dog-on

I suppose you could. However, if it was found that very similar sentiments had been expressed previously by other legendary figures/societies, how would that effect the assumption of origination?

Which idea can be shown to have originated solely in Christianity?

Once you give me that, then I suppose you could begin to trace this idea to its originator.

This originator could then be identified as, for all intensive purposes, HJ.

robto

One thing I find analogous between creationists and MJers is that they both fail to provide an adequate alternative theory that explains the evidence we have. If Jesus is a myth, who began that myth, when, and why? Why did it arise at that particular time and in that particular place?

HJers have answers to all these: Xty began with Jesus's followers, it accreted themes and practices from Jewish and Greek religion, but it all began with an actual person.

MJers never seem to get around to answering this question. Did it all begin with Paul? But then, why does Paul seem to think it existed before him? If it began before Paul, then what group started it, what was their situation and theological stance, and where is the evidence that they existed? Finally, what happened to them? How did the Jesus myth get replaced by a historical Jesus? Where did the original JMers go? In the wide spectrum of Gnostic beliefs in the 2nd century, is there anything resembling Doherty's (for example) mythical Jesus?

Toto

But the creationists do have a theory: God created it all, including the evidence meant to confuse you. They continually claim that evolution cannot explain things because "something cannot come out of nothing."

Creationists look around them and say that the only explanation is that goddidit. Maybe there was some microevolution, but things are too complex to be explained without a creator.

Is this a real question? The answer is no, it didn't begin with Paul, although some HJ theories put Paul at the origin of the church.

So you're just looking for a different creator of the religion, but you require a creator. If God didn't create the life you see around you, there must have been another supernatural force, maybe Beelzebub?

Religions evolve. Mythicism does not require a creator or a Great Man to start things. And, yes, in the wide spectrum of Gnostic beliefs in the second century, there are spiritual saviors who resemble Doherty's mythicial Jesus, enough so that one can hypothesize a link. (Oh, you say, there's a "missing link?" Who else says that?)

And we know where the HJ theories came from: the orthodox church in the second century needed a founder figure to establish their authority.

aa5874

MJers have no questions to answer, they have accepted the description of Jesus in the NT, no questions asked, and declared that the description matches known myths.

The HJer, Creationist and IDers have one fundamental question that they have not yet answered, 'Since the Gods of the Bible are described as myths, why do the HJers, Creationist and IDers claim these Gods existed?

Amaleq13

Based on Paul's letters, Cephas was the first to have the risen Christ appear to him so he would presumably be the starting point. I think "before Paul converted" and "Because he had a vision" would be the answers to your other questions.

It is my understanding that messianic expectations were high in general. Our boy, Cephas, was presumably of a mystical mindset and had a vision subsequent to prolonged study of Scripture. Maybe while piously fasting?

How does any of this explain "that particular time and in that particular place"?

aa5874

If the god-man, Jesus Christ, had a brother, then that by itelf is an extraordinary claim. This is consistent with mythology.

Chris Weimer

No.

robto

Wow, people really jump on you here when you question the orthodoxy.... kinda like they do over at those fundamentalist websites...



Good, well, that's at least a starting point, which is more than I got from Doherty or Wells.
Sure, but "messianic expectations" are hardly enough to explain all the aspects of the myth. First off, Why the name "Jesus"? Why not simply Messiah/Christ? Next, what messianic expectations are we talking about? A Danielic/Enochic Son of Man? A priestly or kingly messiah a la the Dead Sea Scrolls? Which elements of the myth are explained by such a hypothesis? How does crucifixion become part of the myth? (There is no precedent in Jewish religion for a crucified Messiah.)

Well, Jesus lived in a particular time and place. If Jesus was the originator of the group that became Christians, that's enough to set the time and place. He was charismatic and attracted followers. That's enough to explain the origin of the movement. If Jesus was actually crucified, that's enough to explain why there was a story about him being crucified.

IMO, that's all much simpler, in an Occam's-razor kind of way, than the weird amalgam of Jewish and Greek myth, for which there is no precedent in Jewish writings and no evidence of in 2nd-century Christianity, that Doherty proposes.

robto

Toto, So you're saying an analogy can be made between the HJ position and creationism, too. Fine - I'll let others decide for themselves which analogy they find more convincing.

Which saviors? Let's have specifics, then we can debate them. Doherty, AFAIR, doesn't specify such links.

If the myth was good enough to start the religion, why wasn't it enough to establish their authority? In what way was a founder figure helpful? What aspects of the gospels and other Christian writings are explained by hypothesizing a need to invent a founder figure?

By the second century, Christians were widespread (see Pliny's remarks). How did these leaders convince large numbers of people to abandon their myth-Jesus and accept a HJ?

I don't expect you to answer these questions. I'm just pointing out that MJers in general haven't provided answers, AFAIK. And until they do, the MJ hypothesis is much weaker than the HJ.

Amaleq13

It wasn't offered to explain "all the aspects of the myth" because that wasn't the question you asked. It was offered in response to your somewhat more specific question about why then and there.

The literal meaning of the name (ie God's salvation) has been offered as a possible explanation. So has the obvious connection to "Joshua" in Scripture.

That there were several such reconceptions arising is the point. It seems pretty clear that Jews of the time were trying to understand why the Messiah they had been expecting was not appearing and reconceptions of the traditional expectations were the result.

Obviously, the unique nature of the proposed Messiah. I think one needs this even for the HJ perspective since a crucified, dead, and resurrected Messiah was a rather novel conception.

If one believed that the Messiah was supposed to suffer for the sins of mankind, one might choose the most horrible death to accomplish that goal. If one believed the Messiah had been born and died as a pious individual whose true identity did not become known until a recent divine revelation, one might suspect he was one of the hundreds of Jewish holy men who had been crucified in the preceding two centuries.