The "spirit possession" explanation for Christian origins

[Clive]

religious practice is a well accepted source of ASC.

The millions who go to church weekly, have no ASC.

Just because a few following fanaticism do, does not let you make wide sweeping vague unsubstantiated claims that apply to all.


An aspect of ancient religion, does not make it a foundational aspect.

Oh dear.

You do realise you personally practice several asc's daily? One form is called sleeping!

Part of the problem is probably the term altered = it is actually a continuum, a continually changing process. There probably isn't a norm or a standard to measure against, just different ones - sitting on a Caribbean beach, in a rush hour tube train, having a romantic meal, singing in a church.

They all have effects. Group states - Welsh hymn singing at a rugby match - are another permutation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM4mIlYKG9s

In fact, I wonder if this looking for a single starting point is actually an artefact of geometric thinking. A core symbol of Christianity is a cross, the story is about god becoming a human in Jerusalem, the acknowledged centre of the universe. I am the Alpha and Omega.

[Leucius Charinus]

After all, no other event has had this much of an impact on humanity to date.

I think the word "event" kind of begs the question. Exactly what event are we talking about. I would argue that Christianity became important (eventually, after being one obscure cult among many for three hundred years) not because of its content or its claims so much as because a certain Roman Emperor happened to have Christian mother who he doted on and he gave the cult special privilege. That, in my opinion, was a more important event than anything that happened at Ground Zero Judea c. 30 CE.

I agree. The problem as I see it is that there are very few if any secure and certain "political events" in the historical rise of Christianity before the rise of this certain Roman Emperor and the massive "Christian Revolution" of the 4th century. This political event was momentous and may IMO be liked to a "boundary event" in the political history of antiquity, and certainly in religious history. Moreover the event itself IMO is nowhere as yet understood, largely due to a "black hole" of evidence for the epoch between 325 and 353 CE.

Understand that I am not here arguing for any 4th century invention. I am supporting the argument being addressed to people who themselves lean towards a 1st or 2nd century Christian origins theory, that a thorough study of this later political "Christian Revolution" is not a waste of time. All the action was by then certainly NOT over, since the list of canonical books was not yet closed, Gnostic Gospels and Acts were still being authored, and the heretics (now very much political) were still being catalogued, classified and subdued by orthodoxy.



LC

[Clive]

I think an understanding of the butterfly effect might help.

https://www.scribd.com/book/171081451/C ... ew-Science

The blockbuster modern science classic that introduced the butterfly effect to the world—even more relevant two decades after it became an international sensation

For centuries, scientific thought was focused on bringing order to the natural world. But even as relativity and quantum mechanics undermined that rigid certainty in the first half of the twentieth century, the scientific community clung to the idea that any system, no matter how complex, could be reduced to a simple pattern.

In the 1960s, a small group of radical thinkers began to take that notion apart, placing new importance on the tiny experimental irregularities that scientists had long learned to ignore.

Miniscule differences in data, they said, would eventually produce massive ones—and complex systems like the weather, economics, and human behavior suddenly became clearer and more beautiful than they had ever been before.

In this seminal work of scientific writing, James Gleick lays out a cutting edge field of science with enough grace and precision that any reader will be able to grasp the science behind the beautiful complexity of the world around us.

[Leucius Charinus]

.... after being one obscure cult among many for three hundred years)

Cannot agree.

Constantine stood behind this movement because he had no choice because it was so large and only gaining more steam.

We don't really know why he subscribed to the Christian cult in the political actions (decrees, construction of churches, appointment of bishops, etc) he took when he became supreme military ruler of the Empire. We don't even know whether he personally subscribed to the cult before he knew he was about to die. When the period in question (325-337 CE) is studied in detail it is found to have very few if any primary sources outside of the "Christian sources".

It must be plainly understood that statements like the above are entirely hypothetical and rest on very little, if any, reliable primary evidence.

His decision IMHO was that of intellect to control what he could not kill.

This is just total BS.

Constantine could kill just about anything that lived or breathed while he ruled, and there is sufficient evidence to indicate that he did just that. After a series of necessary and quite instructive examples, the people would simply fall in line if they knew what was good for their health. The key thing to remember about this pivotal epoch in the history of the Christian religion is what the historian Sozomen tells us ....

• Ecclesiastical History (Sozomen) > Book III.Chapter 1 ....
  CHURCH FATHERS: Ecclesiastical History, Book III (Sozomen)
  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26023.htm
  
  • We have now seen what events transpired in the churches during the reign of Constantine.
    On his death the doctrine which had been set forth at Nicæa, was subjected to renewed examination.
    Although this doctrine was not universally approved, no one, during the life of Constantine, had dared to reject it openly.
    At his death, however, many renounced this opinion, especially those who had previously been suspected of treachery.
    

A "spirit possession" explanation for Christian origins is really clutching at straws. It's just replacing the "Divine Institute" (inspired writings under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) by a bunch of "spirit possessed" shamans who are able to drive a "conversion business" in the favour of the church.

Is the "spirit possession" explanation for Christian origins falsifiable? IDK but I suspect it isn't.

What is the best evidence any of the proponents of the OP have to offer in support of the idea? IDK.




LC

[neilgodfrey]

My question is this: What instances are there of a spirit possessed charismatic or glossolalist who attracts followers who do not share his gift the whole time they are with him/her but only do so for the first time only after they lose contact?

I'll give this a shot. I'll preface this by saying that I'm currently reading Davies' book and it's scratching a lot of the right itches for me. For some time now, I've been leaning towards the view that cultural ideas of spirit possession have been under-explored as it pertains to Christian origins, even though the New Testament is full of the idea (I think it's all but explicit in Mark's Gospel).

That's not to say I think the above thesis is necessarily accurate, but having recently read Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician (everybody should read that at least once), there is a lot about necromantic uses of spirits. That is, there were practices which involved the perceived summoning and use of the spirits of dead people to achieve magical acts, healing, exorcisms of demons, etc. The practice was sometimes referred to (according to Smith) as "raising" that person from the dead.

One particular feature of this practice was that murder victims were seen as more powerful than regular people. There was an association of greater power with greater innocence.

So I think your question can be filled in if a group of disciples or whatever fixated on a crucifixion victim perceived as completely innocent and blameless and "raised" him (or decided that God had raised him) as a kind of perfect sacrificial victim whose spirit they could access - in other words, if the Pentecostal event (figuratively speaking) was *necromantic* in nature, and felt as a possession by Jesus himself.

Interesting. It is years since I read Smith's Magician and I should do a refresher on it. I have since acquired two books on magic and necromancy in the ancient Greco-Roman world that are still waiting to be read. So you are way ahead of me on this one.

Two questions:

Davies says that the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was a consequence of their spirit possession. The resurrection was how they rationalized the spirit experience. Is your theory able to be re-shaped to accord with this hypothesis? If not, how might one account for a belief that Jesus had risen from the dead prior to the ASC experience? Were there not others in Jewish history (e.g. Maccabean rebels) who were believed to have suffered death despite their innocence, so much so that their blood was considered to be of atoning value for the sins of the nation -- but they were never believed to have been resurrected.

The other question:

Accounts of magic (outside the gospels) seem to consistently describe various rituals, chants, some sort of strange actions or setups, etc. Yet the accounts of Jesus I think are completely void of these. His miracles seem to be more like an imitation of those of a god -- the word alone performs them without fuss. What would you (or Davies) say in response to this?

I'll dig out one of those magic/necromancy books and try to do a quick read of it in the meantime.

[neilgodfrey]

What is the best evidence any of the proponents of the OP have to offer in support of the idea? IDK.




LC

Davies would say that the explanation accords well with what anthropologists know of human experience more generally and of what experiences are to be expected in the conditions of first century Palestine. (It's not an explanation that sits well with modern westerners given that our culture overall frowns upon the experience.)

Davies would also say that it offers the most simple explanation for the contents of Paul's writings, the gospels and Acts. There are many aspects to this point and it would take me a few paragraphs to spell them out.

So he does offer rationales for his thesis: from anthropology and widespread and well documented human experience, especially as it would be expected given the social and political conditions of first century Palestine; and from an ability to cohere as historically plausible many aspects of the NT literature that are generally relegated by other theories to very late inventions attributed to Jesus by the church.

[MrMacSon]

.... after being one obscure cult among many for three hundred years)

Constantine stood behind this movement because he had no choice because it was so large and only gaining more steam.

nonsense. There is no archaeological evidence to support your bare assertion

[Clive]

Accounts of magic (outside the gospels) seem to consistently describe various rituals, chants, some sort of strange actions or setups, etc. Yet the accounts of Jesus I think are completely void of these. His miracles seem to be more like an imitation of those of a god -- the word alone performs them without fuss. What would you (or Davies) say in response to this?

the word alone performs them without fuss

May I disagree?

Take up thy bed and walk

I am not near a New Testament but actually I would say most of Jesus's utterances are of a magical nature. The problem is that Protestants and sceptics are conditioned to demythologise everything.

This is my body

Do this in remembrance of me

It is also magic to say powerful words. What is interesting is the difference in style, without all the flummery. And that is definitely worth researching further.

Are we looking at an example of paired down simplified magic that actually is more powerful because of its clarity? This needs experts in the history of theatre and story.

[Clive]

Out damned spot

[Clive]

Which reminds me of something! George Orwell!

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/d ... orwell.cfm

Maybe the usp of xianity is about being open and honest with each other, which over time became institutionalised? The idea of the christ was about freedom, hope, a new heaven and earth, the lion laying down with the lamb. It soon got entangled in theology about a Lord Jesus Christ and institutional structures - predictable developments.

And a founder or starter however tangential is completely redundant.