patrick.net

savethepopulation says

You have to have more faith to be an atheist.

That is truly backwards reasoning.

savethepopulation says

There is nothing to disprove the Bible and evidence continues to mount in its favor.

Be careful with that theory. There's good genetic evidence that humanity cannot be traced to a single literal "first couple" like Adam and Eve. There's also no evidence for a global flood. Perhaps the flood was local or regional?

Remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Some things in it mesh well with "secular" history and archaeology, but other things (particularly far back in the Old Testament) do not.

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

wthrfrk80 says

wanderer01 says

The good news is that today there are many who have figured out the Bible well enough to tell you how Mark 11:23 actually works.

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

Yep it is a very interesting site and discusses in detail the problems with the "god heals" claims.

wthrfrk80 says

Be careful with that theory...there's a website called "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"

That would take a miracle.

Roidy says

Are there any Shatnerologists in the Patrick.net readership?

No, but I'm a Nimoyian. Some of the Ambassador's wisdom:

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/06/leonard-nimoy-invokes-classic-star-trek-episode-in-plea-for-middle-east-peace/

For those too lazy to read the site, here's the summary.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kbgxUavMq4o

God would have to be a total asshole to cure cancer, AIDS, and infertility, but give a big fuck you to every child and every soldier who ever lost a limb. What an asshole! Unless, of course, god never cured anyone. But then, all those alleged miracles would be bullshit, and Jesus would be a fraud.

There you have it. Either god is a total asshole, or he's a fictional character. Which is worse? Give god the benefit of a doubt that he doesn't exist.

A humorous look at the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p9izVu_TtAE

wanderer01 says

A comment about my use of circular logic above. Very true. But it is a quick way to set the stage to lay out a way to experimentally confirm whether the God of Bible exists, as I attempted to do after that.

Hmmm... starting by begging the question is not an experiment at all. You have already reached your conclusion before your "experiment" has even begun. It makes you appear very unscientific and very bias. Anything following is more-or-less irrelevant and if you start your statement with a logical fallacy it is very likely that you will continue to support your point with additional fallacies.

Case in point...

wanderer01 says

I decided to test [Mark 11:23] experimentally...

...I now play basketball with my boys...for years I could not run nor jog...

...My mom could not move nor talk immediately after her aneurysm stroke... Later Mom could do everything again.

My Dad had 1 lung lobe cut out...Dad was growing a baby lung when he was 80+...

Your entire support for Mark 11:23 is anecdotal logical fallacies. If you are truly interested in analyzing/testing the "power" of Mark 11:23 then you should checkout why god won't heal amputees. That site give a very different and in-depth perspective on the topic (thanks wthrfrk for bringing it up, I had forgotten about that site).

wanderer01 says

Does God exist? If yes, which God is he and why doesn't he show himself are puzzling questions. I outlined a trail that can answer all 3 questions.

OK, three questions with a trail for us to follow and find the answers.
1. Do/does god(s) exist?
2. Which god(s) is he/her/them?
3. Why doesn't he/her/them appear?

OK, I wait with bated-breath for the answer to those three mysterious questions which man/womankind has wrestled with for a eon.

wanderer01 says

God left us a big Bible so that we can learn plenty and can analyze/test to prove or disprove.

Hmmm... OK, please without using circular logic in a clear logical method explain what you think proves the christian god. Your argument will be more convincing if it can not also be used to prove non-christian gods.

wanderer01 says

I think the #1 question for most is why doesn't God show himself? After Jesus was given power to do work, Jesus went back to his home village to heal those he grew up with (Mark 6:1-6). There, some got healed but Jesus could not do mighty healing due to some's unbelief that Jesus was anointed with power to heal them. The same principle applies today.

OK, here is another example of circular logic that you need to avoid if you want to develop a convincing approach for the existence of a christian god.

wanderer01 says

As a research scientist...

I am curious what your field of expertise is.

The whole "Bible as a magic book that fell out of Heaven" view among some uneducated Christians doesn't portray Christianity in a positive light.

I wonder how many atheists were former "believers" until they prayed for something and didn't get it.

The Bible is a collection of books written over centuries gathered together by the early Christian church. It didn't just come from one guy's claimed vision (like the Koran and the Book of Mormon).

Only one way to the father. That is through the lamb. "Look within and you shall never be without." For the many times I faltered in sin and was led back to the green pastures from the desert I had chosen, it is a commitment to Love. We come from it, and we need it. When it lacks it shows. For the testimony of those before and with me that understand the struggle to believe what we read, teach what we believe, and practice what we preach, the Love of the Lamb is through sacrifice because it purges out the sin in order to receive the holy spirit of the Lord. A host can not be tainted to receive the holy spirit as a closed window can not allow air to enter into the domain. Faith is better felt than seen, for a "sign" to show us that God is real is denying that God is. An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God. The lord will guide you back to where your heart needs be.

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

wthrfrk80 says

There's a distinction between the Jewish authorities (the Pharasees and Saducees that opposed the early church) and ordinary Jews who joined the Christian movement. Could that account for the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested. This is interesting stuff, at least to me.

Could be, but unlikely, since Jesus himself and most of his followers would have counted as a Pharisee school adherents. I imagine most of the "Jewish Christians" came from the Pharisee school.

Roger Pearse says

Erm, no. First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD).

Hi Roger - I agree with you that Murdock is a bit out there.

"(Bas-relief of the colossal temple built by Antiochus I. of Commagene, 69-31 B.C., on the Nemrood Dagh, a spur of the Taurus Mountains. T. et M., p. 188.)"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

While this Mithras lacks some of the other details, his name is inscribed along with King Antiochus'.

From looking at various sources, the bulk of definite Mithras-Cult artifacts is from the 1st Century AD, but there are debatable artifacts from Crimea and elsewhere that could be 1st Century BC that fit some of the descriptions of Mithras (Phyrgian Cap) but not others. If we're finding Mithraic stuff all over Pannonia, Germania Inferior, and the Crimea by mid-late 1st C. AD, then I don't think it's a stretch to push it back to the 1st Century BC to allow for time for it to develop and transmit over all this large distance.

Sadly, unlike Christianity, it's not a book religion so I guess it transmitted knowledge very like Masonry, with senior members initiating initiates verbally.

Roger Pearse says

Paganism was syncretic. The temples of Mithras include things borrowed from other pagan cults.

I agree. I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

wanderer01 says

God exists. God does not lie and does not change. Bible, his word, says do.

Circular Logic:

The Bible says God is the Truth. God wrote the Bible, and therefore the Bible is True.

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

Roger, this is a major stretch.

Please provide some Facts about the real, historical (not necessarily supernatural) Jesus that are consensus among historians and/or archeologists - not Bible Scholars.

Where was he born, in what town, when did he die, was he crucified, did he have a beard, etc. - and what evidence backs up these facts? I'm not looking for any supernatural claims. Just verifiable facts of his physical existence somewhere in time.

thunderlips11 says

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

leoj707 says

Simplifiedfrizbee says

An "atheist" who are thee? I dare say you too believe in God.

Why would you think that an atheist believes in a christian god? Do Hindus believe in a christian god as well? How about scientologist?

How about Mormons?

thunderlips11 says

but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence.

A huge influence, particularly in the god as a sacrifice part. You know, the whole resurrection myth.

By the way, the whole resurrection part kind of defeats the sacrifice of dying. It's not a sacrifice to die if you rise from the dead. It's only a sacrifice if you stay dead and cease to exist. When you think a moment about it, it's really crappy writing. It's a lousy cliché.

YesYNot says

I've heard this argument before. It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed. They are denying that he was the son of god and rose from the dead. So, it is the details that are important. I don't know what difference it would make if some guy 2000 yrs ago was named Jesus or not.

Hey YesYNot! You're on to something here.

Why is it there is no problem placing Abraham and Moses in the myth category, but when it comes to Jesus, there is this serious misgiving about doing the same?

Is Jesus better attested to than Abraham or Moses? Are there artifacts from Jesus' lifetime that we don't have for Moses?

Why do we give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that we don't give to say, Ruth?

YesYNot says

It's funny, because no one is denying that some guy existed.

Some people DO deny that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Which is weird (to me), since it's possible to believe he existed w/o believing he was the Son of God.

marcus says

this is what it will look like. That is if you ever get over your religion issues.

Agnostic is just an atheist that doesn't have friends capable of doing the statistics and agreeing with them, so they give up and (understandably) choose to allow their religious friends to believe they will eventually 'find' God, and their atheist friends to believe they will eventually find no God.

Personally, I think arguments about the existence of God are wasting time. The real questions are twofold:
First: What is Good and Bad?
Second: Do our cultural habits help us do more good relative to their costs in resources?

To answer the first, one simply has to look at the other species that survive over the long term. Those that survive have one general behavior which allows them to survive disasters and adapt to changes: they store usefulness and potential usefulness for the future, or they are productive enough to take the losses that come, without consuming their environment. All of them work symbiotically in their environment to both moderate and be moderated by the other species. In other words, "dog eat dog" is the same as "god works in mysterious ways".

Humans developed religions in various flavors to adapt to various environments (which they create unintentionally). Religion is our way of moderating ourselves since we have the manipulative skills to overcome most of the moderating forces of nature which would keep our populations down. Religion is a form of government (a social contract between individuals and a group).
Overall, the validity of a belief lies in the actions which that belief generates. If belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Cthulthu helps humans survive over the long term (makes them useful to their own future), then it is a valid religion to pursue. If it is self-destructive and consumptive (Consumerism/Capitalism/The Invisible Hand Job: the belief in money as morality.), then it is bad.
If one continues to behave in the consumptive manner when they KNOW it to be destructive of the future, then they are doing something Evil.
If they believe blindly (refuse to question its validity), or cause people to do something based on an unquestioned belief, then the result is almost always Evil.
Most religions start out with the Unquestioned God because it makes the group more compliant. Some appoint a select few to do the questioning and studying for them so they can go about their daily work of living.

Few people who claim to be anything (whether Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or KKK) actually do much rigorous investigation into their own beliefs. For thousands of years, they didn't have to: they could just find an unoccupied piece of territory and live among themselves. Now that we are running out of places to put all of these elitists, and information about human history is being solidified with DNA statistics and archeological records, we have to find ways to establish once again what is necessary to communicate decently between believers of different perspectives.
Nobody is going to 'win' an argument that isn't based on actual reason. The atheist argument is a moot point because the question isn't whether or not God exists, but whether we need to have beliefs for cultural reasons. Atheists don't have much to offer people as moral and living guidance except humanism. Humanism fails because it puts people above everything else, and thus, is just another religion with an unquestioned icon.
The common need of all members of the species is to have a future. We cannot consider ourselves part of a future unless we give more to it than we take from it.
This is the evil of debt: it is a promise to burn up resources in the future to satisfy present desires; resources we may need a lot more than we know.
As an aside, I haven't seen the discussion end up at Pascal's Wager yet. What's taking you guys so long?

YesYNot says

no one is denying that some guy existed

I think that thunderlips11 is. thunderlips11 is questioning whether a cult leader Jesus lived and walked around preaching some new religion, which is a far lower bar to reach than making a supernatural claim about him.

I don't have any objections to there being a cult leader named Jesus running around in the year 30 A.D. or so, make a general ass of himself and preaching nonsense. I wouldn't call him a moral leader as he never spoke out against slavery, the most evil practice and widespread of his time. No, that would have taken moral courage. Nor did he advocate equality for women, who were treated as property. Yeah, he made have hung out with women, but what cult leader doesn't? There's a reason for becoming a cult leader.

Of course, the things that the real Jesus, if he existed, would have believed in would shock the moral senses of people today. He lived in a brutal time and his warped moral code would reflect that brutality. In any case, the fundamentalists who most strongly proclaim his divinity and moral authority would probably crucify, er lynch, the real guy if he fell into a temporal portal that brought him to the present day.

Of course, the mythological aspects of the character including all the "miracles" are made up bullshit. As are the accounts of casting out demons. Strangely, demons seemed to infect people routinely up until the Age of Enlightenment when demons were replaced by mental illness. Hmmm, I wonder why there are no demon attacks today, just people with mental disorders.

Auntiegrav says

Agnostic is just an atheist that

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

An agnostic is like a gay guy who dates girls so that the only boys don't make fun of him. The parallels between the struggles of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the atheist rights movement are striking as are the challenges those minorities faced.

Auntiegrav says

Humanism fails because it puts people above everything else, and thus, is just another religion with an unquestioned icon.

Pretty much. It takes quite a lot of "faith" to believe in humanity, given the nightly news and history.

Auntiegrav says

As an aside, I haven't seen the discussion end up at Pascal's Wager yet. What's taking you guys so long?

I thought we already addressed that. It might have been in another thread though.

Dan8267 says

I think that thunderlips11 is. thunderlips11 is questioning whether a cult leader Jesus lived and walked around preaching some new religion, which is a far lower bar to reach than making a supernatural claim about him.

Exactly. And there is apparently little evidence to support even this modest claim.

People around at the time knew of apocalyptic preachers, Josephus mentions several of them. There was a naked guy who walked around yelling "Woe to the City! Woe to the City!" who was well known, we have the Essenes, a wandering prophet tradition, John the Baptist seems to have been real, etc. The many Yeshuas mentioned in Josephus don't match Jesus of the Gospels very well.

To make up a story based on known archetypes is not hard. Consider all the Private Eye detective movies and stories from the 50s. We know of many archetypes: Tough Marine, Druggy Guitarist, Trophy Wife, etc.

One possibility is that Jesus is based on John the Baptist. Also, there is a strong tradition of semi-historical "Novels" in the Bible. The Book of Esther is one such.
Dan8267 says

I don't have any objections to there being a cult leader named Jesus running around in the year 30 A.D. or so, make a general ass of himself and preaching nonsense.

Nor do I. I'm not a die hard myther. Again, I think the truth is somewhere inbetween - that it's a mix of myths and various individuals, like Lao Tsu or maybe King David.

My beef is the stridency with which some Historical Jesusites claim that one single real Jesus, not necessarily supernatural, actually existed. Their standard of evidence seems out of whack with the way they treat other Biblical characters.

wthrfrk80 says

Some people DO deny that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Which is weird (to me), since it's possible to believe he existed w/o believing he was the Son of God.

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

CL says

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

I'm not qualified to do this. I'm not a professional historian or achaeologist.

I think Christians need to start seeing the light. Humans are nothing special, but about 100k, maybe more years ago when we mastered the art of making a fire, the food became very safe and easier to eat/digest, this helped populations grow, and humans were then able to disperse around the planet, insuring them against extinction.

Even all apes show the ability to imagine what others are thinking, they have complex languages, and understand the communications of many other animals. They use tools, groom themselves of life sucking parasites, show emotion, grief, etc.

Most Christians I know are very self-serving, they don't care about or want to know anything that might challenge their narrow beliefs, this close minded approach to life and our shared planet will eventually doom humanity.

I wrote: "First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD)."

Thunderlips replied: ""(Bas-relief of the colossal temple built by Antiochus I. of Commagene, 69-31 B.C., on the Nemrood Dagh, a spur of the Taurus Mountains. T. et M., p. 188.)"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

While this Mithras lacks some of the other details, his name is inscribed along with King Antiochus'."

The hierostheon at Nimrud Dagh contains statues, which have inscriptions beneath them. Each status has two names, one or more Greek, one Persian. So one status is labelled Zeus-Ormazd. Another is labelled Apollo-Mithra. And so on. There is, in other words, nothing relating to the cult of Mithras at all. Everything relates to Zoroastrianism. In that part of the world, where Mithradates of Pontus had led his armies, the semi-Persian states like Commagene naturally faced both ways.

The reason that you made this mistake is that you used a book from 1903, written by the great Franz Cumont as a popularisation of his major work on Mithras, and translated (badly) into English. Cumont was the founder of Mithraic studies. He gathered all the data, in volume 1 of his "Textes et monumentes", and weaved a narrative around them in vol. 2, thereby creating Mithraic studies. He believed that Roman Mithras was the same as the ancient cult of Mitra or Mithra in Zoroastrianism, mainly because the literary sources call Mithras "the Persian god", and Plutarch talks about Cilicians worshipping him.

But that was 1899. Over the next 50 years, there was a lot of archaeology. Now Mithras is best known from the characteristic underground temples or Mithraeums. Not one of these exists outside of the Roman empire. How can that be, if Mithras is a Persian cult? The same applies to the central cult myth, of Mithras killing the bull. It's not known elsewhere. The archaeology all centres in Rome, and spreads out, over time. There's no Mithras archaeology worth discussing in Cilicia.

In 1971 they held a big conference, and Cumont's theory got deep-sixed. These days every scholar treats the two as distinct. This does not mean that there might not be some vague link -- sometimes called Neo-Cumontian ideas -- but basically there's not much beyond the name of the god. It's probably rather like the pseudo-Zoroaster literature in Greek. It has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism; rather someone decided to place Greek ideas in the mouth of a legendary "oriental". "Eastern" ideas have been fashionable in other eras, you know? How truly eastern those ideas are is sometimes questionable.

No reason why you should know all this, I know. Few people do. Ancient history is my hobby, and especially primary texts. I got interested some time back in Mithras, after one too many "Jesus is really Mithras! Har! Har!" taunts from some troll or other, and I read around the subject and looked up all the primary texts. I gradually realised just how bad the stuff online was -- and how does that help anyone? --, which is why I look out for this stuff.

You wrote: "From looking at various sources, the bulk of definite Mithras-Cult artifacts is from the 1st Century AD, but there are debatable artifacts from Crimea and elsewhere that could be 1st Century BC that fit some of the descriptions of Mithras (Phyrgian Cap) but not others. If we're finding Mithraic stuff all over Pannonia, Germania Inferior, and the Crimea by mid-late 1st C. AD, then I don't think it's a stretch to push it back to the 1st Century BC to allow for time for it to develop and transmit over all this large distance."

The stuff from Kerch isn't certainly Mithraic. The idea that it belongs to the 1st century BC appears to be a typo in one modern book, which itself says that Mithras originates in the 1st century AD.

I agree that if we did find stuff all over Pannonia, Germania and the Crimea by 50 AD, we might reasonably suppose it was earlier by some decades (not a century, tho -- not for a cult known mainly by archaeology?). But we don't. The earliest archaeology is in Rome, ca. 100 AD.

You said: " I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence."

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

Generally what we find is people desperately trying to show similarity; from similarity, they insinuate connection; and from connection they insinuate derivation. But of course all sorts of things look "similar" if you play with categories enough; and loose similarities are evidence of nothing.

The best example of this is the Atlantis theory. There are pyramids in Egypt. There are pyramids in Mexico. This proves, say the cultists, that Atlantis existed and that the Egyptians (or Mexicans) sailed the Atlantic in stone boats. In reality it proves only that the law of gravity tends to make people cutting blocks pile them up in similar looking heaps.

Christianity is a Jewish heresy. We may speculate that the theology of Paul has something to do with the fact that Greek was the language of his time. Perhaps so, although evidence is lacking. But the evidenced fact is that his thought was hostile to Greek culture, sometimes markedly so, to the point of martyrdom for refusing to observe its shibboleths; and his focus was on Jerusalem, not on Athens. As one of his early disciples (Tertullian) remarked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? We don't want any clever-clever enquiries ... away with this bastardised religion". Those who really did want to absorb influence from contemporary cults did not enjoy a welcome in the early church, as the heresiological works bear witness.

I hope that helps. I'm on a rotten internet connection, so I can't contribute much (I suspect).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

Here's Wikipedia's entry

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

It's pretty easy to meet the first definition of an atheist. To be an atheist in the more strict sense, you have to move away from probability and statistical arguments to something more concrete. I prefer more tractable problems, so at a certain point, it just seems like mental masturbation to me.

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

I'm not qualified to do this. I'm not a professional historian or achaeologist.

Fair enough. At one point I thought you were endorsing that as having been proven.

Didn't Roger say as much? Mr. Pearse, can you expound on "Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed"?

thunderlips11 says

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

Roger, this is a major stretch.

Please provide some Facts about the real, historical (not necessarily supernatural) Jesus that are consensus among historians and/or archeologists - not Bible Scholars.

Glad to. It will cost you $5,000, and for that I will write to a few of them and ask.

You WERE proposing to pay me, to do what you could perfectly well do yourself, weren't you? :)

But this demand isn't really an answer to what I said. It's basically this, I think, and I presume you saw it elsewhere (any idea where?): "We can't deny that every qualified scholar believes that Jesus existed, so what we'll do instead is deny that all of them believe the same things, and then fudge it so that it looks as if it means much the same thing." It's not good, is it?

That sort of chicanery is one of the reasons why educated people don't think much of the "Jesus myth" nonsense. It's all like that, through and through.

Christianity may or may not be true. But that a bloke named Jesus of Nazareth was wandering around preaching "I am the way", acquiring a reputation as a miracle-worker, and eventually ending up dead, and founded a major ideological movement based on his teachings ... that isn't doubtful. Why? Because that is how every ideological movement tends to start -- with a bloke with a beard on a soapbox preaching "follow me". (The soapbox is optional; the beard, apparently, is not!) If Christianity had perished in the 5th century, and was known to us only by a single sermon of the same period, we would accept that quite happily as evidence.

Until, that is, someone with a vested interest found it inconvenient, and started to complain. :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

CL says

Fair enough. At one point I thought you were endorsing that as having been proven.

Is it possible to "prove" that any figure of ancient history actually existed? I thought it was a matter of probability. There's no experiment we can run to prove historical events, is there?

Roger Pearse says

You said: " I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence."

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

Why the skepticism? Very little human endeavor starts from scratch and then it is usually just on the individual level. I don't think that "ancient testimony" is required to make the jump to believe that christianity was -- probably heavily -- influenced by other preexisting beliefs around the time.

Judaism certainly influenced chrstianity and in turn they both influenced islam. Even today mormonism was influenced by christianity along with many other thoughts of the time (the big one being that Native Americans were a lost jewish tribe).

Even an almost entirely made-up religion like scientology has beliefs based on ideas in the surrounding culture. Do you think that 2000 years ago a religion would have a figure that is a evil galactic overlord named Xenu?

The trick is not if but what influenced christianity.

The only reason to believe that christianity was uninfluenced is if it was indeed created through divine inspiration and that is an extraordinary claim and as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Roger Pearse says

But that a bloke named Jesus of Nazareth was wandering around preaching "I am the way", acquiring a reputation as a miracle-worker, and eventually ending up dead, and founded a major ideological movement based on his teachings ... that isn't doubtful. Why? Because that is how every ideological movement tends to start -- with a bloke with a beard on a soapbox preaching "follow me".

Well... yes and maybe... I think that you are totally correct about movements starting with some guy -- usually motivated by sex and money -- who acquires a supernatural reputation.

However, for christianity, we don't have any direct evidence that his name was indeed Jesus and everything attributed him (all the non-supernatural stuff) is true. Yes, there was some guy at the beginning of christianity and he probably did teach at least some of the things in the bible and most certainly claimed super powers and connection to god(s).

Roger Pearse says

(The soapbox is optional; the beard, apparently, is not!)

Ah, haha -- actually the beard is optional...

Mormon founder:

Scientology founder:

leoj707 says

The only reason to believe that christianity was uninfluenced is if it was indeed created through divine inspiration ...

I can't say that I see why (unless we define "influence" so loosely that includes things like speaking and eating and watching One Tree Hill). It is likely that you (or I) are very little influenced by movements that take place in cultures other than our own. How often do you or I eat snails? Yet millions of Frenchmen do every day. And I guarantee that, if you did, it wouldn't be because you were influenced by the French! (It would almost certainly be because of the influence of alcohol)

Sorry, but I don't see it. Believe this if you like, of course!

and that is an extraordinary claim and as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Do they? Why?

I never demand extraordinary evidence of anything, and nor should you. It's a rubbish way to investigate. What we should demand is *evidence*.

Consider: how are we to know whether a claim is extraordinary until we have investigated it? Who decides that something is "extraordinary"? You? Me? Someone reading an autocue on TV?

Is there any practical difference between demanding "extraordinary evidence" from something, and simply demanding higher standards of evidence for things that we are predisposed not to believe? I can't see one; and the normal English term for the latter is "prejudice".

It's not a scientific principle, at any rate.

Curiously, I have never heard anyone demand "extraordinary evidence" for anything they want to believe in. :)

But while we're discussing levels of evidence, I should say that I find that those who make these exaggerated demands tend to be rather shy about subjecting themselves to the same test. I usually start by asking such people to state the position *they* believe in (not what they are opposed to). Within a very few minutes they are telling me reasons why they don't have to put their beliefs on the table. Such people usually live -- talk aside -- by some subset of the values of the time and place in which they happen to live. But they can't state that, won't admit it, won't put their own view up for the examination they expect of others, and won't offer any evidence for it.

I mention this purely because I see a few posts in here from people doing just this -- shouting demands while keeping their own beliefs off the table. It's tedious. We all know that these people live by values they got from their society, and which they live in conformity to. That's not a rational position; and it must be the default in any society (even supposedly religious ones), I'd have thought.

Gotta go.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

First, thank you for this meaty post, which I'm still digesting.

Historians accept influences on Roman religious belief from the Greeks, the Persians and others. We know that religious Jews like Josephus and Philo were capable of incorporating Hellenistic and Roman philosophies into the Jewish religion, for example Philo and Logos.

So I think the opposite. Those who argue that Christianity wasn't influenced by the various memes of the day have the burden of proof.

leoj707 says

Why the skepticism? Very little human endeavor starts from scratch and then it is usually just on the individual level. I don't think that "ancient testimony" is required to make the jump to believe that christianity was -- probably heavily -- influenced by other preexisting beliefs around the time.

Here's a great audio presentation by Richard Carrier that speaks about some of the memes spreading through the Early Roman Empire in terms of both religion and philosophy.
http://freethoughtfestival.org/audio/FTF120428Carrier-ed.mp3

wthrfrk80 says

Is it possible to "prove" that any figure of ancient history actually existed? I thought it was a matter of probability. There's no experiment we can run to prove historical events, is there?

We have evidence for Pontius Pilate, both near-contemporaries Josephus and Philo, as well as an inscription from Israel:

(Inscriptions were the 1-800 Flowers of the day, people commissioned them to celebrate accomplishments, deaths, promotions, etc.)

We have no inscriptions or any other kind of physical evidence for Jesus. Or Paul, Peter, Mary, etc. Now, should we expect a poor preacher to have them? Or would they survive? Probably not I guess. But we still don't have them.

Roger Pearse says

Glad to. It will cost you $5,000, and for that I will write to a few of them and ask.

You WERE proposing to pay me, to do what you could perfectly well do yourself, weren't you? :)

Roger, I have asked HJ'ers to tell me what the consensus is on Jesus' birth, life, and death, and have never gotten an adequate answer, other than a vague idea that he existed.

If somebody existed in history, there must be some facts about him that can be widely agreed upon.

Does Ned Ludd exist? What are the facts of his birth, life, death? We don't know, yet he lived in a time far closer to ours than Jesus. His first mention is in a British magazine around 1811, and was believed to have smashed knitting frames around 1779. Was it a story told to a son who told it to somebody else? Maybe dad was telling his son about his frustrations at work using a fictional character, the way parents make up stories about the good children who wash their plates or don't talk to strangers?

Jesus has more in common with Ned Ludd, Paul Bunyon, Robin Hood, etc. than he does with Pilate, Caesar or even Mohammed.

leoj707 says

The trick is not if but what influenced christianity.

Certainly Christianity was influenced by Judaism. Jesus was Jewish as were his first followers. Indeed, Jesus claimed to be the God of the Jews. Why else did Caiaphas charge Jesus with blasphemy? I don't think Christians or mainstream churches try to hide that fact.