Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 12:57 AM

I have to admit I still don't get why atheists are so fixated on demonstrating that Christianity is based on myth or that the story of Jesus involves 'myths' or is a 'myth.' I guess I don't get what is supposed to be proved by this - i.e. that this somehow proves that Jesus wasn't historical.

I have always been interested in Marcion and at the heart of the tradition associated with him is the idea that Jesus was a divine being who floated down to earth or something. Nevertheless the gospel narrative is rooted in history or at least a historical date for this floating down - even in the Marcionite narrative. One can have God introduced into a historical narrative. What's the 'mythicism' thing all about then?

I have been thinking about this for a while now. The original Christian myth (I acknowledge there is one) is no different than the Jewish myth of galut (= exile). In this formula God is introduced as the supernatural force which 'caused' the temple to be destroyed and the Jews to go into exile. There was a date for the destruction of the temple. In other words, it was historical but the traditional Jewish account of the galut is wholly fictional. Isn't that a close parallel for the gospel narrative?

Quote:

The myth of exile began to be slowly appropriated and integrated into Jewish tradition. It was in the Babylonian Talmud, however, that the first statements appear linking the exile with the fall of the Second Temple. A Jewish community had existed in Babylonia continuously since the sixth century BCE, and not even during the powerful Hasmonean kingdom did it ever seek to “return” to Zion. Perhaps, following the destruction of the Second Temple, this gave rise to the narrative linking the fall with renewed exile as an echo of an ancient event, a catastrophe that provided a religious rationale for “weeping by the rivers" - the rivers that flowed not very far from Jerusalem.

With the triumph of Christianity in the early fourth century CE, when it became the religion of the empire, Jewish believers in other parts of the world also began to adopt the notion of exile as divine punishment.
The connection between uprooting and sin, destruction and exile, became embedded in the various definitions of the Jewish presence around the world.

The Invention of the Jewish People (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Shlomo Sand p. 134 http://books.google.com/books?id=pgs...ion%22&f=false

Aside from the author being a complete idiot (while he claims there is no precedent for the myth of galut the idea here is clearly rooted in the Samaritan understanding of periods of divine favor and turning away a central concept in the religion also found in the Book of Isaiah) the point is important to recognize - a historical event (= the destruction of the temple) becomes the center of a massive myth (= galut) at the heart of Jewish life until the end of the Second World War. Yet the presence of such 'myths' can't in themselves be argued to 'prove' that what they explain never existed (= the destruction of the temple, Jesus etc).

What am I missing?

tanya · 12-02-2011, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have to admit I still don't get why atheists are so fixated on demonstrating that Christianity is based on myth or that the story of Jesus involves 'myths' or is a 'myth.' I guess I don't get what is supposed to be proved by this - i.e. that this somehow proves that Jesus wasn't historical.

....
Yet the presence of such 'myths' can't in themselves be argued to 'prove' that what they explain never existed (= the destruction of the temple, Jesus etc).

Where's J-D when we need him?

To my clumsy way of thinking, Stephan, your logic here is faulty. Are you not concluding as factual, something which you set forth, at the outset of your post, as hypothetical: "...this somehow proves..."?

What if, for example, one changes from Jewish myth and Jesus myth, to Hercules, the Greek equivalent to Jesus--father a god, mother a human?

Am I permitted to argue that Heracles, son of Zeus, and a mortal female, (do we really care who she was? she was just the uterus, right?) Alcmene, was a mythical construct, a literary invention? Nevertheless, huge temples were constructed in honor of Heracles. Huge temples means lots of money and labor.

Were wars fought in the name of Heracles? I don't know. Were people slaughtered in his honor? I don't know. Were entire nations conscripted to serve in homage to this mythical creature of invention? I don't know.

I am going to argue that Hercules NEVER existed. His life represented a myth. Those who portrayed him as a valiant warrior, a messiah if you will, did so for reasons of greed and self-aggrandizement, not because Hercules was really a messiah. Hercules NEVER existed. He represents a figment of imagination. I do not require more information about his life, than the fact that his father was a deity, to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that he never existed. Ditto for Jesus. There was no historical Jesus, just as there was no historical Heracles.

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 01:16 PM

The problem is the need for certainty. Religious people need to be 'certain' (through faith) that the Bible is true, that Jesus saves etc. We shouldn't seek the same certainty that Jesus didn't exist through silly arguments developed from the idea that because the Biblical narratives involve 'myths' and exaggerations, it 'must' be utterly devoid of historical facts.

To use a carnal analogy people rarely marry the person they ended up having the best sex with in their lives. There are different criteria for those seeking a partner in marriage as opposed to those cruising in a bar for a one night stand even though the same things can be going on simultaneously in the same establishment.

Toto · 12-02-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The problem is the need for certainty. Religious people need to be 'certain' (through faith) that the Bible is true, that Jesus saves etc. We shouldn't seek the same certainty that Jesus didn't exist through silly arguments developed from the idea that because the Biblical narratives involve 'myths' and exaggerations, it 'must' be utterly devoid of historical facts.

No one is making that argument. I don't know any one on this board who feels that the existence of Jesus is a matter on which one can be certain, or that the fact that the Bible is mostly myth means that Jesus never existed. (except maybe a few people that most have on ignore.) The case for mythicism starts with recognizing the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus, but goes on from there to posit that a spiritual Jesus is the best explanation for what evidence there is.

Quote:

To use a carnal analogy people rarely marry the person they ended up having the best sex with in their lives. There are different criteria for those seeking a partner in marriage as opposed to those cruising in a bar for a one night stand even though the same things can be going on simultaneously in the same establishment.

I'm not sure how this analogy is supposed to work. Are you picking up the historical Jesus in a bar, or proposing marriage?

Juststeve · 12-02-2011, 01:40 PM

Stephen:

There is much in what you say. In both cases he have historical events, the life of Jesus on one hand, the fall and exile on the other, and resulting religious myths which seek to explain what happened. In the case of Jesus it is not hard to understand that his followers and their followers would seek to make something out of his crucifixion and death. They expected much, got only failure and then rationalized how it wasn't failure after all.

Steve

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 01:46 PM

The analogy was simply to demonstrate that two sets of men and women talking with different motives and agendas. Probably a poor analogy although I have a funny story about being in a strip club in Niagara Falls which I won't share.

The point is just that I don't think Jesus was a real person. Just look what Celsus says here about Christians in his day. Discussing the Christian belief in the resurrection as a need to 'see and know God'(!) Origen won't quote Celsus directly here but tells us what Celsus says about Christians of the mid-second century as follows:

Quote:

Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us, assuring us that we would there see the gods in human form, appearing to us with all distinctness, and without illusion. For we know that these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims, and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call temples of the gods, but which we know are only the dwellings of deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in regard to these gods which, according to him, are in human form, they do not show themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has deceived men, but they are ever open to intercourse with those who desire it. From this remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ to His disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But how is it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and show other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one place, like these so-called gods in human form, but making its divine power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?

You what I think about this. But do we need to stoop to their level of barbarism to disprove them? Being a non-believer used to carry with it a sense that we who refused to partake in 'group thought' were intellectually superior. Now we are becoming the majority and you know what Nietzsche said - 'where the herd gathers there also gathers a stink.'

For the life of me I can't remember where this comes from. Maybe I am making this quote up? Any Nietzsche scholars here?

Doug Shaver · 12-02-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

We shouldn't seek the same certainty that Jesus didn't exist

I don't seek that kind of certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

through silly arguments developed from the idea that because the Biblical narratives involve 'myths' and exaggerations, it 'must' be utterly devoid of historical facts.

And I don't use those arguments, with or without the square quotes.

Doug Shaver · 12-02-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

In the case of Jesus it is not hard to understand that his followers and their followers would seek to make something out of his crucifixion and death.

I agree. If we presuppose Jesus' existence, then it is not at all hard to understand that his followers would have reacted that way.

stephan huller · 12-03-2011, 12:35 AM

Doug

My wife and I were talking about Christmas and when I was making her aware of my views she thought I sounded like a mythicist. I don't know why I hate being lumped together with these people. It's pathological I guess.

Doug Shaver · 12-04-2011, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Doug

My wife and I were talking about Christmas and when I was making her aware of my views she thought I sounded like a mythicist. I don't know why I hate being lumped together with these people. It's pathological I guess.

It doesn't sound pathological to me. I think it's entirely reasonable to dislike being categorized with people one disagrees with.

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

12-02-2011, 01:16 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The problem is the need for certainty. Religious people need to be 'certain' (through faith) that the Bible is true, that Jesus saves etc. We shouldn't seek the same certainty that Jesus didn't exist through silly arguments developed from the idea that because the Biblical narratives involve 'myths' and exaggerations, it 'must' be utterly devoid of historical facts. To use a carnal analogy people rarely marry the person they ended up having the best sex with in their lives. There are different criteria for those seeking a partner in marriage as opposed to those cruising in a bar for a one night stand even though the same things can be going on simultaneously in the same establishment.

12-02-2011, 01:40 PM	#5
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Stephen: There is much in what you say. In both cases he have historical events, the life of Jesus on one hand, the fall and exile on the other, and resulting religious myths which seek to explain what happened. In the case of Jesus it is not hard to understand that his followers and their followers would seek to make something out of his crucifixion and death. They expected much, got only failure and then rationalized how it wasn't failure after all. Steve

12-03-2011, 12:35 AM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Doug My wife and I were talking about Christmas and when I was making her aware of my views she thought I sounded like a mythicist. I don't know why I hate being lumped together with these people. It's pathological I guess.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.