Which people did the Early Church burn, when? Gas ovens, as you know, were built by Nazis to save capitalism. The American 'Christians', just like the Inquisition fanciers and the witch-hunters were about as Christian as Trump, as you know. It is like looking at Stalinism or Maoism as examples of 'socialism' - a tired old game. I don't suppose you could easily find many Christians anywhere between the time of Constantine and the Reformation, and precious few afterwards - read the New Testament and then examine these chums of yours! - but the Christian period did set certain movements in motion, I suppose. Slavery certainly grew far less common until wage-slavery came in to make it possible again, but I can only say it didn't exist in Britain from Norman times on, or anywhere else much in 'Christendom' until capitalism took over. How come anyone can be brainwashed, you ask. It is the nature of wage-slavery: if you don't control their brains it won't work.
-
Features
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter none
- Start date
Which people did the Early Church burn, when? Gas ovens, as you know, were built by Nazis to save capitalism. The American 'Christians', just like the Inquisition fanciers and the witch-hunters were about as Christian as Trump, as you know. It is like looking at Stalinism or Maoism as examples of 'socialism' - a tired old game. I don't suppose you could easily find many Christians anywhere between the time of Constantine and the Reformation, and precious few afterwards - read the New Testament and then examine these chums of yours! - but the Christian period did set certain movements in motion, I suppose. Slavery certainly grew far less common until wage-slavery came in to make it possible again, but I can only say it didn't exist in Britain from Norman times on, or anywhere else much in 'Christendom' until capitalism took over. How come anyone can be brainwashed, you ask. It is the nature of wage-slavery: if you don't control their brains it won't work.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
You sound like one of the "nascent Christianity" adherents, nascent Christianity being the pure form of Christianity that was later hijacked. All those Nazis were baptized Christians btw.
But I see you're off on a capitalism tangent. Okay.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,991
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Yep. Boat...float...
And Christianity is capitalism, the capital is just all spiritual capital. Christianity could never have been conceived if capitalism and personal wealth hadn't already been invented and religiously ordained. How do people get to heaven except with spiritual capital? How do people get to hell except without spiritual capital? Anyone who thinks christianity isn't capitalism isn't thinking.
Not sure what that has to do with stories about a Mediterranean superman, however.
angelo
Deleted
The ideology of the Jesus myth is the ultimate in socialism! Been told to give up all your worldly goods and give it to the poor is not capitalism. If a beggar asks for your coat, give him also the shirt off your back sounds like communism/socialism to me!
Learner
Veteran Member
It also sounds like caring kindness.
Stalin was trained for the priesthood. So what? If you don't think Christianity was highjacked you should go back to Mars, I think.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
You can't make our evidence for the Jesus miracles disappear by wishing it away.
No, it began before Paul's preaching. It's OK to say he was "channeling a voice," etc., but the Christ person he spoke of already had a following before Paul heard the voice and preached about this. This is clear from Galatians 1:
What was this "church of God" he had persecuted? This existed BEFORE he preached his gospel, and before he heard the voice. It's very obvious that this "church" consisted of Jesus worshipers. He calls them "apostles" etc.
Who were these "apostles" in Jerusalem, who he says were "before me"? Obviously these were Jesus apostles. How could these have existed already unless the Jesus movement already existed, BEFORE Paul?
I.e., he names here two of the earlier apostles, James and Cephas (Peter). BEFORE he began his preaching. They were obviously part of the Jesus movement before Paul.
Paul cannot be lying or making this up, because he is putting himself AFTER these earlier apostles, making himself inferior to them. He insists that his gospel comes from the voice he hears, and not from these earlier apostles, and he would not put them before himself chronologically if he had been the real inventor of the Christ figure. He is recognizing that they were part of the Jesus movement before himself, and that he is now attaching himself to this movement which already existed. I.e, which did not originate from himself.
I.e., these churches in Judea already existed and did not yet know of Paul. They are "churches of Christ," i.e., obviously part of the Jesus movement. Their movement, or their part of it, obviously had nothing to do with Paul, whom they did not know, and who came along AFTER their group already existed.
Obviously Paul is recognizing these ones as belonging to the same Jesus movement which he was now part of, and is preaching the same "faith" which they belong to. So obviously this movement did not begin with Paul, or with his preaching. It already existed earlier, when he opposed the new cult and persecuted members of it.
So to say "The Jesus movement appears to have begun with Paul" makes no sense.
Neither would have succeeded in the slightest without first having a good product to sell. They both preached a Messiah already known, a real person who had already been established and had a reputation for performing miracles and having resurrected; and without this, neither Paul or Joseph Smith would have won any followers, and neither would be known to us today.
Many stories, both true and fictional, were already circulating about this one who lived only 20-25 years before Paul wrote his epistles. They were widely believed, which never happened about any other case of an instant miracle-worker, because the only miracle stories people believed in were those of the ancient gods, from centuries past, not about a new person who only recently popped up in history.
You can't name any other case of this that is known, before modern times of mass publishing. There is no other case of an upstart reputed miracle-worker messiah/prophet/hero about whom fictional stories were being circulated and published in only 20-50 years from when he lived. The fact that "people were gratuitously making stories up" about a recent miracle-worker sets him apart from other cases we know of from ancient times. In virtually all the cases we know of, the miracle stories did not evolve until centuries later, i.e., after the celebrated hero lived, after generations of mythologizing had passed.
Perhaps fictional. Like other miracle birth stories about real historical figures who all were famous celebrities and had attracted attention because of unusual acts they did, or accomplishments which distinguished them.
So these birth narratives are strong evidence that Jesus must have been a very distinguished person for some reason, who did something unlike virtually anyone else had done. And yet he did this without being a famous celebrity of power or influence or wealth during his life, as was the case for all the other miracle birth celebrities. So it's very difficult to explain this case. It does not fit any normal pattern you can cite.
Further evidence of the unusual nature of the Jesus person they were claiming to have been close to, showing the extreme circumstances causing so many to use him as their authority, as a certification for their words. What other person in history had so many want to use him as the authority for promoting their own ideas?
But why did he choose this Jesus character to write his narrative about? Weren't there any other prophet or messiah characters he could have chosen? Weren't there easily dozens of them, if not even hundreds?
Including the resurrection which Paul had written about 20 years earlier.
Just like happens with normal mainline history. It's normal for history to be rewritten by later authors, "over several decades, adding details, changing others, etc."
Right, all history is horseshit. There's no "independent corroboration" for any of it. As usual, your arguments are for tossing out ALL history, not just the gospel accounts.
Yet you can't name any other case of it except in modern times with mass media/publishing as a necessary tool.
For most historical events we have no (biographical) details until much later than what we have for the Jesus events.
Paul gave a few biographical details, though not many. He says Jesus was "handed over" and that he took the bread and the cup and spoke the words "This is my body," etc. (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
He also says (1 Cor. 2) that Jesus was recently crucified:
The term "rulers" (archoi) always refers to earthly rulers or (rarely) to cosmic rulers making events happen on earth, never to events happening anywhere except on earth.
So there is some limited biographical detail on Jesus from Paul, in about 55 AD, or about 25 years later.
I.e., closer in time to the reported events than what we have for most historical facts for those times. Again and again you impose standards onto these accounts which you do not impose onto other historical accounts. What is the Pavlovian-dog stimulus which keeps driving you to apply this double standard?
There are probably no historical accounts from the time which do not contain fabrications.
Knight's account is about events from 30,000 years ago, much longer than the 30-70 years separating the Jesus events from the gospel accounts and Paul. Plus, we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus events, but only one source for Ramtha.
First you have to figure out the difference between 70 and 30,000 and write it on the blackboard 100 times. Then you can take your break.
No, it began before Paul's preaching. It's OK to say he was "channeling a voice," etc., but the Christ person he spoke of already had a following before Paul heard the voice and preached about this. This is clear from Galatians 1:
What was this "church of God" he had persecuted? This existed BEFORE he preached his gospel, and before he heard the voice. It's very obvious that this "church" consisted of Jesus worshipers. He calls them "apostles" etc.
Who were these "apostles" in Jerusalem, who he says were "before me"? Obviously these were Jesus apostles. How could these have existed already unless the Jesus movement already existed, BEFORE Paul?
I.e., he names here two of the earlier apostles, James and Cephas (Peter). BEFORE he began his preaching. They were obviously part of the Jesus movement before Paul.
Paul cannot be lying or making this up, because he is putting himself AFTER these earlier apostles, making himself inferior to them. He insists that his gospel comes from the voice he hears, and not from these earlier apostles, and he would not put them before himself chronologically if he had been the real inventor of the Christ figure. He is recognizing that they were part of the Jesus movement before himself, and that he is now attaching himself to this movement which already existed. I.e, which did not originate from himself.
I.e., these churches in Judea already existed and did not yet know of Paul. They are "churches of Christ," i.e., obviously part of the Jesus movement. Their movement, or their part of it, obviously had nothing to do with Paul, whom they did not know, and who came along AFTER their group already existed.
Obviously Paul is recognizing these ones as belonging to the same Jesus movement which he was now part of, and is preaching the same "faith" which they belong to. So obviously this movement did not begin with Paul, or with his preaching. It already existed earlier, when he opposed the new cult and persecuted members of it.
So to say "The Jesus movement appears to have begun with Paul" makes no sense.
Neither would have succeeded in the slightest without first having a good product to sell. They both preached a Messiah already known, a real person who had already been established and had a reputation for performing miracles and having resurrected; and without this, neither Paul or Joseph Smith would have won any followers, and neither would be known to us today.
Many stories, both true and fictional, were already circulating about this one who lived only 20-25 years before Paul wrote his epistles. They were widely believed, which never happened about any other case of an instant miracle-worker, because the only miracle stories people believed in were those of the ancient gods, from centuries past, not about a new person who only recently popped up in history.
You can't name any other case of this that is known, before modern times of mass publishing. There is no other case of an upstart reputed miracle-worker messiah/prophet/hero about whom fictional stories were being circulated and published in only 20-50 years from when he lived. The fact that "people were gratuitously making stories up" about a recent miracle-worker sets him apart from other cases we know of from ancient times. In virtually all the cases we know of, the miracle stories did not evolve until centuries later, i.e., after the celebrated hero lived, after generations of mythologizing had passed.
Perhaps fictional. Like other miracle birth stories about real historical figures who all were famous celebrities and had attracted attention because of unusual acts they did, or accomplishments which distinguished them.
So these birth narratives are strong evidence that Jesus must have been a very distinguished person for some reason, who did something unlike virtually anyone else had done. And yet he did this without being a famous celebrity of power or influence or wealth during his life, as was the case for all the other miracle birth celebrities. So it's very difficult to explain this case. It does not fit any normal pattern you can cite.
Further evidence of the unusual nature of the Jesus person they were claiming to have been close to, showing the extreme circumstances causing so many to use him as their authority, as a certification for their words. What other person in history had so many want to use him as the authority for promoting their own ideas?
But why did he choose this Jesus character to write his narrative about? Weren't there any other prophet or messiah characters he could have chosen? Weren't there easily dozens of them, if not even hundreds?
Including the resurrection which Paul had written about 20 years earlier.
Just like happens with normal mainline history. It's normal for history to be rewritten by later authors, "over several decades, adding details, changing others, etc."
Right, all history is horseshit. There's no "independent corroboration" for any of it. As usual, your arguments are for tossing out ALL history, not just the gospel accounts.
Yet you can't name any other case of it except in modern times with mass media/publishing as a necessary tool.
For most historical events we have no (biographical) details until much later than what we have for the Jesus events.
Paul gave a few biographical details, though not many. He says Jesus was "handed over" and that he took the bread and the cup and spoke the words "This is my body," etc. (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
He also says (1 Cor. 2) that Jesus was recently crucified:
The term "rulers" (archoi) always refers to earthly rulers or (rarely) to cosmic rulers making events happen on earth, never to events happening anywhere except on earth.
So there is some limited biographical detail on Jesus from Paul, in about 55 AD, or about 25 years later.
I.e., closer in time to the reported events than what we have for most historical facts for those times. Again and again you impose standards onto these accounts which you do not impose onto other historical accounts. What is the Pavlovian-dog stimulus which keeps driving you to apply this double standard?
There are probably no historical accounts from the time which do not contain fabrications.
Knight's account is about events from 30,000 years ago, much longer than the 30-70 years separating the Jesus events from the gospel accounts and Paul. Plus, we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus events, but only one source for Ramtha.
First you have to figure out the difference between 70 and 30,000 and write it on the blackboard 100 times. Then you can take your break.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,652
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
What makes you think that a miracle story reported even a day later today is good evidence for the historicity of the miracle?
I'll repost something from earlier that you may have missed.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Lumpenproletariat has this magic Goldilocks number that represents the sweet spot at which a reported myth becomes believable. One day or one week and it's bullshit. 100 years and it's bullshit. But 70 years, that's the ticket. Nobody would ever lie about something that happened 70 years ago.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
And also, nobody would WRITE DOWN an oral truth until it reached that 70 year maturity. No one could possible keep a fiction going for 70 years until someone felt like recording it.Lumpenproletariat has this magic Goldilocks number that represents the sweet spot at which a reported myth becomes believable. One day or one week and it's bullshit. 100 years and it's bullshit. But 70 years, that's the ticket. Nobody would ever lie about something that happened 70 years ago.
- - - Updated - - -
WHy not? Y'all are just wishing it WAS evidence...
Atheos
Veteran Member
Nobody's wishing anything away anyway. We're recognizing it for what it is, which is a collection of religious myths no different from thousands that have gone before. Lumpenproletariat paints his bullseye around his favorite fairy tale but that's all it is, a hindsight bullseye around an already fallen arrow.
Yeah it's different in this way and that way, but so is the Joseph Smith bullshit, the Ramtha Bullshit, the Hindu bullshit the Mohammad bullshit and all the other bullshit that people have made up in the name of one god or other. If there is one difference that means anything it's the fact that the gospel narratives contain stuff we know was lied about, and we know others were making up lies about this character as fast as their little tongues could wag. They couldn't even be honest about mundane things yet we're supposed to believe their tales of a flying magic Jew who performed alchemy and ordered the weather around.
Yeah it's different in this way and that way, but so is the Joseph Smith bullshit, the Ramtha Bullshit, the Hindu bullshit the Mohammad bullshit and all the other bullshit that people have made up in the name of one god or other. If there is one difference that means anything it's the fact that the gospel narratives contain stuff we know was lied about, and we know others were making up lies about this character as fast as their little tongues could wag. They couldn't even be honest about mundane things yet we're supposed to believe their tales of a flying magic Jew who performed alchemy and ordered the weather around.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Extra sources reporting the miracle event, dated near to the event, are evidence that the event did happen.
For any reported events, if it's reported by a source closer to the event, that report is more credible.
Obviously you are starting out with the dogmatic premise that no miracle event can ever happen, in which case it doesn't matter how much evidence there is, such as how many witnesses there are or how many reports there are or how soon it was reported. But not everyone accepts your dogmatic premise that a miracle event can never happen. For those who do not, but who keep an open mind about the possibility of such events, then the evidence does matter, even though it does not matter for you.
E.g., Homer is a more credible source for the Trojan War than Virgil. Even if there's much fiction, still some of it is factual, and we can rely more on the earlier source than the one several centuries later.
There are millions. It's silly, but I'll pick out one from Josephus. How about the fact that John the Baptist was imprisoned at Machaerus. There's no corroboration for this anywhere. Virtually all historians accept this as true. Josephus is the ONLY source. Written 60 or 70 years after the event. That's less evidence than we have for the resurrection of Jesus. Not even close. And there are MILLIONS of such facts like this. I could easily pick out a dozen more from Josephus. Out of the hundreds. Probably thousands.
Of course you reject the extra evidence for the resurrection because it's a miracle event. But it's also reasonable to believe it because of the extra evidence we have for this miracle event. There is no other miracle event of antiquity for which we have any comparable degree of evidence.
Yes they are. The text of Josephus is taken at face value and is evidence for the reported event. There is every reason to believe this fact reported in Josephus. However, it's not "proven fact," but rather, it's just likely to be true because of this evidence. One source saying it's true is evidence that it happened.
However, extra sources make it more credible. There are some stories in the gospels which might be rejected as out of character and unlikely because they appear in only one of the gospels, like Matthew's story of the corpses which arose from their graves at the moment Jesus died. Since it's in one source only, and it clashes too much with the other 3 accounts, it's not credible.
Taking this Josephus fact as the example, what is the analysis, other than just that he reported it? What "context" is there other than simply that this person wrote that it happened?
Perhaps the reported event is made doubtful if some other source contradicts this one. But there is no source contradicting the miracles of Jesus. You have no "context" for believing this Josephus fact while rejecting the Jesus miracle facts, except one only: Your dogmatic premise that no miracle claim can ever be true.
That's your "context" for believing the normal fact reported by the mainline historian but rejecting the Jesus miracle reports.
For any reported events, if it's reported by a source closer to the event, that report is more credible.
Obviously you are starting out with the dogmatic premise that no miracle event can ever happen, in which case it doesn't matter how much evidence there is, such as how many witnesses there are or how many reports there are or how soon it was reported. But not everyone accepts your dogmatic premise that a miracle event can never happen. For those who do not, but who keep an open mind about the possibility of such events, then the evidence does matter, even though it does not matter for you.
E.g., Homer is a more credible source for the Trojan War than Virgil. Even if there's much fiction, still some of it is factual, and we can rely more on the earlier source than the one several centuries later.
There are millions. It's silly, but I'll pick out one from Josephus. How about the fact that John the Baptist was imprisoned at Machaerus. There's no corroboration for this anywhere. Virtually all historians accept this as true. Josephus is the ONLY source. Written 60 or 70 years after the event. That's less evidence than we have for the resurrection of Jesus. Not even close. And there are MILLIONS of such facts like this. I could easily pick out a dozen more from Josephus. Out of the hundreds. Probably thousands.
Of course you reject the extra evidence for the resurrection because it's a miracle event. But it's also reasonable to believe it because of the extra evidence we have for this miracle event. There is no other miracle event of antiquity for which we have any comparable degree of evidence.
Yes they are. The text of Josephus is taken at face value and is evidence for the reported event. There is every reason to believe this fact reported in Josephus. However, it's not "proven fact," but rather, it's just likely to be true because of this evidence. One source saying it's true is evidence that it happened.
However, extra sources make it more credible. There are some stories in the gospels which might be rejected as out of character and unlikely because they appear in only one of the gospels, like Matthew's story of the corpses which arose from their graves at the moment Jesus died. Since it's in one source only, and it clashes too much with the other 3 accounts, it's not credible.
Taking this Josephus fact as the example, what is the analysis, other than just that he reported it? What "context" is there other than simply that this person wrote that it happened?
Perhaps the reported event is made doubtful if some other source contradicts this one. But there is no source contradicting the miracles of Jesus. You have no "context" for believing this Josephus fact while rejecting the Jesus miracle facts, except one only: Your dogmatic premise that no miracle claim can ever be true.
That's your "context" for believing the normal fact reported by the mainline historian but rejecting the Jesus miracle reports.
angelo
Deleted
Most certainly not capitalism!
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I had an ex-girlfriend way back who I caught being unfaithful to me. I can't imagine anybody being closer to the event than her. Her version of the events that unfolded were truly miraculous. I am still convinced her version was total bullshit.
Waiting with believing something until credible evidence appears isn't being dogmatic. It's being sensible.
There's also the question of incentives. The entire premise of Christianity is based around a magical being that magically magics stuff all day. They have an incentive to spin non-miraculous events into miracles. Since it helps their case for magic. That means we have less reason to believe it being real.
Just take the resurrection narrative.
1) Jesus dies
2) Re-awakens and shows himself to a small group of people.
3) Fucks off forever.
That to me sounds like a bullshit story made up by a small group of people. Why didn't Jesus stick around? Why didn't he just not die on the cross? There's a whole bunch of ways this could have played out that would have ensured it would have been spread by all manner of people. Not just Christians. The Roman historical records have no mention of Jesus at all.
Here's a good quote that is fitting
Jesus Christ Superstar said:
Nothing about the Jesus narrative should convince anybody
Hmm... It depends what you want. Homer is more likely more true to the original version of the story. But it's still a fictitious narrative of nominally historical events. I think all historians agree that the causes for the war given by Homer are utter crap. Pretty much the only thing that is true is the name of the city and that it fell after a siege. Which isn't particularly informative.
angelo
Deleted
If Just one of the Jesus miracles were true, there would be whole libraries recording the event. Imagine a man returning from the dead. Even in those days such an event would have traversed the the known world in a matter of weeks if not days.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'm not so convinced. The pre-modern age was full of people awakening from the dead. Because sometimes very sick people only appear dead. And every society has stories of the type "have you heard what happened in the village over yonder". I think miraculous stories of every variety were commonplace.
Just consider all the people who believe in ghosts today. Or who think they can talk to the spirits of the dead. All idiots, for sure. But these stories didn't stop because of modern science.
angelo
Deleted
Yes true, but this guy was claimed to have been the son of a god born of a virgin. Many ancient gods were born of virgins which should automatically place the Jesus tale among the rest of those myths. That it spawned a whole new religion is due purely to good salesmanship.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
No, he wasn't. The virgin birth was a later adage. In the pagan world being the son of God had a special meaning. It was a common claim among extraordinary people. There's also the idea that followers of John the Baptist, of which Jesus was a part, became the adopted son of God. That may have been the source of it, and it later transformed over time.
There's just so much about the Jesus myth that's ordinary. There's none of it that sticks out IMHO. Other than just that this particular one was picked up by the Romans and became Christianity.
Read a myth and then read Mark: if you can't see the difference, you need to take a course in basic literary criticism. Who says he 'was' claimed to be these things? That was part of the later, genuinely mythical, material added to the story a good deal later, typical stuff that develops amongst non-very-bright hero-worshippers.