Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Historical what if...

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:32:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would prefer historical answers and not theological ones.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump (seriously? No one is interested in early Christianity/Christian history?)
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Good question!

But I think Christianity would have prevailed anyway. Remember that Constantine did not fully support Christianity--he just tolerated it and stopped some of the persecutions. But no, it would have prevailed without him. AS it was God's will. The way he worked it, for the Christian movement to begin exactly when and where it did, so it could piggy-back on Rome--the greatest power on Earth then. YOu didn't think that was all sheer coincidence did you? LOL. No way! God's Plan.
God Bless.

Also Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus being proved He was not Myth. We have other secular writings from people like Tacitus and Pliny who mentioned him in thier writings.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:02:50 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Good question!

But I think Christianity would have prevailed anyway. Remember that Constantine did not fully support Christianity--he just tolerated it and stopped some of the persecutions. But no, it would have prevailed without him. AS it was God's will. The way he worked it, for the Christian movement to begin exactly when and where it did, so it could piggy-back on Rome--the greatest power on Earth then. YOu didn't think that was all sheer coincidence did you? LOL. No way! God's Plan.
God Bless.

So, instead of giving a historical, scholarly answer you go for a theological answer.

Also, I suggest reading "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier. The rise of Christianity did not require god (if one even exists).

Also Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus being proved He was not Myth.

Constantine's support for Christianity (by legalizing it) paved the way for Christianity's dominance, and thus allowing Christians (the ones in control) to preserve documents they liked better, which would especially include ones about Jesus.

We have other secular writings from people like Tacitus and Pliny who mentioned him in thier writings.

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:07:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:02:50 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Good question!

But I think Christianity would have prevailed anyway. Remember that Constantine did not fully support Christianity--he just tolerated it and stopped some of the persecutions. But no, it would have prevailed without him. AS it was God's will. The way he worked it, for the Christian movement to begin exactly when and where it did, so it could piggy-back on Rome--the greatest power on Earth then. YOu didn't think that was all sheer coincidence did you? LOL. No way! God's Plan.
God Bless.

So, instead of giving a historical, scholarly answer you go for a theological answer.

Also, I suggest reading "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier. The rise of Christianity did not require god (if one even exists).

Also Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus being proved He was not Myth.

Constantine's support for Christianity (by legalizing it) paved the way for Christianity's dominance, and thus allowing Christians (the ones in control) to preserve documents they liked better, which would especially include ones about Jesus.

We have other secular writings from people like Tacitus and Pliny who mentioned him in thier writings.

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.

We talked about this question in seminary school. Christian movement would have survived, probably moved East a bit. maybe taken a couple decades longer to get to where it was after Council of Nicea, however.
you want history? here you go, m' lady.......http://www.quora.com...
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:07:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:02:50 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Good question!

But I think Christianity would have prevailed anyway. Remember that Constantine did not fully support Christianity--he just tolerated it and stopped some of the persecutions. But no, it would have prevailed without him. AS it was God's will. The way he worked it, for the Christian movement to begin exactly when and where it did, so it could piggy-back on Rome--the greatest power on Earth then. YOu didn't think that was all sheer coincidence did you? LOL. No way! God's Plan.
God Bless.

So, instead of giving a historical, scholarly answer you go for a theological answer.

Also, I suggest reading "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier. The rise of Christianity did not require god (if one even exists).

Also Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus being proved He was not Myth.

Constantine's support for Christianity (by legalizing it) paved the way for Christianity's dominance, and thus allowing Christians (the ones in control) to preserve documents they liked better, which would especially include ones about Jesus.

We have other secular writings from people like Tacitus and Pliny who mentioned him in thier writings.

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.

But in a way your historical Christian HAS to be answered with Theology, as you call it, since it WAS God's plan to give Constantine the Dream and the Vision before the battle at Milvan Bridge. That's how God works! I can attest to the power of Visions. one of them Saved my Life. yeah so the OP simply has a answer that is Theological. to accuse of answering off-topic is like asking about the formation of the milky way on a philosophy forum and then I give you the Big Bang story and you say, "I ask about Philsophy and you give me Asrtonomy!" LOL>>>God Bless, m'lady.

28. CONSTANTINE"S VISION
Accordingly Constantine called on him with earnest prayer to reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most extraordinary sign appeared to him from heaven " something which it might have been hard to believe had the story been told by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to believe it, especially since other testimonies have established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the sign of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "By this symbol you will conquer." He was struck with amazement by the sight, and his whole army witnessed the miracle.

29. CONSTANTINE"S DREAM
He said that he was unsure what this apparition could mean, but that while he continued to ponder, night suddenly came on. In his sleep, the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:48:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

1. No

2. He actually existed.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:20:33 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:07:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:02:50 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Good question!

But I think Christianity would have prevailed anyway. Remember that Constantine did not fully support Christianity--he just tolerated it and stopped some of the persecutions. But no, it would have prevailed without him. AS it was God's will. The way he worked it, for the Christian movement to begin exactly when and where it did, so it could piggy-back on Rome--the greatest power on Earth then. YOu didn't think that was all sheer coincidence did you? LOL. No way! God's Plan.
God Bless.

So, instead of giving a historical, scholarly answer you go for a theological answer.

Also, I suggest reading "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier. The rise of Christianity did not require god (if one even exists).

Also Constantine had nothing to do with Jesus being proved He was not Myth.

Constantine's support for Christianity (by legalizing it) paved the way for Christianity's dominance, and thus allowing Christians (the ones in control) to preserve documents they liked better, which would especially include ones about Jesus.

We have other secular writings from people like Tacitus and Pliny who mentioned him in thier writings.

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.

But in a way your historical Christian HAS to be answered with Theology, as you call it, since it WAS God's plan to give Constantine the Dream and the Vision before the battle at Milvan Bridge. That's how God works! I can attest to the power of Visions. one of them Saved my Life. yeah so the OP simply has a answer that is Theological. to accuse of answering off-topic is like asking about the formation of the milky way on a philosophy forum and then I give you the Big Bang story and you say, "I ask about Philsophy and you give me Asrtonomy!" LOL>>>God Bless, m'lady.

I'm a guy, but m'lady works.

Furthermore, it is the consensus among scholars that the "vision" of Constantine was a fabrication (most likely candidate for the origin of the forgery is Eusebius).

28. CONSTANTINE"S VISION
Accordingly Constantine called on him with earnest prayer to reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most extraordinary sign appeared to him from heaven " something which it might have been hard to believe had the story been told by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to believe it, especially since other testimonies have established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the sign of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "By this symbol you will conquer." He was struck with amazement by the sight, and his whole army witnessed the miracle.

29. CONSTANTINE"S DREAM
He said that he was unsure what this apparition could mean, but that while he continued to ponder, night suddenly came on. In his sleep, the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:50:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:48:26 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

1. No

2. He actually existed.

Oh wow, someone who put absolutely no thought into their answer... Why did I expect more from this forum?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:50:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:48:26 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

1. No

2. He actually existed.

Oh wow, someone who put absolutely no thought into their answer... Why did I expect more from this forum?

Well, I could pose the same question about Abraham Lincoln. If you ask easy questions, the answers don't require much thought. I put as much effort as someone who said "Quite possibly".
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 10:25:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:54:28 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:50:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:48:26 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

1. No

2. He actually existed.

Oh wow, someone who put absolutely no thought into their answer... Why did I expect more from this forum?


Well, I could pose the same question about Abraham Lincoln. If you ask easy questions, the answers don't require much thought. I put as much effort as someone who said "Quite possibly".

So, I summarizing their response means you give a half-a**ed one?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 10:41:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at Pliny's sources. And could you please give evidence that the source of Tacitus's references to Christians was Pliny to the exclusion of other sources.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 10:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 10:25:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:54:28 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:50:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:48:26 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

1. No

2. He actually existed.

Oh wow, someone who put absolutely no thought into their answer... Why did I expect more from this forum?


Well, I could pose the same question about Abraham Lincoln. If you ask easy questions, the answers don't require much thought. I put as much effort as someone who said "Quite possibly".

So, I summarizing their response means you give a half-a**ed one?

The answer matched the question.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 11:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 10:41:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.


I'm curious as to how you arrived at Pliny's sources. And could you please give evidence that the source of Tacitus's references to Christians was Pliny to the exclusion of other sources.

You would know if you actually listened to a book recommendation I made a long while back "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

I do not have the time to relook in the book to get the exact details right now (in the middle of moving and go on here to just check how this is going), but I STILL recommend the book, if only for you to understand some of the arguments I make.

I also recommend a book that I am in the middle of reading called "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by Robert M Price.

If you are still curious after I move into my new house I can look in the relevant sections of the book and find the reasoning, but I do recommend you reading it first.

BTW, what is your opinion on the OP?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 11:46:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 11:11:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 10:41:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Pliny had no reliable source (his only source was Christians whose only source was the Gospel) and Tacitus, even if it wasn't a forgery (which it quite possibly was), would have gotten his information FROM Pliny.


I'm curious as to how you arrived at Pliny's sources. And could you please give evidence that the source of Tacitus's references to Christians was Pliny to the exclusion of other sources.

You would know if you actually listened to a book recommendation I made a long while back "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

I do not have the time to relook in the book to get the exact details right now (in the middle of moving and go on here to just check how this is going), but I STILL recommend the book, if only for you to understand some of the arguments I make.

I also recommend a book that I am in the middle of reading called "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" by Robert M Price.

If you are still curious after I move into my new house I can look in the relevant sections of the book and find the reasoning, but I do recommend you reading it first.

BTW, what is your opinion on the OP?

I doubt that it is the case, but is an interesting conjecture.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 2:04:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

I'll answer this in the order you asked the questions:

1. In my opinion, I don't think Jesus would be seen as mythical. The acceptance of Christianity by Constantine did cause a massive growth in Christianity. However, Christianity was already established, despite the Romans previously persecuting and killing Christians. The acceptance of Christ by the Romans and the acceptance of Jesus as historical can be brought down really to what gave Christianity such roots in Europe. While Rome may have been a part of that, Rome was destroyed, with many years passing and still Christianity being prominent in regions Rome had not even conquered. The Catholic Church having the power it had can be laced to Rome, but the continuation of the religion really kept going without Roman or Catholic encouragement. I quite believe that if it had not been the Catholic Church, it would have been another group of Christians. The interesting part this brings to mind for me, however, is that it is due to several specific historical events there were those religions who fled to America, specifically Christian ones. Whether or not this pilgrimage would have occurred is completely unknown if those events had not been. All this has some basis in Rome which does leave speculation. I do believe that Christ would still have had basis in America regardless as there are plenty of those religions who hold Christ as, at very least, a prophet. If it were not Christians, then a group that would have accepted his existence.

2. The difference between Mithra and Christ is very comparable to a number of religions of similar position. We do not worship Persian polytheism despite Persia having conquered much of the world, same with Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and many others. I do realize one important difference, being that the Roman Empire lasted longer then nearly any Empire in history. This gives it a unique position towards its effect on the future. There is one important point, however. For much of the Roman Empire's history, they worshiped the Roman gods. We, however, do not. The effect on religion Rome had is not to understated, but not overstated either. It did have an effect, but much more comparable to throwing propane on a forest fire. It heats it up for a bit in a certain area, but has little lasting effect once burned out. The difference is that Christianity has continued to "burn" without the support of Rome and been "burning" without Roman support regardless. If you were looking for more a theological approach toward Mithra vs Jesus, prepare to be disappointed, as I sadly know little of Mithra.

3. I had to reread the questions, and numbers 2 and 3 are very similar. They really just use different words to accomplish the same meaning. Anyway, hope that gives a different opinion.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:33:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?

Yes

2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?

Christians (if they still existed) would have reason to believe; most people wouldn't.

The main ramifications would be much larger than religion, as Constantine would basically be submitting himself to Sassanid authority instead of binding a fractured empire together under a new faith. It would be a suicidal move, politically, though it definitely would have put a damper on the expansion of Islam, which exploited the military conflicts between the Byzantines and Persians which would have been lightened by such a move. And there's the fact that Constantine himself would have been undermined, perhaps killed, by more traditional political forces in Rome after converting to the faith of the Empire's bitter enemy. It's possible that the Magyars and Vikings never would have been pacified and absorbed, seeing as there would be no centralized, distinctly European religion to hold the region together. The map would certainly look different.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?
2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

No. The growth and duration of a religion is not based on which came first. It's based on how well it assimilates into the cultures in which it occurs, and how effective it is at maintaining itself once it's been established. Christianity presented humanity with a new idea of "God" that involved an internalization of the 'divine being'. And once internalized, it was basically untouchable. Christians saw themselves as divine 'offspring'. Not just 'chosen ones' from among the family of man, but actual sons and daughters of a divine being. They were connected to their idea of God by both blood and spirit, and that's not going to be a connection that's easily broken.

It's also a concept of God that feeds the ego regardless of one's social, economic or political station, in real life. Which made it very appealing to the general populace. Religions that are forced on people from on high tend to vanish as soon as the rulers are changed out. But religions that force themselves on the rulers from a groundswell of popularity among the common folk tend to be both unstoppable and long-lived.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

I think the teachings of Jesus make him special. Mithra for example didn"t say much.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 11:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:32:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have emailed a few historians this question and was surprised (not really, but...) at their answer.

What if Constantine supported Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? What if instead of Christianity growing the way it did and becoming the dominate religion, what if it was Zoroastrianism?

If that was the case, do you think that many historians would say that Jesus was a mythical figure and that Mithra was a historical one (instead of the other way around like it is now)?

The 2 that responded to this question said (both along the lines of) "Quite possibly, yes".

So, a few questions for you:
1) Do you thin (in this hypothetical scenario) that Jesus would be seen as a mythical figure while Mithra is seen as a historical figure?

I already think Jesus is a mythical figure. And since you asked for historical answers, that the Jesus figure has any historical evidence to support him at all, is pretty debatable.

2) If yes, then what reason do we have to believe Jesus existed but Mithra didn't?

I believe the question of Mitra's existence is analogous to the question of God's existence. The question of an historical Jesus is a different one, because Jesus is plausible in principle, while God is not. So, because of this, I believe the correct analogy with Zoroastrism would be asking if Zarathustra, not Mitra, existed or not. In this sense, I'm afraid both Jesus and Zoroaster are found quite lacking in historial evidence despite them being, supposedly, very important men.

3) If no, what makes Jesus so special that he would still be seen as historical?

Jesus is seen as historical simply because people want him to be historical. It isn't really a problem of having/lacking evidence.