dog-on

MOD NOTE: BECAUSE OF A HARD DISK PROBLEM AND RECOVERY, THE TIME ON POSTS WAS INVALID FOR A SHORT PERIOD. THIS IS THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD; POST 2 IS THE OPENING POST


How about this one.

A preexistent deity comes to earth, becomes human and sacrifices himself to himself to save humanity from himself.


?

How did my response, precede your question?

Switch89

This is from my blog. If you want to read the article with hyperlinks, you'll have to go here:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/0...hould-not.html


1. Cite the work of Freke and Gandi. I have read "The Jesus Mysteries" and I have to say I was not impressed. When dealing with parallels between Jesus and pagan deities, oftentimes no ancient text is cited, and instead is the work of an 18th or 19th century mythologist. This is problematic because oftentimes these mythologists of old were imposing there own interpretations upon ancient myths, which means that the pagan parallels to Jesus are not as clear cut as you might think. I also agree with Skeptic Wiki's summary of "The Jesus Mysteries":

When researching the references that are supposed to back up Freke and Gandy's claims, several problems are found. In some cases, Freke and Gandy cite a claim in their main text and endnote it, but the source cited actually supports a different claim which is mentioned in the endnote but not the main text. In other cases, the source itself is misleading, sometimes because it is ambiguous, sometimes because it is unevenly reliable, and sometimes because the source is simply wrong. In still other cases, the source will even be misquoted. There are even claims which are bald assertions backed up by no sources at all, though this is disguised by surrounding them with claims for which sources are given. Often, these problems even appear in combination. The problems go beyond sourcing issues; Freke and Gandy also grossly misinterpret evidence.

2. Cite the work of Achyara S or Zeitgeist the Movie. Most of their claims are simply false. Tim Callahan has written an excellent article explaining why.

3. Cite pagan parallels to Jesus which you have not read about yourself from ancient sources. Although there are similarites between Jesus and other pagan gods, there is so much misinformation going around on the internet these days that simply need to find a translation of the ancient texts which describes these pagan gods and read about them for yourself.

4. Argue that pagan parallels to Jesus prove he did not exist. They don't. Certain themes in the lives of pagan gods may have been borrowed and pasted onto the Christian memory of Jesus, but this does not mean he didn't exist. A better argument would be that since Jesus has much in common with gods that other cults made up, it is simpler to suppose that there was no historical jesus (unless some historical evidence exists of him).

5. Argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The fact that no contemporary of Jesus wrote about him is not at all surprising. Prophets and messiahs were as common in Jesus' time as Starbucks are in our time. Jesus' ministry only lasted a few years, and he lived in Nazareth, a fairly small village. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Jesus existed but that not too many people cared about his message.

Switch89

Strange.

dog-on

Perhaps it was preexistent as well...

Keith&Co.

Really? That bit about the zombie saints spending the weekend in the cemetary, then walking through the town seems, to me, like something that many people would have cared about, commented upon, written back to headquarters for reinforcements or priests to deal with the necromancers that have shown their powers.

It does seem to me that absence of evidence is, by definition, evidence of absence. The only problem comes when people offer it as conclusive, done deal, end of the argument proof of absence.
I mean, if the zombies never walked as described in the gospel, then no mention whatsoever of the fact by any contemporary would fit nicely into our evaluation of the event. If someone wants the described miracles of the text to be classified as 'historical,' then they also need to explain why no one was impressed enough by the miracle, or the miracle worker, to write it down.
There may be perfectly rational explanations for the silence, sure.
But until they're offered, we can't really debate them.

Switch89

Well of course the supernatural Jesus is a complete myth. But I think historians are more interested in asking whether the gospel stories were based on some guy named Jesus that was crucified.

show_no_mercy

I think people should use this argument, but not in and of itself. It doesn't seem that Jesus was thought to have had a ministry until the gospels were written.

aa5874

Asking whether the gospel stories were about some guy named Jesus is not evidence of existence.

I think you are confusing evidence with questions.

You seem not to understand what myth means. When a person clainms Jesus was a myth, such a person must show that Jesus was described in a mythical way.

This is the Jesus in the NT.

1. Jesus fulfilled mis-interpreted passages erroneously thought to be predictions.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin based on the mis-interpretation of Isaiah 7.14.
3. Jesus walked on water.
4. Jesus transfigured.
5. Jesus rose from dead.
6. Jesus ascended through the clouds.

A Mythicist must use the information provided by the authors of the NT and church writers that cleary depicted Jesus as a myth, just as the mythical parts of Homer's Achilles are used to classify Achilles as a legendary fable.

One cannot ignore that Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess, so too, it cannot be ignored that Jesus of the NT was the offspring of a Holy Ghost.

The words of Origen in "De Pricipiis" cannot be ignored.

There is no question that the Jesus of Jesus believers was a God who existed before the world began.

Steven Carr

Here's another one.

Argue that Paul would walk into synagogues, tell the Jews present that their God was a recently executed criminal that they should all worship, and would then immediately be stoned to death as a blaspheming idolator.

Clearly Paul wasn't immediately stoned to death when he told Jews that they should worship a recently executed criminal because he was their God.

Roger Pearse

Well said, and a rare moment of sanity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse