To Non-Christians: What are your thoughts on Jesus and Early Christianity?

[Cephus]

You missed my point I think. If someone you know and trust tells you something reasonable you are inclined to believe it right? If a crazy man tells you of a pink elephant you are inclined not to believe it correct? That was all I was saying; we judge the quality, quantity and consistency of information all the time.

Depends on what it is. I wouldn't believe someone talking about a pink elephant, regardless of how well I know someone or how much I trust them. That is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence regardless of who told me.

 

[Augustus]

Meet Islam.

Don't believe the hype. Was maybe 400 years before it became the region's majority religion. Hardly a quick imposition.

 

[dust1n]

Don't believe the hype. Was maybe 400 years before it became the region's majority religion. Hardly a quick imposition.

Got to start from somewhere... If it is possible that Muhammad could have revelations, and take over Medina, and begin conquering surrounding areas in his lifetime, and within 400 years have the majority religion in the area, I don't see why Constantine can't, although, I'm not saying he did or didn't. I just don't see it's impossible to do so.

 

[Augustus]

Got to start from somewhere... If it is possible that Muhammad could have revelations, and take over Medina, and begin conquering surrounding areas in his lifetime, and within 400 years have the majority religion in the area, I don't see why Constantine can't, although, I'm not saying he did or didn't. I just don't see it's impossible to do so.

Ignoring the clear pre-Constantinian history of Christianity which is a pretty big thing to ignore, how then did Constantine create a new religion and manage to spread it over much of Europe (including creating the Arian controversy, serious Christological disputes and numerous schisms and heresies) before the council of Nicaea?

 

[dust1n]

Ignoring the clear pre-Constantinian history of Christianity which is a pretty big thing to ignore, how then did Constantine create a new religion and manage to spread it over much of Europe (including creating the Arian controversy, serious Christological disputes and numerous schisms and heresies) before the council of Nicaea?

Heck if I know. I only suggest that the event of some sort of political leader creating and or starting a religion is not unheard of. I would suppose these men who participate in these councils, determining what Christian beliefs were heretical or not, exercised a great deal of power of what they would unknowingly be the basis for most Christian sects even preceding the Catholic Church. The Council of Nicaea was brought about by Constantine.

"[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Uh, oh.

 

[Augustus]

I only suggest that the event of some sort of political leader creating and or starting a religion is not unheard of.

I'm not aware of the top down mass imposition of a new religion on a population in a short time period though.

Saying Constantine invented Christianity is the history equivalent of saying the moon landings didn't happen, and should be treated with the same lack of respect.

I would suppose these men who participate in these councils, determining what Christian beliefs were heretical or not, exercised a great deal of power of what they would unknowingly be the basis for most Christian sects even preceding the Catholic Church. The Council of Nicaea was brought about by Constantine.

Trying to find a workable consensus amongst competing versions of a religion already in existence is hardly the same as 'inventing' a religion though. There's no reason to view it as a conspiratorial or nefarious endeavour either.

Some people want desperately to see Christianity as this evil scheme to subdue the people, rather than something that emerged from the people and spread upwards.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not aware of the top down mass imposition of a new religion on a population in a short time period though.

How much is a mass? How short is short?

Saying Constantine invented Christianity is the history equivalent of saying the moon landings didn't happen, and should be treated with the same lack of respect.

Hmm, I don't believe it to be true, but I don't see how those two things compare. A historical equivalent to saying the moon landings didn't happen, is saying that moon landing didn't happen.

Trying to find a workable consensus amongst competing versions of a religion already in existence is hardly the same as 'inventing' a religion though. There's no reason to view it as a conspiratorial or nefarious endeavour either.

I suppose that is true. Just more like a serious amount of power in determining what Christianity is and was not.

"As Christianity grew throughout the Gentile world, Christians diverged from their Jewish and Jerusalem roots.[7][8] Jewish Christianity, initially strengthened despite persecution by Jerusalem Temple officials,[citation needed] fell into decline during the Jewish-Roman wars (66-135) and the growing anti-Judaism perhaps best personified by Marcion (c. 150). With persecution by the orthodox Christians from the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, Jewish Christians sought refuge outside the boundaries of the Empire, in Arabia and further afield.[9]Within the Empire and later elsewhere it was dominated by the Gentile based Christianity which became the State church of the Roman Empire and which took control of sites in the Holy Land such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Cenacle and appointed subsequent Bishops of Jerusalem."

That's some serious cultural appropriation for purposes that aren't quite clear to anyone.

Some people want desperately to see Christianity as this evil scheme to subdue the people, rather than something that emerged from the people and spread upwards.

That's true. I generally see it as something people believe because anything that often refuge from an essentially meaningless world has the potential to gain adherents.

 

[Augustus]

How much is a mass? How short is short?

I'm not aware of anything to a significant level from a new religion. It didn't, for example, happen during the initial Arab conquests

I don't believe it to be true, but I don't see how those two things compare.

They are both conspiratorial and go against all available evidence and logic. It's strange that many people [not saying you] who consider themselves rational sceptics and would mock anyone who said the moon landings were faked as a tin foil hat wearing loon, also think it is the height of intellectual sophistication to see Christianity as invented by a 4thC Roman Emperor.

Jewish Christians sought refuge outside the boundaries of the Empire, in Arabia and further afield.

And later on we get a new religion that is sort of Christian and Jewish that was well versed in contemporary theological disputes.

"New" religions trend not to appear from nowhere, they co-opt others with similar beliefs and evolve over time.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not aware of anything to a significant level from a new religion. It didn't, for example, happen during the initial Arab conquests.

What is a significant level? What is the "it" in the "it didn't... happen during the initial Arab conquests?"

I'm not sure how you don't see it as top down...

"Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 – 8 June 632[1]), full name Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم‎, lit: Father of Qasim Muhammad son of Abd Allah son of Abdul-Muttalib son of Hashim), fromMecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. Believed by Muslims andBahá'ís to be a prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 1]considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[2][n 2] While non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and otherprophets.[4][5][6][7]

Born approximately in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] Muhammad was orphaned at an early age; he was raised under the care of his paternal uncle Abu Talib. After his childhood Muhammad primarily worked as a merchant.[10] Occasionally he would retreat to a cave in the mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer; later, at age 40, he reported at this spot,[8][11] that he was visited by Gabriel and received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to Him is the only way (dīn)[n 3] acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to the other prophets in Islam.[12][13][14]

Muhammad gained few followers early on, and met hostility from some Meccan tribes. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia before he and his followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, theHijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed. He destroyed the three-hundred and sixty pagan idols at the Kaaba, in the city.[15] In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from the Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. Before his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.[16][17]"

A religion entirely devised by the revelations of the same kind that then took over Arabia, had also established his relevant ions as the basis for religious life in Mecca and it large portions of Arabia, in his own lifetime.

They are both conspiratorial and go against all available evidence and logic. It's strange that many people [not saying you] who consider themselves rational sceptics and would mock anyone who said the moon landings were faked as a tin foil hat wearing loon, also think it is the height of intellectual sophistication to see Christianity as invented by a 4thC Roman Emperor.

Evidence is pretty convincing that someone named Jesus lived at some point and did something. Evidence that Constantine's Christianity was created out of thin air is non-existent. Evidence that Christianity at all was created out of thin air is non-existent.

I was interested in this claim: "To simply create a religion out of thin air and quickly impose it on the population without any existing support is fantastical."

I'm not even sure why it would need to be imposed to qualify, but regardless.

And later on we get a new religion that is sort of Christian and Jewish that was well versed in contemporary theological disputes.

"New" religions trend not to appear from nowhere, they co-opt others with similar beliefs and evolve over time.

I'd agree. Individuals can only influence to some extent, I'd imagine. Even the craftiest people in the world don't retain any sort of control on what they create.

 

[Augustus]

A religion entirely devised by the revelations of the same kind that then took over Arabia, had also established his relevant ions as the basis for religious life in Mecca and it large portions of Arabia, in his own lifetime.

Even if we accept the traditional Islamic history (which I don't), Muhammed over many years preached, got followers, then more followers, then took control of some regions. It is still a bottom up process. It grew from the grassroots

A top-down process is an existing power, using their power to impose their will on others.

The real history is likely to be much more evolutionary than a new religion magically appearing from nowhere anyway. Much of Islam is a commentary on forms the Christianity of the late antique Middle East. It is very clearly a product of the region and its time. It also didn't emerge 'fully formed' in the way the Islamic tradition says it did.

To simply create a religion out of thin air and quickly impose it on the population without any existing support is fantastical

It is. And Islam, in my opinion at least, is not an example that refutes this.

 

[dust1n]

Even if we accept the traditional Islamic history (which I don't), Muhammed over many years preached, got followers, then more followers, then took control of some regions. It is still a bottom up process. It grew from the grassroots

A top-down process is an existing power, using their power to impose their will on others.

I don't get it. Are you saying that you don't accept this traditional Islamic history? Which history of Muhammad do you choose?

The real history is likely to be much more evolutionary than a new religion magically appearing from nowhere anyway. Much of Islam is a commentary on forms the Christianity of the late antique Middle East. It is very clearly a product of the region and its time. It also didn't emerge 'fully formed' in the way the Islamic tradition says it did.

No disagreement here.

It is. And Islam, in my opinion at least, is not an example that refutes this.

I guess in the strictest since, you are right, and I'll concede, since nothing has ever been created out of thin air.

 

[George-ananda]

That is an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence regardless of who told me.

I agree, but at some point that threshold can be reached. Who judges when the threshold for extraordinary evidence has been reached? In the end it comes down to each of us making that judgment for ourselves. That is why I believe paranormal things exist; the millions of human events analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency (while of course giving fair consideration to all materialist explanations such as human fallibility).

 

[Augustus]

I don't get it. Are you saying that you don't accept this traditional Islamic history? Which history of Muhammad do you choose?

The audience of the Quran is clearly familiar with contemporary theological issues, for example. If Muhammed authored the Quran then he was well versed in Biblical and para-Biblical scripture as well as additional religious mythology.

Arabia wasn't an isolated land of primitive pagans.

The first generation of people conquered by the Arabs knew nothing about their new religion, so they weren't conquered to spread religion. Many of the conquering Arabs were Christians and Jews also.

Muhammed was a real person, had a religious message and was probably considered a prophet. The stuff about caves and angels though may well be a later addition. He wasn't preaching to rank pagans though, but people who knew the stories he was providing commentary on.

Separating the fact from the hagiography is very difficult, as is the rue history from what later generations of Muslims would like to have been the true history.

 

[Cephus]

I agree, but at some point that threshold can be reached. Who judges when the threshold for extraordinary evidence has been reached? In the end it comes down to each of us making that judgment for ourselves. That is why I believe paranormal things exist; the millions of human events analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency (while of course giving fair consideration to all materialist explanations such as human fallibility).

Only if you have very low standards. I do not. You apparently do.

 

[dust1n]

The audience of the Quran is clearly familiar with contemporary theological issues, for example. If Muhammed authored the Quran then he was well versed in Biblical and para-Biblical scripture as well as additional religious mythology.

Arabia wasn't an isolated land of primitive pagans.

The first generation of people conquered by the Arabs knew nothing about their new religion, so they weren't conquered to spread religion. Many of the conquering Arabs were Christians and Jews also.

What do you think accounts for the general ease and lack of bloodshed for which the conquest occurred if those fighting knew nothing about their new religion? Consistent disdain for the current rulers?

Muhammed was a real person, had a religious message and was probably considered a prophet. The stuff about caves and angels though may well be a later addition. He wasn't preaching to rank pagans though, but people who knew the stories he was providing commentary on.

Which commentary you referring to here?

Separating the fact from the hagiography is very difficult, as is the rue history from what later generations of Muslims would like to have been the true history.

I like your style. Thanks for the good and fun defense.

 

[Augustus]

What do you think accounts for the general ease and lack of bloodshed for which the conquest occurred if those fighting knew nothing about their new religion? Consistent disdain for the current rulers?

Not sure if 'lack of bloodshed' is technically correct, there was a fair deal. Not widespread destruction though.

The Roman and Persian empires had been weakened by plague and years of warfare against each other, they also relied heavily on Arab auxiliary troops.As with the Western Roman Empire, the auxiliaries gained wealth, power and organisational capabilities over time and realised they no longer needed to play second fiddle.

The number of troop that could be fielded by the Romans, for example, were severely diminished and (off the top of my head - may be wrong) only had one major field army in the region that was defeated by the Arabs. Once this was defeated, there was little to hold the Arabs back. Experienced and battle hardened troops couldn't be magicked out of nowhere or flown in from the Balkans, and anyway they were needed elsewhere.

The region has little in the way of natural defences, so the Romans regrouped and tried to hold what they could in more defensible regions, and gave up what was bound to be lost.

Nothing succeeds like success, and more troops joined the winning side so the region was largely undefended. Most places bowed to the inevitable and submitted. They were mostly left to their own devices as long as they paid tribute, and existing local power structures were left in place.

The Arab Conquests by Robert Hoyland is a great book if you are interested in the period that is scholarly and accessible.

Which commentary you referring to here?

If you look at something like 18: Surah al Kahf and it's structure - intro, 3 stories (Moses - Biblical, Sleepers in the cave - Christian myth, Dhul Qarnayan - Alexander legend) conclusion - making a religious argument. Or 20: Ta-Ha Intro - Moses, Adam, Conclusion

Then consider something like this:

"From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic Psalms, as well as Qur’ānic madrāšē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. I don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrāšē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic saǧ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas...

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture73. And since this Scripture was not in Arabic, we understand better the role of the Qur’ān, and we also understand better why it insists so
much on Arabic (Q 12:2; 13:37; 14:41; 16:103; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3, 44; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12): stressing that there is an Arabic qur’ān supposes that there might be non-Arabic scriptures."

http://www.academia.edu/4730102/Traces_of_Bilingualism_Multilingualism_in_Quranic_Arabic

It's an interesting subject, although still to some extent speculative.

Other stuff in case you are interested

https://www.academia.edu/11493284/Maccabees_Not_Mecca_The_Biblical_Subtext_of_Sūrat_al-Fīl_Q_105_

https://www.academia.edu/10863446/_...Corpus_._Miscellanea_arabica_2013_2014_273-90

http://www.academia.edu/12358270/The_Quran_and_its_Hypertextuality_in_Light_of_Redaction_Criticism

I like your style. Thanks for the good and fun defense.

Likewise. Nice to discuss.

 

[George-ananda]

Only if you have very low standards. I do not. You apparently do.

I think neither gullibility nor rigid resistance are desirable. The term the best describes the optimal middle-ground is open-minded skepticism.

 

[Cephus]

I think neither gullibility nor rigid resistance are desirable. The term the best describes the optimal middle-ground is open-minded skepticism.

But you're not advocating open minded skepticism, you're openly advocating the fallacy argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe a thing has no bearing on whether or not that thing is factually true. The people who supposedly have these religious experiences, none of them, not a single one, ever, can demonstrate that it actually happened as they assert that it did. They cannot prove that any god had anything whatsoever to do with what they claim happened. They are making a blind assertion, without evidence, without reason, for an experience that they do not have a handy explanation for, just because they really want to understand what happened. You might as well be asserting that leprechauns were responsible. It is that fact that nobody has ever, and likely will ever be able to demonstrate that these experiences actually occur with a real god that actually exists in factual reality that any skeptic worth their salt is going to reject these claims for lack of credible evidence. They have no more credibility than people who believe in ghosts and fairies and leprechauns. Or should we take those seriously because there are plenty of tales of people who believe?

 

[George-ananda]

But you're not advocating open minded skepticism, you're openly advocating the fallacy argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe a thing has no bearing on whether or not that thing is factually true.

I am aware of that and would not commit that error. It requires more than numbers. Things like quality and consistency also matter.

The people who supposedly have these religious experiences, none of them, not a single one, ever, can demonstrate that it actually happened as they assert that it did. They cannot prove that any god had anything whatsoever to do with what they claim happened. They are making a blind assertion, without evidence, without reason, for an experience that they do not have a handy explanation for, just because they really want to understand what happened. You might as well be asserting that leprechauns were responsible. It is that fact that nobody has ever, and likely will ever be able to demonstrate that these experiences actually occur with a real god that actually exists in factual reality that any skeptic worth their salt is going to reject these claims for lack of credible evidence. They have no more credibility than people who believe in ghosts and fairies and leprechauns. Or should we take those seriously because there are plenty of tales of people who believe?

You are thinking that I am referring to 'religious experiences' as evidence of God. I am arguing that cumulative evidence from all types of paranormal phenomena and research supports the belief that the materialist worldview is dramatically incomplete. I am then arguing that the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition has explanatory powers beyond materialism and is the furthest advanced of mankind's wisdom traditions.

 

[Cephus]

I am aware of that and would not commit that error. It requires more than numbers. Things like quality and consistency also matter.

And where are you getting this information about quality and consistency? Since you can't even point to a single, consistent, coherent definition of what this god thing is and no one can show that their experiences have anything, whatsoever, to do with any single consistent, coherent definition of a god, I'm still wondering where you're getting any of this.

You are thinking that I am referring to 'religious experiences' as evidence of God. I am arguing that cumulative evidence from all types of paranormal phenomena and research supports the belief that the materialist worldview is dramatically incomplete. I am then arguing that the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition has explanatory powers beyond materialism and is the furthest advanced of mankind's wisdom traditions.

None of which actually has any evidence whatsoever to support it. You're not seeing claims made of ghosts and leprechauns and whatever, you're seeing people having an experience they cannot immediately identify and arbitrarily assigning a "cause" that they are already familiar with. Starting and ending with nothing but the experience itself, you cannot get from what actually happened to the cause that the individuals assign to it. Eastern mysticism, western religion, it doesn't matter. You just can't get from here to there no matter how hard you try.