aa5874

Myth does NOT always mean 100% supernatural. The Myths Romulus and Remus were the Mythological Founders of the City of Rome.

Romulus and Remus were supposedly human brothers Born of a woman, lived in Rome and died on earth. Remus was buried and Romulus ascended to heaven or his body vanished without a trace.

See Plutarch's "Romulus".

In Greek/Roman Mythology there were many Myth characters that were considered "Mortal".

aa5874

In post #308 of this thread LegionOnomaMoi presented a most absurd and illogical response to my post.

This poster writes the history of Haile Selassie but FORGOT to write the history of Obscure HJ of Nazareth.

Please, LegionOnomaMoi we are ON A QUEST for the History of an Historical Jesus.

NOW, Let us do the History of Obscure HJ.

HJ was .................................................. ....

Please, Fill in the Blank space.

Thanks in Advance.

Haile Selassie, JahRastaFari!!! King of Kings and Lord of Lord!!!!

angelo

HJ was...............not history because the whole tale is told in a bunch of discredited gospels that were copies of copies of copies. There is not a scrap of evidence from the first century that gives this very tall tale any credibility whatsoever. Bablical scholar Bart Ehrman has stated himself that nothing outside of these discredited manuscripts can be used to make a case for a historical Jesus, not Josephus, not Tacitus or anybody else. Therefore, the whole shebang is as trustworthy as, or much less so than the tale of a Zoroaster being a historical person.

tanya

Sorry, friend, I believe you err, here. 100% of the time, the word "myth" means "reference to something beyond physics". The story of R & R is 100% myth:

The claim for human attribution, of R & R, via their human mother, in no way trumps the paternal heritage, argued to have been by a supernatural entity. Had the claim been reversed, with human paternal DNA, and supernatural female DNA/incubation/birth, the end result would have been the same: myth. There are no gods. There is no paternal, or maternal DNA of supernatural origin.

Once supernatural claims enter the picture, the focus changes from legend, or fiction, or good story, to myth. Every "myth", without exception, must refer to supernatural attribution of some kind. Absent any supernatural aspect, the word "myth" is inappropriate.

All references to supernatural feats, qualities, locales, or capabilities describe mythical constructs, regardless of the quantity of genuine, honest physics in the foreground of the story.

The jesus myth is null part history. History and myth are irreconcilable. There is no history of a myth, only history about those who claim the veracity of a myth. To illustrate, think of Mormonism, a sect of Christianity about to become far more important, than any other sect, very soon.

The historical character of Mormonism is related to those genuine humans who propagated the myth, but not to the myth itself.

If there had been gold tablets, they would have been crafted by living humans, not supernatural deities.

aa5874

Please find out the meaning of "Myth".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

tanya

Utter nonsense.

I would never accept any dictionary definition, that deviates from the correct description of myth for what it is: supernatural attribution.

"His account of the event is pure LEGEND", NOT MYTH, unless, his account demanded that the user accept intervention of a process/entity/locale which was supernatural.

"an imaginary or fictitious thing or person" is NOT a myth, unless, and ONLY IF, the imaginary or fictitious thing or person described possesses or interacts with some thing, or some place, or some action which is supernatural.

Catch-22 is 100% FICTION. It is ZERO percent myth. There never was any such person as Captain Yossarian. He is 100% fictional. He is NOT a myth.

If the author of Catch-22 had given Captain Yossarian DNA from a deity, then, Catch-22 would describe a mythical character.

Folks, especially on this forum, often confound LEGEND with myth. Legends are events, thought to have been greatly exaggerated accomplishments, which have not been proven. The ballistic missiles developed by German scientists in the early 1940's were thought to have been legends, until the day the first ones crashed into London. At that point they became facts. At no point were they ever mythical, for at no point in their evolution, was any supernatural deity invoked to explain their genesis, construction, or mechanical powers.

One can imagine, however, that some superstitious thinking individuals, may have imagined, indeed, may have WRITTEN, that the evil scientists had been driven by the DEVIL, to create such horrific causes of mass murder.

Those authors, who give attribution to creation of those weapons to some supernatural, omnipotent deity, attempt to convert a legend/fact into a myth. They will fail, ...so long as men can breathe or eyes can see,...

What you apparently do not grasp, here, is that there are very powerful interests, determined to blur the distinction between legend and myth.

You may wish to reflect, a bit, on WHY it is important for certain forces, including those in control of publishing/education/entertainment to confound Legend with Myth. Who gains, from lack of clarity on this issue?

aa5874

What???? I am completely disturbed by your statement

Do you NOT understand that without STANDARD DEFINITIONS that it would be virtually impossible for us to communicate???

Examine another Dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

tanya

I will ask again: Who benefits from obscuring the distinction between Legend, and Myth?

Here's a hint:

And, friend, you have also been conned, AGAIN, on this issue of the distinction between "myth", and "legend".

Please don't turn to French, for clarity. Catholic country. Not sure about German, either....So much for the murky antecedents of English.

The Christian church, ALL flavours, have a vested interest in blurring the distinction between legend (amusement) and myth (consternation). Parishioners, i.e. the folks who give 10% of their money to the churches, as you did, aa, don't like to learn that the LEGEND of Jesus (could be true), is actually a MYTH, i.e. absolutely UNTRUE.

Do you remember Roger's rejoinder to me, about a month ago, when this topic arose? He was indignant. Called me a gangster, or something comparable, i.e. characterizing my submission as definitely malevolent, in the camp with Satan on one side, and Demons on the other.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims ALL despise my insistence on clarity distinguishing supernatural attribution from legends.

There was no "al-buraq". There was no "garden of eden", no "flood", no "Noah". It is all balderdash. FAKE. MYTH.

You are correct to challenge me, but wrong to invoke AUTHORITY, to do so. It was of course, precisely that approach, requirement to respect authority, that led to the execution of my heroes, who insisted, even at forfeiture of their own lives, on publishing the Bible in English.

If you seek to condemn my inflexibility on this matter, you may wish to read spin's comments, from a couple of months ago, for, he too rejects my definition as too arbitrary, and lacking authority. spin employed the OED, to refute me.

Haha. Fat chance.

You would have as much luck invoking the names of thomas more and henry VIII.

I will never yield on this issue, for it is at the heart of understanding atheism. I have no interest in what social scientists, like spin, write on this question of the distinction between legend and myth. You can offer dictionary citations in any language, until you are blue in the face (respiratory arrest 2ry to fatigue).

There is only conformance with, or hostility to, the laws of Physics.

Your choice.

aa5874

I say Jesus of the NT was Myth because of the Definition of Myth and show that Jesus was described as Myth based on the very definition.

Jesus was a fictitious character and based on the Dictionary such a character can be considered a Myth.

Matthew 1.18-20 claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Who got conned??? The people who claim Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father.

LegionOnomaMoi

Tell me something: have you ever studied logic? Taken, say, an intro to symbolic/mathematical logic course, maybe read a textbook on logic, or on the philosophy of logic?

One of my favorite math textbooks is Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms. In chapter 0, they discuss logical notation and some other aspects concerning logic and mathematics. For example, limits (a central concept in calculus) are defined by logical connectives: for all epsilon greater than 0, there exists...etc. The opposite of "for all X p holds true" is "their exists an X for which p does not hold true." For this reason, say the authors, ridiculous statements are accepted as true in mathematics, such as "all 11 legged purple crocodiles have spots". In order to be false, there must exist an 11 legged purple crocodile which does not have spots. Ergo, the statement is true.

That basis for you argument concerns claims that people made about Jesus, and that, if we take these claims at face value, we are forced to certain conclusions. In the example I gave, if we were only left with the claims, then (using your argument) we would be forced to conclude that Haile Selassie does not exist. However, in this case we have both the claims, and a large amount of a different sort of evidence.

However, what this does mean is that it is quite possible for a group of people to write myths and legends about a historical individual. In the example of Haile Selassie, there are clearly mythical assertions made by followers, yet the individual was as real as anyone here. In the ancient world, the same held true: historical events, places, people, etc., often became shrouded in myth and legend, from rabbis like Honi to emperors. The difference is the amount of evidence available.

What reason is there to assume that because the authors you refer to repeatedly claim that their Jesus was born of the holy spirit, we should trust them here, but not when they claim he lived and walked on earth? Why are you selecting particular claims to believe, and ignoring others?