Are there any documented cases of large cults coming into existence within a few hundred years of their alleged founder(s) where the alleged founder(s) is now thought not to have existed (by modern historians)? Not that that would prove Jesus’ existence, but I wonder if it just seems very unlikely that a cult would be formed around a made-up figure in so short a time period.
Maybe not quite the same, but there is the really weird case of John Frum.
That depends on how you define the word “founder.” I would argue that Paul was more the founder of Christianity than Jesus. The mythicist models usually have the Christ cults originating as groups who worshipped a Messianic figure who they believed to exist only in an otherworldly realm (Earl Doherty believes that the crucifixion and resurrection were perceived as having occured in the “sub-lunar sphere.” A kind of intermediate “sphere” between Heaven and Earth). It is then argued that later Christians began to “historicize” their Christ figure by writing narrative accounts of his “life” in Galilee and Judea (details of which were largely derived by searching Hebrew scripture).
That’s not to say that mythicists believe that Paul invented the Christ mythos out of whole cloth, but that he modified some existing strains Messianic mystical beliefs, synthesized them into his own system and, through the force of his own personality and conviction, was able to popularize his beliefs and found churches in the Hellenistic world which grew and thrived after the diaspora.
I’m not saying I’m persuaded that that any of this is the case (in fact, I’m NOT. I think there is some partial truth in some aspects, but I’m far from persuaded that the Jerusalem cult (what Paul calls the “pillars” of Peter, James and John) was not actually associated in some way with a real historical Jesus-- especially since Paul explicitly identifies James as Jesus’ brother), but it at least represents a model for how Christianity could have arisen with only a mythical “founder” if a strong enough surrogate (i.e. Paul) was able to convince enough people that said founder spoke through him.
Yeah, I didn’t necessarily want to imply that the historical Jesus actually founded an organized religion, although the Gospels strongly imply that he did get the ball rolling.
Cecil on Jesus. I’m not sure I agree with the details of the column (Aren’t the mentions in Tacitus and Josephus widely considered later interpolations?) but the basic reasoning–that a fictional Jesus is difficult to reconcile with the rapid growth of his cult–seems sound to me.
Yeah, but John Frum did exist, after a fashion. There really were U.S. servicemen in the South Pacific during WW2. To me it sounds a bit like someone said “I’m John, from Chicago.”
And there really were Jews in Judea, too, and no doubt there were any number of would-be prophets or claimants to Messiah-hood.
It’s a political movement, not a religious one, but there’s no evidence that Ned Ludd, the “leader” of the Luddites ever existed.
I am afraid the natural selection thing is ending. Man is adapting plants and animals at an incredible rate. We are screwing with dna and creating life as we want or need it. Man is evolution now.
But man is hardly the only animal (or organism) that has placed evolutionary pressure on other species.
Is it a valid analogy that many folk doubt that the Joe Smith ever encountered the Angel Moroni and his golden tablets? Sure, Joe Smith existed, but the supposed events that served as the ostensible basis for the religion he founded lack definitive proof.
I don’t think it’s a valid comparison. The OP wasn’t asking about any claims made by or about Jesus, just the question of whether or not he existed. There’s evidence to suggest it, but not to conclusively prove it. Meanwhile, it’s a matter of overwhelming public record that there was a Joseph Smith, born in Vermont in 1805, died in Illinois in 1844.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
But I also thought that although Christianity is “about” Jesus, it was popularized by Paul and others who came later.
Similar to Smith polarizing Mormon, tho it wasn’t “about” him.
I hate to quibble (no, actually, I live to quibble) but you’re a *little * off here. There are two references in Josephus. One is indeed “extremely suspect” with *very * likely some later “pious interpolations”. That quote is "the Testimonium Flavianum,Antiquities 18.63-64
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. *He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. * And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."
The section I have italizied are thought by most scholars to be the later Pious interpolations, with perhaps the rest being authentic.
The other quote is "Nonetheless, Josephus later refers to the trial of Christian James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.” This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.[19] White remarks, “Since few scholars doubt that this passage is authentic, it indicates that Josephus knew about Jesus, or at least heard Christian claims about him… .”
As to other references by classical writers, this one seems to refer to Jesus (same cite): *"Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 117) wrote two paragraphs on the subject of Christ and Christianity in 116. They state that Christians existed in Rome in an “immense multitude” at the time of the Great Fire of Rome (64). The second paragraph states that “Christ” was put to death in Judea by “the procurator Pontius Pilate” in Judea in the reign of Tiberius (14-37), after which the “supersition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome”. Tacitus’ description of Christianity is decidedly negative, as he calls it a “pernicious superstition” and “something raw and shameful,” which makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.
Tacitus simply refers to “Christ” - the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”, rather than the name “Jesus”, and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a “procurator”, a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect. It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.
Some scholars suggest that the second paragraph is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e. that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Others, including Karl Adam, argue that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus’ execution before writing it."*
Thus there is evidence. Not a lot, but given the area and period, about what one could reasonable ask for.
On the “evidence scale” I give “Historical Jesus” a 5.5, or perhaps a 6- more than plausible but hardly proven.
That being said- back to the OP: there is scads of undeniable evidence of Evolution. It gets a 9.9.
Evolution wins, hands down.
Now as to the abiotic origins of life itself- there you’d have a comparision. That only gets a 4= “plausible, best guess, but no proof”.
You know, if I was an educated Fundy :dubious: I wouldn’t fight Evolution, I’d fight the Abiotic origin of Life on Earth. You’d be on fairly good ground there.
For once, I don’t have anything to disagree with in your post but I think the reference to Pilate is usually parsed into the “authentic” category for the TF (with phrase “upon the accusation of the first men among us” being interpolated).
OK, that’s a good point there. I stand corrected.
great answers. Someone asked me my opinion on my original question. Well, I am a Christian, but I also think there are things that evolve and things that don’t. The real question to me is, what evolves and what doesn’t evolve?
I personally believe Jesus was the messiah, but my original question was geared more towards his physical existance (and not his divinity) vs. evolutionary facts. Very knowledgable posts and I’m surprised this didn’t turn into a pissing match. Thanks and I’ll keep reading everything that gets posted.
Out of curiousity, what is it you think that hasn’t evolved?
Thanks for answering my question - your definition of proof is a lot weaker than what I would use. I happen to think Jesus existed, since it seems more plausible than him being made up. This is a deduction, though, and far weaker than the evidence for evolution. The evidence for his divinity is weaker still, especially because the lack of reaction by those present at the time.
Let me take a more contentious position: the evidence for evolution (common descent, withe the diving mechanism an evolutionary change) is stronger than the evidence for MOST historical events on a human scale prior to the advent of modern historical record (and maybe even after).
The reason is that the evidence for evolution is both vast, broad, and convergent in ways that mere historical events are not. Most historical events have a few primary sources, lots of secondary commentary, and some physical evidence. Now, that’s pretty good, often good enough to be very certain.
But that just doesn’t even scratch the surface of how powerful the evidence for evolution is. Here we’re dealing with vast vast reams of physical evidence that simply dwarf almost to nothing the amount of physical evidence we have, for, say some ancient battle: any one of which COULD totally contradict and throw things off, but never does. This evidence litterally spans the globe to every corner of the planet in the air and in the seas and under them: both spatially and in time, and it fits into countless different areas and histories. Even more powerful are the ways in which different lines of evidence all converge with each other that becomes less and less possible to write off as a coincidence even if you claim that the lines of evidence are themselves all flawed (why would erroneous reasoning all give even roughly the SAME erroneous conclusions, particularly on things like dates, much less fitting together in fine detail). You can take evidence from geology, fossils, and genetics and put it all together and it just all fits into a coherent whole, even in unexpected detail. There are so many different ways to come at the evidence, to think of the situation, and they all. just. fit.
Historical events can be very certain. But it’s rare that they have the power of multi-dimensional evidential convergence to the degree which the physical sciences have. It’s rare that they even come CLOSE.
That certainly is a real question; another real question is: what the freck are you talking about?
It was supposed to be the /text/ of a wanted poster, naturally it was in English.
It was in a book of curious historical writings and facts that my uncle owned.
It was probably published in the early 1980’s, a fairly slim yellow hardback book.
I don’t see that it is all that unlikely that such a thing (or rather the text) should exist, we have Ceasar’s writings - and stuff dating back to the Greeks.
Right now I am holding a copy of The Golden Ass by Apuleius (translated by Robert Graves - 1954 Penguin Classics edition), and I have a copy of Herodotus somewhere. Originals almost certainly do not exist, but the texts are widely available.