On his "Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics" he argued that Jesus was just a literary figure. In "Christ and the Caesars" he argued that christianity was a synthesis of the stoicism of Seneca the Younger and of the jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman jews such as Josephus. — Gus Lamarch

The early Christians were quite fond of Seneca, and one (or more) of them even took the trouble of writing up a forged correspondence between him and St. Paul. Tertullian referred to him as "our Seneca." The influence of Seneca and Stoicism in general on Christianity is quite clear. There's some speculation that Paul was influenced by Stoicism because he came from Tarsus, then a center of Stoic philosophy. Neo-Platonism was influential as well.

Christianity as we know it is quite a remarkable hodgepodge of pagan philosophy, pagan religions and the Jewish tradition. Necessarily so, I think, as early Christians struggled to impart some intellectual substance and dignity to Christian doctrine by borrowing lavishly from ancient philosophy, such as the concept of Logos which appears, quite unexpectedly, in the Gospel of John. Its success was, as well, assured through its assimilation of popular pagan beliefs and practices, and its very un-pagan intolerance and exclusivity, which became more apparent as the Christian emperors ruthlessly suppressed paganism. Perhaps that was the Jewish influence.

As for Jesus, I suspect there was a person who served as the inspiration for the legends which arose, just as I suspect there likely was a person who inspired the very similar legends of Jesus' contemporary, Appolonius of Tyana.

"Chris·tol·o·gy: the branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ." Also, "theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ."

How to sow much confusion in few words. I think most reasonable people concede the existence of a person corresponding to the Biblical Jesus, but that goes to existence only, as opposed to non-existence. Beyond that I think is only the Bible, and that is not a self-proving document. It must seem, then, that everything and anything said about the person of Jesus is an exercise in speculation. As to his role, that much like asking about, opining about, the role of Starbuck, or Queequeg, in Moby DIck.

Are you saying that because the Bible's historicity has come into question so have all the principles we have derived from it for the production of our society? While I would agree that is essentially what has been happening, any principles worth keeping could be kept simply because they're worth keeping. If they get us where we want to go, then that pragmatism is arguably justification enough. — TimefulJoe

Humanity - speaking here of the general masses that makes up our species - is not able to deal with the problem of existence without an eternal father figurehead who can have all the answers for everything. We - again, speaking of all humanity - are not able to rationalize that pain, tiredness, injustice, and all these characteristics that we think as being bad, exist, have always existed and will always exist, and there is nothing we can do to exterminate them. The universe without an answer is something that destroys humanity self-esteem. That is why without a God - and his laws, values, rules, negations and affirmations, etc. - and his "codex" we would not know how to differentiate "good" from "evil", nor is pragmatism able to sustain - through a long term period - these set of characteristics. And now, a question for you: - Do you really think that humanity would be totally pragmatic for its own good?

The reason I say the beneficial parts are not unique is that those parts are mostly, "Don't murder," "Don't steal," which are almost universally agreed on throughout the history of civilization. Not murdering each other is a requisite to successfully living together, after all, and people were living together and had laws about not murdering each other long before any Abrahamic laws came around. — TimefulJoe

Whether unique or not, christian dogmas were the ones that most assimilated the greek concepts of individuality and most importantly, of freedom. Christianity, even though it could be a false belief, is useful for maintaining the spirit of humanity as something worthwhile for continuing existing and moving forward, without letting the darkness of decadence, and more importantly, of nihilism to befall us. In addition, Christianity was able to take old laws and codes - as from Hammurabi, and Cyrus - and transform it into something more rational and less animalistic, where the punishments would be more complex than a simple "imprison him".

Too much credit is given to the Bible for shaping Western thought and especially Western progress. — TimefulJoe

Progress does not exist - in my view -. Society exists, because we build it, what we will do with it in the future, depends simply on our actions right now. Humanity is not an idea of the best, a journey to the transcendental, it simply is, and Christianity - and all other religions ever created - is a way of interpreting and living this existence, and in my view, it is one of the more liberating and that really focus on the "best" of humanity. At least I think it is, because if otherwise we would not be discussing religion in a forum on the internet.

If other religions started majorly questioning their historicity, the societies heavily influenced by a belief in the historicity of those religions would probably have a similar development, such as if that were to happen en mass in Saudi Arabia; — TimefulJoe

You can be sure that this will eventually happen with Islam. Just give it time - while Christianity is 2020 years old, Islam is only 1400 years old - Muhammad started his preaching around 630 AD - - so they still have 600 years to become secularized.

Its success was, as well, assured through its assimilation of popular pagan beliefs and practices, and its very un-pagan intolerance and exclusivity, which became more apparent as the Christian emperors ruthlessly suppressed paganism. — Ciceronianus the White

Practically what christianity did. Very well resumed. Hypocrites using hypocrisy to their advantage.

How to sow much confusion in few words. — tim wood

It was a tendency from the 3rd to the 7th century - perhaps the Islamic hordes invading Roman territory - already then, the Byzantine Empire - made them realize that it was a very useless topic to spend their time discussing -.

I also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. So there is a hole in the Bible — Gregory

There are many holes in the Bible.

Jesus appeared in a time and place of religious and political ferment. He was not, by any means, the only inside agitator.

It's pretty clear that Christianity did not spring from the head of Jesus in the same way that Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. Presumably there was this man, Jesus, who was an itinerate Jewish preacher. He apparently had a Jewish following comprised of an inner circle (people like Peter and Mary) and an outer circle of people who heard him preach. Then he was executed. There was apparently a transition period in which the Jewish followers of a Jewish preacher coagulated into a separate religious group.

A century later, give or take 15 minutes either way, a Beta edition of Christianity was up and running. The BIG QUESTION is, What happened between Jesus and Christianity? Fact is, we don't know precisely what happened, especially in the first 75 years or so. There are clues. There are fragments. Some early editors started putting things together around a hundred years after Jesus.

Unless somebody finds a lost archive of everyone's sworn statements starting with Mary and Joseph, we just aren't going to have an objective historical record. Too bad, but that's life. 99.9% of ancient writings have been lost. The written remainder of two very literate cultures, Classical Greece and Rome, fill a few library shelves.

If Jesus is a questionable historical figure, Christianity has solid credentials. Most religions don't spring from somebody's head like Athena from Zeus. They gather and form over time, picking up momentum.

I suppose you have read some of the skeptical scholars' studies of Christianity's early history. If not, it's a fascinating field.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/448923

Why does it (still) matter whether Yeshua ben Yosef was a historical figure or not, when, in fact, "the prophesy" at the foundation of Christianity's soteriological creed had failed so conspicuously? It's a rationally undeniable historical fact that "The Second Coming" did not happen +1900 years ago as prophesized by "the Christ"; therefore, the 'Case against Christianity' is made and, all but apologetically, closed, no?

Tell me what I'm missing - other than "faith".

Damn, well-stated! :strong:

From what I've seen, its a pretty standard argument among NT scholars and especially apologists that the historicity of Christ himself is the best explanation/most consistent with the record. And certainly there are apologists who argue for the resurrection as historically sound as well, but I doubt that this is anywhere near so common or typical, and obviously the arguments for it are incredibly weak (not least because there has never been any confirmed/corroborated/observed resurrections of this sort in all of human history).

It's really annoying when people say "you cant criticize Christianity because it's the foundation of the West". Western ideas grew in a variety of ways and places, and are not inherently connected to belief in the Trinity for example. Also, Catholics have long said only Catholics are saved. Other denominations say the same. So we have every right to look at it as a whole and criticize it for being wrong

So we have every right to look at it as a whole and criticize it for being wrong — Gregory

Thank the secular contemporary world that has all its basis and foundations in Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

My point is that you can only question and point out the errors of Christianity thanks to Christianity.

Who was Jesus - in anthropological terms? Was he really a one-off, or was an example of a type?

Christians insist the former - that when Jesus said ‘I am the truth, the light and the way’, he meant himself, not any other individual. Ever since, this has been interpreted to mean that Christianity has a monopoly on salvation, it is the only valid religion. But you’d have to wonder what that means, in light of the enormous conflict within Christianity itself about ‘the one true faith’.

From an Indic perspective, Christ is an exemplar of the God-realised sage, a peripatetic wanderer who taught whomever would listen about ‘the way the truth and the life’. When asked whether he was holy, the reply was ‘not I but the Lord within me’. That is more in keeping with the gnostic understanding of Jesus, which was ferociously suppressed at the formation of the Christian church by the highly organised Latin ecclesiastical machine (although it ought to be noted that the gnostic Valentinus came within a few votes of being declared Pope in the second century AD).

Notice that one of the major differences between Buddhism, as a spiritual movement, and Christianity, is that the former is centripetal, the latter centrifugal. Buddhism is based on the ‘passing of the torch’ of understanding through the various monastic lineages, indeed many of the early schools of Buddhism are named after influential monastic leaders. But it’s very much a networked model with no central authority. Catholicism, by contrast, was highly centralised, with the Pope representing absolute authority.

I think, overall, this is because it’s a much easier model for domination, conquest and control. Belief is much easier to manage than knowledge. And that gnostic element, save for within a few underground or monastic streams in Christianity, was snuffed out early in the piece.

There’s a web essay, Christianity has Pagan DNA, which starts:

The roots of Gnosticism reach far into antiquity and, during much of its history, Gnosticism has faced such persecution as to destroy most records about it.

Gnosticism transcends the boundaries of secular religion. Elements of it can be found among Quakers and Old Catholics, the Hebrew Kabbalah, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Baha’i’, in Greek philosophy, and even Polynesian Huna. Kabbalistic Gnosticism (or a predecessor thereof) was probably brought to Palestine from Ur of the Chaldees by Abraham.

Gnosticism even transcends the long-standing war between science and religion. In fact, it was Gnostic philosophers like Pythagoras who were primarily responsible for developing the scientific method. At the other extreme, we can see Hebrew messianic movements (a constant process in Judaism) growing consistently out of Kabbalistic Gnosticism. There is no clear evidence indicating Christianity to be an exception to this rule.

In fact, the earliest recorded schism in Christianity was between the Gnostics and Pistics. Several of the Gospels are clearly Gnostic in orientation, including the Gospels of John, Thomas, Philip, and Mary. Then, it was the Pistics who were the heretics, and they were often hated at that, because it was (and still is) Pistics who would burn Gnostic writings wherever they could find them.

A lot about that essay is questionable but it certainly contains a grain of truth.

My point is that you can only question and point out the errors of Christianity thanks to Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

Christianity does't exist. That is, it was not an entity in the past. PEOPLE are who existed. They held various views and often condemned each other. Out of this some of our modern ideas arose. But we can criticize the crap that was mingled with it

Early Christian writers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Augustine, and others all mentioned that the earlier Roman religion was similar to Christianity. They were worried that people would believe Christianity borrowed from the Romans, so they made up the story that the devil knew Christianity was coming and mocked it ahead of time. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2.14) mentioned that historians had "written the history of Mithras in many volumes." But these have almost completely disappeared because of efforts of Christians in the Dark Ages.

Point well taken.

That's yet another example of the false paradigm that theologians, philosophers, lay people tend to propagate. Meaning, the false narrative of a perfect book---the Bible.

It's worth repeating the reality of human finitude. We know the following circumstances: lost Gospels, Spinoza's forbidden texts, early church politics precluding certain controversial subject matter and interpretations, religious-based exclusions (the book of Sirach from the Wisdom Books is omitted from the King James Bible but included in the American standard Bible), metaphor, allegory, interpretation errors et.al.

Does that mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater(?). If one's disposition should adopt such attitude, what are the broader implications in our world of information(?). Philosophically, perhaps it begs the questions about what kind of truth should Christianity represent...is it pragmatic & utilitarian, is it objective, is it subjective, is it phenomenal, inspirational, existential, etc.etc.. .

Early Greek philosophy and Christianity borrowed ideas from each other (OT/wisdom books).

Christianity does't exist. That is, it was not an entity in the past. PEOPLE are who existed — Gregory

Christianity is a societal organism as complete as a multi-billion dollar company today. Christianity is a religion, religion is an institution through the church; Christianity is an entity made up of people. On the larger scale of history, individuals - apart from a few rare cases - make no difference, but large bodies - such as the State, Religion, companies, etc ... - do.

They held various views and often condemned each other. — Gregory

Fact. There is no arguing against this statement.

But we can criticize the crap that was mingled with it — Gregory

Again I repeat. I think you lost my point. We all are here right now, writing on the internet, on a philosophy forum, talking about christianity, just because christianity build this secular world where every opinion is respected and we can argue about it. Try doing this on a civilization where the religion is still strong. We both would be imprisioned, or even worse, dead. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't criticize.

Well, my view is that nearly everyone, even today, regards 'God' as a being like Jupiter.(Jupiter is an Indo-European name drawn from Dyaus (sky) Pitar (father)).

There's an argument that the conception of 'the One God' was depicted as a deity precisely to displace the pagan Gods of the ancient world, who were descendants of the Indo-European pantheon (this was all shown by Max Mueller in his ground-breaking studies of 'linguistic archeology'.)

So the only concept that made sense in that cultural context was to talk in terms of God and Gods - with the 'Biblical God' said to be superior to the lesser deities. Like Baal, Jupiter, and so on, but 'the only one'. It was a ubiquitous feature of all ancient cultures. But again, the Buddha never presented his teaching in terms of God or gods (notwithstanding that they still form part of the narrative background).

Which is working towards a philosophical point - Christianity appropriated a good deal of what was critically important in ancient philosophies - Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus especially. As their ideas then were used to form the philoosophical scaffolding of Christian theology, then to reject theology is also to reject many of those ideas - without ever having really understood what they were. But then, try to explain what they were, and it's rejected, because it sounds too close to religion!

We all are here right now, writing on the internet, on a philosophy forum, talking about christianity, just because christianity build this secular world where every opinion is respected and we can argue about it. — Gus Lamarch

Completely agree. Far different story in the PRC.

Completely agree. Far different story in the PRC. — Wayfarer

Let's enjoy it well, because it won't last until the 22nd century.

Oh, I don't know. The secular inteliigentsia have been wishing religion dead since the 17th Century but it shows no sign of happening. Sure it's dead in some places but in the 'emerging world' religion show no signs of dying out.

BUT, this is a philosphy forum, and whatever is considered, needs to be considered in those terms. (Logging out, I have to work.)

More like a dingleberry of tru(ism).

Oh, I don't know. The secular inteliigentsia have been wishing religion dead since the 17th Century but it shows no sign of happening. Sure it's dead in some places but in the 'emerging world' religion show no signs of dying out. — Wayfarer

No, don't get me wrong. What I meant is that our way of life - secular - will not survive this century - while Christianity is slowly dying, Islam grows more and more -. I'm really pessimistic about the future of the West - we are going towards the second fall of Rome - or third of Thebes if you consider the "Fall of the Bronze Age" - -.

No, don't get me wrong. What I meant is that our way of life - secular - will not survive this century - while Christianity is slowly dying, Islam grows more and more -. I'm really pessimistic about the future of the West - we are going towards the second fall of Rome - or third of Thebes if you consider the "Fall of the Bronze Age" - -. — Gus Lamarch

"Deus vult"? "Inshallah"? Amor fati ... :sweat:

If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc but of every human, all too human decadence and endeavor. Only a singularity can save us.

Freedom of religion was late in Christianity. The majority of the time you could not talk as we do on this forum.

Only a singularity can save us. — 180 Proof

I'm really curious now: - If we eventually achieve it, what do you think will become of humanity?

This is true not only of Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc but of every human, all too human decadence and endeavor. — 180 Proof

That's why I think we - the west - will fall in this century or the next one.

Freedom of religion was late in Christianity. — Gregory

Just as it was with the roman religion, and with the greek, and it will be with Islam, and it will always be with any religion. Every religion is a method of life, a way of thinking and contemplating the world. When this dogma weakens, you have civilizing peaks - for example, the apex of the "Bronze Age" - 1300 BC to 1200 BC -, the roman "Principate" between the empires of Nerva and Marcus Aurelius - 96 AD to 180 AD -, and the contemporary West - 1945 to ? - which are subsequently followed by an economic, societal, religious and cultural collapse of that civilization - or as in the case of the Bronze Age, civilizations -.

It's almost as if, when you give freedom to people, they normally will throw it at the garbage.
Enjoy it while you can.

It's almost as if, when you give freedom to people, they normally will throw it at the garbage.
Enjoy it while you can. — Gus Lamarch

I will. You don't have an argument. If Christianity gave us freedom of thought, we have every right to use it against the bad points of Christianity. We are not in contradiction

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't criticize. — Gus Lamarch

Did you read my previous answer?

Matthew 16:27-28

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The obvious reading of this is that Jesus thought the Second coming would happen soon. Of course, it never happened. Christians will reinterpret this to say that the resurrection was the first stage of the Second Coming. But if Christians can reread and reinterpret Scripture, what right have they to attack the Koran? Modern Muslim apologists have all the arguments they need to defend any passage you choose to attack

Did you read my previous answer? — Gus Lamarch

I see. You don't seem to have a distinct point/argument then

Proof of Jesus' resurection:



It's at least as good as the argument for Christianity presented in the OP.