On religion

[d000hg]

So after all that we find MUN basically doesn't believe (or understand) the entire field of historical study.

Discussion over?

[speling bee]

So after all that we find MUN basically doesn't believe (or understand) the entire field of historical study.

Discussion over?

To be a little more generous, I think he doesn't understand ancient historiography and history, which have their own peculiarities.

[MyUserName]

Why would we expect a provincial historian to survive when writing about someone who at the time was not a significant figure, just another local troublemaker in political terms? And we must also consider that the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would not have been a conducive factor to manuscript survival.

So there may have been contemporary accounts which are lost, or maybe not.

Hmmm ... that could go some way to explaining it.

So if Jesus was a small time whatever who was later used as the focal point for various made up stories which gradually grew in power level until he was claimed to have healed the dead and had thousands of people travelling great distances to hear him speak then, at the time he was alive, he might have escaped the notice of anyone documenting anything. Even if they did document him then the writings might have been lost or destroyed before the legends expanded on his achievements.

That does make some sense. It is definitely possible.

[MyUserName]

So after all that we find MUN basically doesn't believe (or understand) the entire field of historical study.

Discussion over?

****Removed as I had people mixed up******
Also, the discussion about Jesus existing was only a small branch from the one about religion. We can return to that if you so wish?

[speling bee]

Hmmm ... that could go some way to explaining it.

So if Jesus was a small time whatever who was later used as the focal point for various made up stories which gradually grew in power level until he was claimed to have healed the dead and had thousands of people travelling great distances to hear him speak then, at the time he was alive, he might have escaped the notice of anyone documenting anything. Even if they did document him then the writings might have been lost or destroyed before the legends expanded on his achievements.

That does make some sense. It is definitely possible.

Here is how I see it, and I have no evidence to back it up:

Jesus emerges from the rabbinical pharisaic movement with a political and religious agenda.

He builds up his followers.

He is anointed as Messiah (Christ) and King.

He rides into Jerusalem on a donkey to fulfill the prophecies.

He is arrested by a cohort of troops after a skirmish in the garden of Gethsemene. Simon Peter was armed within the city walls and chopped off one of his opponent's ears.

He is tried for a political, not a religious crime, by Pilate.

He is crucified - a Roman death for a Roman crime, not a stoning for blasphemy.

After the crushing of the political movement, the movement takes on a religious and social aspect and forms the Church - a sect within Judaism.

The Church gradually becomes less Jewish and after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 starts to become a separate religion.

The writings that emerge emphasise the parts that fit with the movement, and a decent amount of supernatural events is sprinkled on the story as you would expect with an ancient mindset.

[speling bee]

Perhaps you could take some lessons from Speling Bee in how to have an adult conversation?
Also, the discussion about Jesus existing was only a small branch from the one about religion. We can return to that if you so wish?

But I think is very important. I see my atheism as a rational viewpoint in contrast to faith positions. I think you are in danger of falling into a trap where you are letting your views cloud a rational analysis of history.

[MyUserName]

Here is how I see it, and I have no evidence to back it up:
Jesus emerges from the rabbinical pharisaic movement with a political and religious agenda.
He builds up his followers.
He is anointed as Messiah (Christ) and King.
He rides into Jerusalem on a donkey to fulfill the prophecies.
He is arrested by a cohort of troops after a skirmish in the garden of Gethsemene. Simon Peter was armed within the city walls and chopped off one of his opponent's ears.
He is tried for a political, not a religious crime, by Pilate.
He is crucified - a Roman death for a Roman crime, not a stoning for blasphemy.
After the crushing of the political movement, the movement takes on a religious and social aspect and forms the Church - a sect within Judaism.
The Church gradually becomes less Jewish and after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 starts to become a separate religion.
The writings that emerge emphasise the parts that fit with the movement, and a decent amount of supernatural events is sprinkled on the story as you would expect with an ancient mindset.

That is perfectly plausible and I cannot prove it wrong.

I have never had my burden of proof for Jesus's existance satisfied and simply assumed that out of the squabbling mass of various messiahs and sects Christianity emerged with momentum and started to spread. There was no need for a real person to base it on, it might even work better if there is not because they you can truely make up what you want. (I was under the impression that Josephus was unreliable but I might have been too harsh on him considering what you were saying previously).

The religion eventually got formalised into the gospels and they co-ordinated their stories a little although they still have various contradictions.

Eventually the Romans picked up on it and integrated it into their empire and then brought it across Europe.

Obviously, I have no evidence for the first bit either.

[MyUserName]

But I think is very important. I see my atheism as a rational viewpoint in contrast to faith positions. I think you are in danger of falling into a trap where you are letting your views cloud a rational analysis of history.

Agreed, that way madness lies.

I am normally very careful to avoid that (contrary to the various comments above I have small smattering of historical research experience), I hope I have not fallen into that trap this time but I will need time to think through the points you have made to see whether it changes my viewpoint.

[d000hg]

Perhaps you could take some lessons from Speling Bee in how to have an adult conversation?

I certainly wouldn't take them from you... getting all snippy when someone criticises your argument.

I've been having an adult conversation for over 400 messages in this topic, in spite of your incessant wittering.

You SAID that you were dubious about the majority of historians, in your own words. Please explain why me pointing out that a discussion with you on history is therefore pointless is un-adult.

[MyUserName]

I certainly wouldn't take them from you... getting all snippy when someone criticises your argument.

I've been having an adult conversation for over 400 messages in this topic, in spite of your incessant wittering.

Sorry, I just looked back and I had you mixed up with someone else.
You have not been childish at any point in this converstaion, please accept my apologies.