... this wasn't because of my post, was it? I thought we were doing okay again.

Oh, definitely no. We're okay.

 

I was pressuring the topic a bit too hard on MM.

 

I wasn't offended. I'm just not sure what you were driving at. But maybe it's not that important.

[mwc]

Now that we have all made up can we agree that there just isn't enough data available to know how the myth got started? I'm annoyed by statements like "There never was a Jesus" because this sounds like a claim of knowledge. Of course claiming "That guy was the real Jesus" is just as problematic. Yes, we can sift through what is available and make educated guesses. But the result is going to be maybes and uncertainty. The only reason this stuff even interests me is that I wasted my best years studing the Bible and that skill set isn't useful for doing anything else (except for separating fools from their tithe but my moral compass won't allow that). In the first century there were many religious sects and a boatload of men named Jesus. None of them were historically significant.

 

Paralysis of Analysis (Procrastination): Reasoning that since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances.

Sure, (odds are) we're never going to get it exactly right but we'll never get anything accomplished if we sit around waiting for the "enough data" to show up. What's "enough data" after all? You may not have "enough data" but others may not see it that way. And when you have "enough data" others may require even more.

 

In one "Aesop's fable" that is recorded even before Aesop's time, The Fox and the Cat, the fox boasts of "hundreds of ways of escaping" while the cat has "only one". When they hear the hounds approaching, the cat scampers up a tree while "the fox in his confusion was caught up by the hounds." The fable ends with the moral, "Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon."

 

Make a decision now and make another later if/when more data shows up.

 

mwc

[mcdaddy]

I love y'all.