Origins Of Christianity

[Michael S. Pearl]

Then what do they have in common?

Words.

Thank you for demonstrating and confirming your cluelessness.

I can't say, in light of your cluelessness, that it's too bad that you don't see that you use evidence as a magic word; I can't say that it's too bad, because you are delighted with your disinterest in understanding others, and you are under no obligation to understand any others.

So, once again, thank you for demonstrating and confirming your cluelessness - as well as the current quality of your person.

 

[Elixir]

Thank you for demonstrating and confirming your cluelessness.

You’re very welcome Mikey.
Take your prize, put it on the altar and thank God for the blessing of obliviousness and the gift of personal insult He has visited upon you in lieu of any ability to address points that counter your superstitious beliefs.
You have no statistical or scientific evidence. Your dishonesty in trying to present subjective impressions and recorded testimony in their place, is typical of religious nutbars (who routinely try to use personal insults to stake out imaginary intellectual “high ground”).
Don’t break your wrist hand waving away your deficiencies Mikey. And for the sake of your imaginary God,
DON’T TRY TO ADDRESS THE POINTS MADE REGARDING YOUR DISHONEST CONFLATION OF STORIES WITH EVIDENCE.

Pro tip: repeated incantation of “cluelessness” doesn’t confer verity upon your superstition.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

... your insecure self.

I am going to make believe that you are more capable than you seem to be as I help you to the opportunity to better understand the matter of evidence.

What evidence do you have that the person you have in mind is or feels insecure?

You’re welcome to the cozy comfort of your delusion

What evidence do you have that the person you have in mind has a delusion? Do you have evidence which both characterizes that delusion and specifies what is the alleged delusion?

And for the sake of your imaginary God

What evidence do you have that the person you have in mind has a God, imaginary or not?

 

[Elixir]

What evidence do you have that the person you have in mind has a delusion?

The intentional repeated conflation of anecdotes with scientific evidence is itself sufficient objective evidence to offer delusion as the most likely explanation.
See how that works, Mikey? Play stupid semantic games, win stupid semantic prizes.
You and your mental masturbation are of no use to thinking people.

 

[NoHolyCows]

The fact that an anecdote can be anecdotal evidence puts the lie to both your "only for the person who has them" claim as well as your "until corroborated" claim.

Anecdote is indeed a kind of evidence—but for third parties it is the weakest class of evidence until it is independently checked. For the subject, a first-person experience is direct evidence; for everyone else it is testimonial evidence that must be weighed against reliability factors: independent attestation, consistency across witnesses who could not have influenced each other, time gap between event and report, the witness’s incentives, and whether the claim generates novel, verifiable predictions. Without such controls, a single report has minimal probative value and cannot bear the weight of a sweeping assertion like “not of human origin.” That is why courts, science, and critical history all treat uncorroborated testimony as insufficient for extraordinary claims. You haven’t overturned that standard; you’ve confirmed it by admitting anecdote needs to be handled as anecdotal evidence—which is precisely my point about public warrant.

Oh, and just in case, unbeknownst to me, you happen to be part of the hypersensitivity choir that resides at this web site, "puts the lie to" is not an accusation asserting that you lied.

Irrelevant to the issue. The question is not tone; it is whether an uncorroborated personal experience can obligate assent from others. It cannot. Absent independent checks, it remains insufficient to establish a non-human source for a text.

As I previously said, "If someone is stuck on the question of how is that person to know that Paul was actually divinely inspired, that person has not yet gotten to the attempt to understand Paul's understanding." You are stuck in the apologetics mode of engagement. That's not a criticism; it's meant as a critique. Unremitting apologetics always stifles constructive engagement. And I am going to leave it there for the time being.

Requiring publicly testable reasons is not “apologetics”; it is the baseline for evaluating any origin claim. I have engaged Paul’s “understanding” directly by analyzing the letters as human rhetoric—theses, arguments, directives, and community rules—and by showing that their composition, language, and transmission display only ordinary human processes. That engagement does not preclude appreciating or critiquing his ideas; it simply refuses to smuggle in an unverifiable premise to settle disputes. If “divine inspiration” is merely a private motivation, it is irrelevant to public argument. If it is advanced as the warrant for authority, it must satisfy public criteria—independent attestation, predictive specificity recorded before the fact, or distinctive transmission features not produced by normal copying. None are present. Therefore the origin claim carries no evidential weight for anyone not already committed to it, and Paul’s writings should be assessed—as I am assessing them—on their human merits alone.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The intentional repeated conflation of anecdotes with scientific evidence is itself sufficient objective evidence to offer delusion as the most likely explanation.

Logically, as well as for the sake of acceptability were you undertaking a scientific approach, it would be expected that you would refer to a specific alleged conflation, then demonstrate that the alleged conflation is an actual conflation (and the doing so would be informative about and relate to the nature of "objective"), and then you would have to go through much the same process to establish the "repeated" aspect of your claim. Even then you would not have established the fact of - or even the likelihood of - delusion. After all, there might only have been a mistake along the way.

Or do you think that logic is not a necessary condition for - or a necessary aspect of - the doing of science?

Also consider this: Do you have evidence if you cannot succeed at the undertakings of the first paragraph in this response?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

If “divine inspiration” is merely a private motivation

Inspiration is no more necessarily "merely" private than is any other personal experience. And the issue remains the matter of understanding and how understanding develops.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Inspiration is no more necessarily "merely" private than is any other personal experience. And the issue remains the matter of understanding and how understanding develops.

Personal experiences can have public effects, but their contents remain private until independently verified—and even then, what becomes public is the behavior and testimony, not the alleged non-human cause. People report “inspiration” across incompatible religions, political movements, and artistic traditions; the shared phenomenology proves only that humans have powerful motivational states. It does not discriminate divine causation from normal cognition. To elevate Paul’s inspiration from private conviction to public fact, you need intersubjective markers that isolate a non-human source: independent contemporaneous attestations of the revelation, verifiable predictions recorded before fulfillment, or distinctive textual/transmission features not produced by ordinary composition and copying. None exist for Paul. What we do observe—human rhetoric aimed at decisions, evolving interpretations, and a manuscript tradition full of routine variants—is exactly what human processes produce.

As for “understanding and how understanding develops,” that is a sociolinguistic and historical question, not a shortcut to non-human origin. Communities always develop doctrines and practices over time; that tells us how ideas spread, not where they came from. Development explains uptake; it does not authenticate source. So we can study and even value Paul’s ideas as human philosophy and community guidance. But without discriminating public evidence, “divine inspiration” remains a private motivation with no evidential weight in public argument, and “not of human origin” remains an unfalsifiable assertion, not an established fact.

NHC

 

[bilby]

Thank you for continuing to make it ever more evident that your intellectual capabilities are always over-estimated.

In consideration of the latest evidence of your inherently intractable inabilities, I will re-phrase the remark you quoted so that even your grossly limited self might have a chance to understand

In consideration of the latest evidence of your inherently intractable inabilities, I will return the favour and re-phrase your remarks here quoted:

"I am unable to respond with reason or facts, so I shall fall back on insults and pompous loquacity, and hope that you are intimidated by my long words into beliving that I am smart enough to refute you if I wanted, rather than just thinking I am a wordy little tit without a leg to stand on".

 

[Elixir]

it would be expected that you would refer to a specific alleged conflation

I did.
You chose to attack my intelligence instead of trying to raise a reasoned response.
Fuck off, dude. To put it bluntly, you’re full of superstitious bullshit masquerading as apologetics, and that fact is obvious to everyone else who has weighed in on this thread. Wank away, I’m singularly uninterested in watching.

 

[steve_bank]

it would be expected that you would refer to a specific alleged conflation

I did.
You chose to attack my intelligence instead of trying to raise a reasoned response.
Fuck off, dude. To put it bluntly, you’re full of superstitious bullshit masquerading as apologetics, and that fact is obvious to everyone else who has weighed in on this thread. Wank away, I’m singularly uninterested in watching.

Nicely put. A neat concise summary that says it all.

The thing is I don't think he ever says exactly what he does believe.

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity comes down to a belief in a few lines in ancient documents of unknown authors.

Documents for which there are no original copies and which went through installations and undoubtedly editing.

The report of seeing Jesus post mortem is taken as an objective journalistic fact. That is taken by Chrtians sa evidence.

I watched a show on The Arthurian legend. I grew up thinking it was based in historical characters.

Turns out it began when a monk fabricated the tale from folk stories and included it in a book History Of Britain, it became a best seller of the day.

There is no archeological evidence of any large scale conflict and the two sides appear to be peaceful agrarian culture who intermarried.

People today beve tere was a King Arthur.

To me that is the gospels. A fabrication based o oral torie pased down over decade.

 

[Politesse]

it would be expected that you would refer to a specific alleged conflation

I did.
You chose to attack my intelligence instead of trying to raise a reasoned response.
Fuck off, dude. To put it bluntly, you’re full of superstitious bullshit masquerading as apologetics, and that fact is obvious to everyone else who has weighed in on this thread. Wank away, I’m singularly uninterested in watching.

Nicely put. A neat concise summary that says it all.

The thing is I don't think he ever says exactly what he does believe.

You seem to say that about nearly everyone. Have you ever wondered whether you're just not very good at listening when people tell you what they believe, because you're too busy trying to jam them into some stereotyped category that already exists in your head? Because that is definitely what it looks like from the outside.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not usually that blunt. Elixir's response was appropriate to the long winded gas bag Pearl.

Back when you identified as Pagan Christian you defended the gospel Jesus a a source of mortality as I recall.

Does this criticism of Paul on the thread violate your sensibilities about Jesus, Christianity, and the gospels?

Are you still chafing because I have been dismissive of you in the past?

 

[Swammerdami]

My impression is that early on there were (at least) two very different religions based on Jesus Christ:

(1) The Christian Congregation of Jerusalem based on the teachings of Jesus, led by

• James, Jesus' brother
• Simon Peter Barjona
• John bar Zebedee, presumably the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

Although centered in Jerusalem and perhaps Galilee, in the 1st century this religion attracted a large following throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and even in Rome.

(2) The teachings of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, contradictory to the original Christianity and much of Jesus' teachings. It became dominant after the Jewish-Roman Wars, with the dissolution of Judaic authority.

With Paulism dominant before the New Testament became canonized, writings that criticized the demagogue from Tarsus were expunged. For example, here is an excerpt from  The Recognitions of Clement :

And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies, entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, 'What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are you led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician.' While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What are you doing? Why do you hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?' When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.

Do scholars agree with Reza Aslan that "Saul (one of our enemies)" here is Paul the Evangelist; and "James the bishop" is Jesus's brother?

 

[steve_bank]

Roman emperors considered themselves divine.

Anyone in the empire who was reported to be a son of a god, a demigod, and who was doing supernatural things like raising the dead would get the attention of Rome. It would be a threat to the power of the emperor.

There would have been Roman records of such a person in Judea which was under Roman militray occupation.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

To elevate Paul’s inspiration from private conviction to public fact ...

It is presumed for good reason that the allegedly good news - the subject matter which was preached - was not that Paul was divinely inspired. The subject matter which was preached was not elevated in any way by virtue of Paul having been divinely inspired - even if he were in fact so inspired. The subject matter which he preached was/is independent of however it was that he had inspiration. The subject matter which he preached can be considered independently (and as independent) of whatever was the inspiration.

This approach is the one which is more compatible with the injunction against taking God's name in vain - an injunction a purpose of which is to effect realization that (development of) personal understanding is essential (and is to be much preferred over deferential rote thought).

The priority of this understanding-based approach is also evident in the story about Jesus offending the Pharisees when he says that it is not what goes into the mouth which defiles a person. Befuddled, Peter asks Jesus to explain what he meant, and Jesus replies sharply: “Are you still so dull, still so without understanding?" It does not even matter that Jesus is the speaker. What is important is developing an understanding - as an individual. What is essential is that the individual communication recipient undertake to develop an own understanding, an understanding which, of course, is subject to testing and challenge according to the understandings had by others.

Assume for the sake of discussion that the Archimedes eureka moment story depicts an actual occurrence of experienced inspiration. Now assume that Archimedes had said that he had been divinely inspired or divinely touched or that a time-traveler from the future or a person from some other civilization or world had provided the inspiration or the information which led to the understanding Archimedes had attained and expressed (taught/preached).

Would it be reasonable to let that inspiration claim distract from the reported understanding and, consequently, from a development of an own understanding about the understanding? Is it not the understanding expressed which would be possibly significant and more certainly of greater significance than the source of the inspiration, than whether, in this case, Archimedes had been subject to some other-"world"-ly experience?

Setting focus upon the inspiration is not the same as - and, in fact, precludes - developing an own understanding. For so long as there is focus upon the inspiration, there is no understanding. And that would be the case even for Paul even if he were actually divinely inspired.

The important issue is not the matter regarding whether or not Paul was divinely inspired.

 

[Learner]

Roman emperors considered themselves divine.

Anyone in the empire who was reported to be a son of a god, a demigod, and who was doing supernatural things like raising the dead would get the attention of Rome
It would be a threat to the power of the emperor.

There would have been Roman records of such a person in Judea which was under Roman militray occupation.

Wonderful!

Then we can agree then, my 'potential Christian convert chum..
...that the poor logical reasoning behind those propositions that try to claim Jesus was a "Roman invention" e.g. "Caesar's Jesus", etc.& etc. is rather a self-defeating, hungry-for-power irrational suicide...to put it simply.

Must we highlight again the obvious of logic fails? "Romans created a Son of God a Jewish God to be higher than the Roman gods,, like Jupiter and Mars etc.?

The Romans created "A King of kings above Caesar?" Atheists still believe this

I think you used to be of that type of thinking ilk - I pointed this poor reasoning out before, IIRC...but anyway.... that doesn't matter now my potential believer friend , I see you may be on the path to seeing the light.

 

[Politesse]

Roman emperors considered themselves divine.

Anyone in the empire who was reported to be a son of a god, a demigod, and who was doing supernatural things like raising the dead would get the attention of Rome. It would be a threat to the power of the emperor.

There would have been Roman records of such a person in Judea which was under Roman militray occupation.

What records? Can you give an example of a "Roman record" from 1st century Judea?

 

[steve_bank]

Roman emperors considered themselves divine.

Anyone in the empire who was reported to be a son of a god, a demigod, and who was doing supernatural things like raising the dead would get the attention of Rome
It would be a threat to the power of the emperor.

There would have been Roman records of such a person in Judea which was under Roman militray occupation.

Wonderful!

Then we can agree then, my 'potential Christian convert chum..
...that the poor logical reasoning behind those propositions that try to claim Jesus was a "Roman invention" e.g. "Caesar's Jesus", etc.& etc. is rather a self-defeating, hungry-for-power irrational suicide...to put it simply.

Must we highlight again the obvious of logic fails? "Romans created a Son of God a Jewish God to be higher than the Roman gods,, like Jupiter and Mars etc.?

The Romans created "A King of kings above Caesar?" Atheists still believe this

I think you used to be of that type of thinking ilk - I pointed this poor reasoning out before, IIRC...but anyway.... that doesn't matter now my potential believer friend , I see you may be on the path to seeing the light.

Huh?

I am pointing out the lack of contemporaneous corroboration and no evidence of the supernatural power of the alleged Jesus..

Tacitus and Josephus often cited by Christians were born well after the events.

I believe the gospel Jesus was influenced by Greek mythology, The gospel Jesus s a Greek demigod. Blasphemy to the Jewish community. Greeks and Romans could relate to the image.

And it was Paul influenced by the Greeks who 'took the Jewish out of Jesus'.

Potential convert? Not really. Over the years some have tried. I was talking to a Chritian at work when he suddenly raised hi voice commanding me to come to Jesus, had that happen other times.

A constant with Chaitin is the obsession to convert others.

There i an Evangelical saying, convert the world one person at a time. I am starting to look at as a mental illnes.