Any non-Christian religions had non-private origins?

[simster]

@Alessan

Jesus’s existence and crucifixion are not miracles.

nor are they ‘fact’ - there is zero secular evidence that either event took place.

The entire ‘story’ is derived at second hand well after the ‘events’ being reported took place.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@simster

The entire ‘story’ is derived at second hand well after the ‘events’ being reported took place.

Which is true about pretty much everything that happened in the distant past. The distinction between what happened in public and what happened in private isn’t as great as the OP may suppose. Even if something happened in front of a large crowd, no one took any pictures; no one broadcast anything; and even if someone had written something down (keeping in mind the lower levels of literacy and availability of writing materials), what are the chances that that writing would have lasted?

[BrainGlutton]

Japanese Shinto was traditional, but State Shinto was cooked up by the government after the Meiji Restoration.

[BrainGlutton]

From The Problem of China, by Bertrand Russell (1922):

The civilization of Japan, before the Restoration, came from China. Religion, art, writing, philosophy and ethics, everything was copied from Chinese models. Japanese history begins in the fifth century A.D., whereas Chinese history goes back to about 2,000 B.C., or at any rate to somewhere in the second millennium B.C. This was galling to Japanese pride, so an early history was invented long ago, like the theory that the Romans were descended from Æneas. To quote Professor Chamberlain again:—

The first glimmer of genuine Japanese history dates from the fifth century after Christ, and even the accounts of what happened in the sixth century must be received with caution. Japanese scholars know this as well as we do; it is one of the certain results of investigation. But the Japanese bureaucracy does not desire to have the light let in on this inconvenient circumstance. While granting a dispensation re the national mythology, properly so called, it exacts belief in every iota of the national historic legends. Woe to the native professor who strays from the path of orthodoxy. His wife and children (and in Japan every man, however young, has a wife and children) will starve. From the late Prince Ito’s grossly misleading Commentary on the Japanese Constitution down to school compendiums, the absurd dates are everywhere insisted upon.

This question of fictitious early history might be considered unimportant, like the fact that, with us, parsons have to pretend to believe the Bible, which some people think innocuous. But it is part of the whole system, which has a political object, to which free thought and free speech are ruthlessly sacrificed. As this same pamphlet says:—

Shinto, a primitive nature cult, which had fallen into discredit, was taken out of its cupboard and dusted. The common people, it is true, continued to place their affections on Buddhism, the popular festivals were Buddhist; Buddhist also the temples where they buried their dead. The governing class determined to change all this. They insisted on the Shinto doctrine that the Mikado descends in direct succession from the native Goddess of the Sun, and that He himself is a living God on earth who justly claims the absolute fealty of his subjects. Such things as laws and constitutions are but free gifts on His part, not in any sense popular rights. Of course, the ministers and officials, high and low, who carry on His government, are to be regarded not as public servants, but rather as executants of supreme—one might say supernatural—authority. Shinto, because connected with the Imperial family, is to be alone honoured.

All this is not mere theorizing; it is the practical basis of Japanese politics. The Mikado, after having been for centuries in the keeping of the Tokugawa Shoguns, was captured by the clans of Satsuma and Choshu, and has been in their keeping ever since. They were represented politically by five men, the Genro or Elder Statesmen, who are sometimes miscalled the Privy Council. Only two still survive. The Genro have no constitutional existence; they are merely the people who have the ear of the Mikado. They can make him say whatever they wish; therefore they are omnipotent. It has happened repeatedly that they have had against them the Diet and the whole force of public opinion; nevertheless they have invariably been able to enforce their will, because they could make the Mikado speak, and no one dare oppose the Mikado. They do not themselves take office; they select the Prime Minister and the Ministers of War and Marine, and allow them to bear the blame if anything goes wrong. The Genro are the real Government of Japan, and will presumably remain so until the Mikado is captured by some other clique.

[dracoi]

@JohnClay

Also like I said, a cold case expert also came to believe that the gospels were based on eye witness testimony.

So if we find one cold case expert who is an atheist, you’ll renounce your faith? Or do we need two?

It’s nice that this particular guy found his faith and it’s nice that he devoted effort to studying the Scriptures. I’m all for that. But let’s not pretend that the conclusions of any one person means anything whatsoever. You had faith before you read about this expert, and you wouldn’t be citing him if he had disagreed with you.

[Buck_Godot]

Heck the Greek gods were all running around the battlefield in the Trojan war. That seems pretty public to me, and definitely had named people who interacted with them, Achilles, Hector, etc.

[Little_Nemo]

@cmkeller

Moreover, other beings of power (e.g., demons) may indeed exist, but they are not gods - i. e., they have no power independently of what G-d allows.

So God changed the Egyptian priest’s staff into a snake. And then changed Moses’s staff into a snake and had the second snake eat the first snake. Wouldn’t God’s point have been a lot clearer if he simply hadn’t changed the Egyptian’s staff into a snake?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Little_Nemo

So God changed the Egyptian priest’s staff into a snake. And then changed Moses’s staff into a snake and had the second snake eat the first snake. Wouldn’t God’s point have been a lot clearer if he simply hadn’t changed the Egyptian’s staff into a snake?

IIRC, they also duplicate the water-into-blood feat, and the bit with the frogs – but they can’t do the “lice” magic.

Which, to me, feels like the obvious set-up for how the New Testament should’ve played out: Jesus performs miracle after miracle – as publicly as the Egyptians and the Jews apparently did in the Old Testament, so that’s arguably two examples other than Christianity for the OP – and Jews on the scene are skeptical, saying his feats only prove his power is supernatural, but may be diabolical instead of godly…

…and, given the events in Exodus, shouldn’t the next thing out of their mouths be, yeah, never mind any of that; can you do the bit with the lice? Our holy book says anyone who hangs out in the desert can learn turn-water-into-other-stuff magic; that proves nothing; if you want us to believe in you, then where’s the lice?

[BrainGlutton]

@cmkeller

Moreover, other beings of power (e.g., demons) may indeed exist, but they are not gods - i. e., they have no power independently of what G-d allows.

Then what is the point of them? Some Adversary!

[cmkeller]

Little Nemo:

So God changed the Egyptian priest’s staff into a snake. And then changed Moses’s staff into a snake and had the second snake eat the first snake. Wouldn’t God’s point have been a lot clearer if he simply hadn’t changed the Egyptian’s staff into a snake?

G-d created the natural world, which includes elements that we modern folks would regard as supernatural (i.e., magic) that the ancients had knowledge of. The Egyptian priests attempted to impress Moses and Aaron with their mastery of this magic, and G-d didn’t stop these natural/magical processes from occurring as the Egyptians expected it to - he then made Moses’s staff eat theirs to demonstrate that their powers are impotent to oppose G-d, and it would be foolish of them to stubbornly keep the Israelites in bondage against G-d’s order.

If the Egyptians’ staffs didn’t change, they might have attributed it to some weakness on their part rather than recognizing that although they were at their expected full strength, that couldn’t defeat G-d.

Brain Glutton:

Then what is the point of them? Some Adversary!

In Jewish theology, other beings are not in an adversarial relationship with G-d.

[Czarcasm]

@cmkeller

The Egyptian priests attempted to impress Moses and Aaron with their mastery of this magic, and G-d didn’t stop these natural/magical processes from occurring as the Egyptians expected it to - he then made Moses’s staff eat theirs to demonstrate that their powers are impotent to oppose G-d, and it would be foolish of them to stubbornly keep the Israelites in bondage against G-d’s order.

Was this the same deity that hardened Herod’s heart so that he wouldn’t release the Israelites until said deity was done with his deadly series of plagues?

[naita]

@Czarcasm

Was this the same deity that hardened Herod’s heart so that he wouldn’t release the Israelites until said deity was done with his deadly series of plagues?

There’s some discussion about which pharaoh Moses went up against, but pharaoh Herod is not a contender.

[Czarcasm]

@naita

There’s some discussion about which pharaoh Moses went up against, but pharaoh Herod is not a contender.

But even if it wasn’t Herod, the question remains.

[cmkeller]

Czarcasm:

Was this the same deity that hardened Herod’s heart so that he wouldn’t release the Israelites until said deity was done with his deadly series of plagues?

That happened at a later point in the process.

[akennett]

@cmkeller

That happened at a later point in the process.

Right. God waited until the end to pull that trick, just so that he would have a pretext for murdering innocent children. What a wonderful deity!

[JohnClay]

@simster

nor are they ‘fact’ - there is zero secular evidence that either event took place.

The entire ‘story’ is derived at second hand well after the ‘events’ being reported took place.

So are you saying you don’t believe Jesus was crucified or even existed?

[UDS]

@simster

nor are they ‘fact’ - there is zero secular evidence that either event took place.

The entire ‘story’ is derived at second hand well after the ‘events’ being reported took place.

Of course there’s zero secular evidence of either event. The evidence that does exist is regarded by Christians as having religious significance; therefore, it’s not secular. But on that reasoning there is “zero secular evidence” for any event that anyone regards as having religious significance.

The judgments historians of the classical period will make about events said to have happened will depend on the evidence itself, and not on the view of the evidence taken by believers at the time or later. It may be true that the letters of Paul were, after he wrote them, gathered together and canonised in the “New Testament”, but that tells us nothing about how useful or reliable the letters are as historical sources.

The fact that Paul was not (and does not claim to be) an eye-witness of the life or teachings of Jesus is relevant to this assessment; the fact that you can now buy Paul’s letters collected in a book with a pretty gold-blocked spine that is read in churches every week is not relevant.

[JohnClay]

@dracoi

So if we find one cold case expert who is an atheist, you’ll renounce your faith?

I don’t have faith in God. I just thought the speech by the former atheist cold case expert in a movie was quite convincing. But I currently still don’t believe in the supernatural or want to give my life to Jesus.

…It’s nice that this particular guy found his faith and it’s nice that he devoted effort to studying the Scriptures. I’m all for that. But let’s not pretend that the conclusions of any one person means anything whatsoever. You had faith before you read about this expert, and you wouldn’t be citing him if he had disagreed with you.

I saw him in “God’s Not Dead 2”. I haven’t read his book. He does disagree with me. I am not entirely convinced that the gospels are true. There seems to be some truth in them but perhaps a lot of it has been added to especially Mark 16:9 onwards (it doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts).
I like how he referred to techniques he used to apparently solve cold cases that were very old. He said that things that seem to not make sense or contradictions can be a sign a testimony is authentic.

[Little_Nemo]

@JohnClay

I just thought the speech by the former atheist cold case expert in a movie was quite convincing.

The people who made a movie called *God’s Not Dead * wouldn’t have included this man if he hadn’t “found” Jesus for them. For all you know there were a hundred other investigators who didn’t find the “proof” the filmmakers wanted - so none of them got mentioned in the movie.

[JohnClay]

From the cold case expert website:
http://coldcasechristianity.com/cold-case-christianity-by-j-warner-wallace/

Cold Case Detectives investigate specific types of criminal events:

1. Events that occurred in the distant past
2. For which there are typically no living eyewitnesses
3. And little or no direct physical evidence

These cases are made by examining the nature of circumstantial evidence and assembling a convincing, cumulative circumstantial case. The claims of the New Testament Gospels can be similarly investigated:

1. The gospels record events that occurred in the distant past
2. For which there are no living eyewitnesses
3. And no direct physical evidence

The tools used by Cold Case Investigators can be applied to the New Testament gospels to determine if the facts they represent are a true record of the life of Jesus.

I’m going to look into it.