J-D

That's an interesting question. According to the Wikipedia article, there was one theory that the stories about Zeus originally grew out of stories about a real human ruler of Crete who was mythologised after his death.

I don't know whether this theory is true. If I were coerced into making a bet, I would bet that this theory is not true, but I'm not sure that I could justify that choice. Until I can find some reason to choose, I suppose I must accept that there is more than one possibility here, and that the theory of an original human Zeus is one of those possibilities.

J-D

That is not an answer to the question Toto asked you.

J-D

It is not true that the entire NT is based on the son of a ghost.

J-D

The simple answer is this: it cannot be that there was a Jesus who conformed in every detail to the account given in the Christian Scriptures, but it can be that there was a Jesus who conformed in some respects but not others to the account given in the Christian Scriptures.

Mind you, it's a bit of a cheek you complaining about your questions going unanswered, when you're outscoring everybody else on this thread in the 'not giving answers to questions' tally by about two to one.

aa5874

Let me try to explain, simply, I do not accept that a Jesus was born.

I have read about the virgin birth and events surrounding the birth in Matthew ch 1-2 and Luke ch 1-3 and cannot accept them as true. I do not even know if there were actual persons named Mary or Joseph.

The NT, itself, cannot account for Jesus. Firstly, both authors claimed Mary had a child with no human father. Then the authors of the NT tried to assemble 2 genealogies for his supposed father, they could not even determine the father of Joseph. The authors then tried to show where Jesus lived as a child, one said Nazareth and the other said Egypt.

Now, I regard these explanations as total fiction, no Jesus was born as described. He, therefore could not be in Gallilee, or crucified or buried, hence the empty tomb.

J-D

Would you really? Are you being totally honest?

This is a serious question. It is an undeniable fact that there are people who believe this. Apparently, you are unable to imagine why they believe this.

Is your motive in posing this question a desire to fill this gap in your knowledge? Or is your motive a polemical or critical one, a desire to have a position stated so that you can attempt to discredit it?

I can suggest to you a possible reason why people might take this position. You might think, when you hear it, that it is a bad reason. But people do sometimes do things, or think things, for bad reasons. No matter how bad you think people's reasons are for believing the things they believe, that doesn't change the fact that they are their reasons for believing.

But before I suggest a possible reason why people might hold this position, can I ask you something? Do you really have no idea why people might hold this position? Can you not even hazard a wild guess?

J-D

There are a variety of reasons why people make statements which are not true. Sometimes it is out of an intent to deceive; sometimes it is out of honest error; sometimes it is for entertainment value. There may be other reasons, too.None of it, obviously.

If I told you that the Athenians defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon thanks to the aid of the spirit of the Athenian hero Theseus, which part of the story is true?

J-D

Jesus is obviously incredibly famous now. I don't think he was famous in the first century. If somebody describes Jesus as the most famous Jew of antiquity, it's a description with more than one possible interpretation. It could be interpreted as meaning 'the Jew who was most famous in antiquity' (in which case the description would be inaccurate) or it could be interpreted as meaning 'the Jew of antiquity who is most famous now' (and I think, in fairness, that is how it should be interpreted).

I don't know of any Jew of antiquity who is more famous now than Jesus. Do you?

J-D

How so? I don't follow you there. I don't see how the information reinforces your position at all.

J-D

Given that we know that Pheidippides cannot have met with or talked with Pan, is that enough information for us to figure out whether Pheidippides was or was not a real person? Or do we need more information before we can figure out whether Pheidippides was or was not a real person? Why or why not?