Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 02-14-2009, 10:29 AM

I would love to explore further the alleged distinctions between Greek and Judaic thinking, especially since Palestine was a Greek colony from the time of Alexander the Great.

This alleged Jewish thinking might be a reaction to Greek thinking - a co-evolutionary arms race between the true gods and this local tribal god of a grotty hill village that is allegedly the centre of the universe. (That Alexander did not bother to visit!)

So we should not be asking what is Jewish, what is Greek, but looking for interactions, synthesis, reactions, ecologies, mixing.

Is anything really originally from a small set of non pork eating tribes with such huge delusions of grandeur that they successively invent mythologies about themselves that their god is the creator of the universe, the first human is Jewish, one of their founders is the predecessor of all humans, one of their founders is from Ur, another was senior under the Pharoahs, another had such a huge empire (that no one else has ever heard of) and the Queen of Sheba came to see him.

These myths from this pre Hollywood fantasy factory get so big that they invent - before Buck Rogers - a saviour of the universe, that holds sway over this fascinating species of bipedal talking primates for two thousand odd sol years!

And what do we find in this new testament?

Virgin births, logos, treating others as yourself, 153....now where did I see those ideas?

Its all Greek to me!

ApostateAbe · 02-14-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

This thread is dedicated to the idea that Christianity is the product of Hellene syncretism and that Islam is but a further example.

I posit with others that:

1. The first Christian writings, the epistles from the letter-writer known as Paul (others write in his name), describe a spiritual, non-earthly, dying/rising Savior. This is a Greek, not Jewish concept.

2. Christianity is but one group of sectarian Jews who broke from Judaism just after the civil war (Seleucid conflict/Maccabean revolts) in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. The eschatology come from writings of that period, Daniel and Enoch.

3. Christianity is born in the Diaspora, not Jerusalem.

4. The Gospels created an earthly Jesus from oral traditions to reinforce local teachings.

Those ideas presented for a framework, let's look at some obvious mythology. You know your Savior is myth when:

He/she is born of a virgin.

Antecedents:

Pereus: Born of Zeus and the virgin Danae
Heracles: Born of Zeus and the virgin Alcmene
Romulus: Born of the God Mars and unnamed human virgin
Alexander the Great: Legend says that Zeus, not Philip, sired Alex with Olympias when she was still a virgin
Dionysus: (post Christian sources) Born of Zeus and the human virgin Semele

We notice old Zeus really got around in his day. We also notice that virgin birth is a very Greek idea. Is Christ's virgin birth dependent on Greek myth? Christian apologist Ronald Nash, Ed Komoszewski, James Sawyer and Daniel Wallace will all argue otherwise...saying that Christainity is not 'dependent' on the prior myths. We know, from another Christian apologist, Church father Justin Martyr that the Greek stories were well known to him and others...as he cites them in his First Apology.

Two of the Four Gospels mention a 'virgin birth.' Many scholars believe this to be confusion or mistranslation of the Hebrew word 'alma' (which literally means 'young woman' and may infer a virgin) into the Greek word 'parthenos' which is literally a virgin.

Why the myth? Simple, early Christians were competing against the legends of pagan gods, many of which were magically born of a virgin.

So post 1: If your Savior requires a virgin birth then he/she is a myth.

Biology: people are born when a male sperm fertilizes a female egg...no Holy Spirits required.

The mainline critical theory of Jesus is that he was a human apocalyptic prophet of Judea, and he was mythologized in later Christian accounts. So your challenge then, is to show evidence against the mainline theory in favor of your own theory. It isn't easy, because the mainline theory has pretty good evidence. If Christianity was born in the diaspora, then you will need to explain how the gospel accounts got so many details of the Jerusalem social environment correct, and you will need evidence. You will need to narrow down the authorship of the earliest Christian writings, including the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Pauline epistles, and give evidence to back up your hypotheses.

When you make a claim of fact that isn't common knowledge, then it is expected that you give evidence, such as a reference to a primary source or a secondary source. Your list of virgin births is such an example. Pereus was born from Zeus taking the form of "golden rain" when he impregnated Danae. That is knowledge found from Wikipedia. Maybe it counts for "virgin birth," or maybe not. As far as I know, a "virgin birth" was not really a point made in the original myth. I could be wrong, but you need to be the one doing your homework on this, not the rest of us, and you need to make your case with credible sources. Arguments about Jesus starting as a myth are very common on this forum, and people typically cite parallels to other myths, and those parallels very often don't pan out, because somebody out there either stretched the truth or made up facts whole cloth, and somebody else put it on the Internet.

aa5874 · 02-14-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The mainline critical theory of Jesus is that he was a human apocalyptic prophet of Judea, and he was mythologized in later Christian accounts. So your challenge then, is to show evidence against the mainline theory in favor of your own theory. It isn't easy, because the mainline theory has pretty good evidence.

It is totally untrue that there is evidence that Jesus of the NT was human and later mythologised.

In fact, it is the complete opposite.

In the NT, Jesus existed as the Word and was the Creator of the world before the wold began. See John 1.

In the NT, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost as found in Matthew 1.18.

The church writers and non-canonised writers wrote that Jesus was born without sexual union.

It is just absolutely bogus to claim there is evidence that Jesus was human and then mythologised.

I challenge you to produce that evidence. If you cannot then your claim is a hoax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If Christianity was born in the diaspora, then you will need to explain how the gospel accounts got so many details of the Jerusalem social environment correct, and you will need evidence. You will need to narrow down the authorship of the earliest Christian writings, including the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Pauline epistles, and give evidence to back up your hypotheses.

How can you ask for evidence of a myth, for a creature that did not exist? That is totally absurd.

You, on the other hand, must have evidence for an historical figure, but you cannot answer one single question that you have asked.

Quote:

When you make a claim of fact that isn't common knowledge, then it is expected that you give evidence, such as a reference to a primary source or a secondary source. Your list of virgin births is such an example. Pereus was born from Zeus taking the form of "golden rain" when he impregnated Danae. That is knowledge found from Wikipedia. Maybe it counts for "virgin birth," or maybe not. As far as I know, a "virgin birth" was not really a point made in the original myth. I could be wrong, but you need to be the one doing your homework on this, not the rest of us, and you need to make your case with credible sources.

Well, if you read Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, you would see that Trypho referred to the virgin birth of Jesus as similar to Greek myths.

Dialogue with Trypho 67

Quote:

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Arguments about Jesus starting as a myth are very common on this forum, and people typically cite parallels to other myths, and those parallels very often don't pan out, because somebody out there either stretched the truth or made up facts whole cloth, and somebody else put it on the Internet.

But, you have come on this forum and made claim that there is evidence that Jesus was a man and was later mythologised without providing one single historical evidence for Jesus as just a man at any time.

Where did you see historical evidence for Jesus as a man then later becoming a myth?

It is not the NT.
It is not the church writings.
It is not in Philo.
It is not in Josephus.

You have no historical evidence that Jesus was a man who was later mythologised, you are simply repeating bogus and erroneous information that cannot be corroborated.

ApostateAbe · 02-14-2009, 12:08 PM

aa5874, it might be better for you to lay off the hyperbole. I know we have already discussed the evidence, several times. It is not that there is no evidence. It is that you don't accept the evidence. If a large host of educated critical scholars accepts a set of evidences, and you don't, then maybe you ought to adjust your claim.

Wrong: There is no evidence.

Right: The evidence is not strong enough for me.

aa5874 · 02-14-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

aa5874, it might be better for you to lay off the hyperbole. I know we have already discussed the evidence, several times. It is not that there is no evidence. It is that you don't accept the evidence. If a large host of educated critical scholars accepts a set of evidences, and you don't, then maybe you ought to adjust your claim.

Wrong: There is no evidence.

Right: The evidence is not strong enough for me.

Your claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus as a man then was mythologised is a hoax. You have no such historical evidence.

Just show me which book has historical evidence for Jesus and stop wasting time.

To claim other people have the historical evidence is just a big bluff.

ApostateAbe · 02-14-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

aa5874, it might be better for you to lay off the hyperbole. I know we have already discussed the evidence, several times. It is not that there is no evidence. It is that you don't accept the evidence. If a large host of educated critical scholars accepts a set of evidences, and you don't, then maybe you ought to adjust your claim.

Wrong: There is no evidence.

Right: The evidence is not strong enough for me.

Your claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus as a man then was mythologised is a hoax. You have no such historical evidence.

Just show me which book has historical evidence for Jesus and stop wasting time.

To claim other people have the historical evidence is just a big bluff.

The evidence is in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, and the Pauline epistles, the earliest sources on Jesus. I don't want to go through all the evidence with you again. Just see this thread of mine I made years ago: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=157236

Clivedurdle · 02-14-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

It undercuts xianity

From link above.

The main proponents of the Jesus myth FnG argue that the christ myth brings xianity back to its gnostic roots and strengthens xianity!

The Chinese xianity of the seventh century also reflected this gnostic tradition of a peaceful way.

I do not actually see the mythical Christ as hurting xianity at all! I see this as a matter of working out what actually happened if it is possible.

Xianity will possibly become a far more humane and honest religion than it is without this fetishism about creeds!

ApostateAbe · 02-14-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

It undercuts xianity

From link above.

The main proponents of the Jesus myth FnG argue that the christ myth brings xianity back to its gnostic roots and strengthens xianity!

The Chinese xianity of the seventh century also reflected this gnostic tradition of a peaceful way.

I do not actually see the mythical Christ as hurting xianity at all! I see this as a matter of working out what actually happened if it is possible.

Xianity will possibly become a far more humane and honest religion than it is without this fetishism about creeds!

I am glad you told me that. Which proponents are those? My experience has been that the greatest proponents of the Jesus-myth theory are those who wish to ridicule it to the maximum extreme, so to defeat popular acceptance of the religion. I thought of mountainman on this forum (Christian and Jesus-myther) as sort of an exception.

aa5874 · 02-14-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The evidence is in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, and the Pauline epistles, the earliest sources on Jesus. I don't want to go through all the evidence with you again. Just see this thread of mine I made years ago: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=157236

But, you know that is not true at all. Jesus was conceived without sexual union and existed before the world was created, as written in the gospels.

The written information in the NT, the gospel called Matthew, Luke and John show that Jesus was some kind of supernatural creature from conception. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 2.35 and John 1.

And that thread you started "Jesus existed, evidenced by his false prophecy" is completely flawed.

You assumed Jesus made a prophecy without first proving that Jesus did actually exist or that he actually made the prophecy.

And further, you cannot show that it was not the author of the Jesus story who fabricated the prophecy or you cannot show that it was not the author who was apocalyptic and thought the world would come to end very soon.

All you have are assumptions upon assumptions with imagination.

Your assumption was not based on any historical evidence at all. Your claim that there is historical evidence for Jesus as a man who later became a myth is a hoax.

Transient · 02-14-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

It undercuts xianity

From link above.

The main proponents of the Jesus myth FnG argue that the christ myth brings xianity back to its gnostic roots and strengthens xianity!

The Chinese xianity of the seventh century also reflected this gnostic tradition of a peaceful way.

I do not actually see the mythical Christ as hurting xianity at all! I see this as a matter of working out what actually happened if it is possible.

Xianity will possibly become a far more humane and honest religion than it is without this fetishism about creeds!

You don't see how a mythical Jesus would hurt christianity?
Really?
Blimey mate - you ever met any real christians?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2009, 10:29 AM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I would love to explore further the alleged distinctions between Greek and Judaic thinking, especially since Palestine was a Greek colony from the time of Alexander the Great. This alleged Jewish thinking might be a reaction to Greek thinking - a co-evolutionary arms race between the true gods and this local tribal god of a grotty hill village that is allegedly the centre of the universe. (That Alexander did not bother to visit!) So we should not be asking what is Jewish, what is Greek, but looking for interactions, synthesis, reactions, ecologies, mixing. Is anything really originally from a small set of non pork eating tribes with such huge delusions of grandeur that they successively invent mythologies about themselves that their god is the creator of the universe, the first human is Jewish, one of their founders is the predecessor of all humans, one of their founders is from Ur, another was senior under the Pharoahs, another had such a huge empire (that no one else has ever heard of) and the Queen of Sheba came to see him. These myths from this pre Hollywood fantasy factory get so big that they invent - before Buck Rogers - a saviour of the universe, that holds sway over this fascinating species of bipedal talking primates for two thousand odd sol years! And what do we find in this new testament? Virgin births, logos, treating others as yourself, 153....now where did I see those ideas? Its all Greek to me!

02-14-2009, 12:08 PM	#14
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	aa5874, it might be better for you to lay off the hyperbole. I know we have already discussed the evidence, several times. It is not that there is no evidence. It is that you don't accept the evidence. If a large host of educated critical scholars accepts a set of evidences, and you don't, then maybe you ought to adjust your claim. Wrong: There is no evidence. Right: The evidence is not strong enough for me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.