Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-11-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You may have me mixed up with someone else. For as long as I remember, it is the first time I have brought up this argument.

Quite a few people have brought up this bogus argument, and it is always refuted and debunked. I assumed you had been around long enough to have seen that.

Well, I have certainly seen the issue debated. I have not seen it conclusively debunked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hercules as a myth? Zeus as a myth? What's the difference between that and Jesus as a myth?

There are several important differences. We can actually trace the evolution of the Hercules myth. I am looking at a Wikipedia page on Hercules. He is a Roman hero who came from the Greek hero Heracles, and knowledge of his origins have faded into the sands of time. Not Jesus. His myth originated in a very specific time and place.

Another difference is that the associates of Jesus are attested to in writing (the apostle Paul with Peter and James). Not so for Hercules and Zeus.

But I think the biggest difference is that the character of Jesus fits a common role of the time and place, and details of his life fit an expected pattern. Hercules and Zeus, not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The physical side is not very clear. We don't know when Paul's Jesus was born or died, where he lived or preached. We don't know his mother's name. "Seed of David" and "born of a woman" are formulaic (and might well be interpolations - but even if they aren't, give us no real information.)

And Paul's source of information about Jesus is either revelation or reading the Scriptures.

OK, so do you think Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual being, a human being, or part spirit and part human? Do you think Paul was an HJ? I ask because I thought you might have been claiming that Paul thought of Jesus as entirely spiritual (ergo Jesus was myth), and I was attempting to counter that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

There have been many living men who have been turned into gods. I can't think of any man-myths who turned into god-myths.

There are many examples of mythic personages who have been historicized. William Tell never existed. The Jesus Project has been discussing Ned Ludd, a similar historicized "person." And there are people who are convinced that Sherlock Holmes was real, and spend their time harmoninzing the various works about him.

Of course, when you go back more than a few centuries, you often do not know if a minor figure in history was real or legendary. For most of these figures, historians are willing to live with the uncertainty.

Yes, and there is also Robin Hood and King Arthur. So, yes, there are plenty of mythical people who have been historicized. Doesn't really help, because there are many more historical people who have been mythicized. Again, I can't think of any man-myths who turned into god-myths. Not that such a thing is essential. But, what MJ needs is more and better analogies to attested history.

Toto · 03-11-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quite a few people have brought up this bogus argument, and it is always refuted and debunked. I assumed you had been around long enough to have seen that.

Well, I have certainly seen the issue debated. I have not seen it conclusively debunked.

What do you think the problems are? Are you not impressed with coins, monuments, contemporary evidence from opponents? Or the fact that Caesar and Alexander explain the history of the time, while Jesus seems strangely out of place?

Quote:

There are several important differences. We can actually trace the evolution of the Hercules myth. I am looking at a Wikipedia page on Hercules. He is a Roman hero who came from the Greek hero Heracles, and knowledge of his origins have faded into the sands of time.

You can trace the evolution, but knowledge of his origins have faded into the sands of time? This sounds like Jesus. We have the gospels as the beginning, and we can trace the evolution of the myth through various non-canonical gospels into popular culture. But we have no contemporary evidence.

Quote:

Not Jesus. His myth originated in a very specific time and place.

NT scholars continue to debate the exact time and place of the documents that attest to him. What was that specific time and place? You could save them a lot of effort.

Quote:

Another difference is that the associates of Jesus are attested to in writing (the apostle Paul with Peter and James). Not so for Hercules and Zeus.

Correction: other poeple attest that associates of Jesus met Paul. Paul never checks with them, and they don't write about Jesus.

Quote:

But I think the biggest difference is that the character of Jesus fits a common role of the time and place, and details of his life fit an expected pattern. Hercules and Zeus, not so much.

So every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the first century of the Roman Empire was walking on water, clensing the Temple, and rising from the dead? :huh:

Quote:

OK, so do you think Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual being, a human being, or part spirit and part human? Do you think Paul was an HJ? I ask because I thought you might have been claiming that Paul thought of Jesus as entirely spiritual (ergo Jesus was myth), and I was attempting to counter that point.

I am pretty sure that whoever wrote Paul's letters did not think that Jesus existed on earth in the recent past. Nothing that you wrote counters that, or even counters the idea that Paul thought Jesus was a spiritual figure.

Quote:

There are many examples of mythic personages who have been historicized. William Tell never existed. The Jesus Project has been discussing Ned Ludd, a similar historicized "person." And there are people who are convinced that Sherlock Holmes was real, and spend their time harmoninzing the various works about him.

Of course, when you go back more than a few centuries, you often do not know if a minor figure in history was real or legendary. For most of these figures, historians are willing to live with the uncertainty.

Yes, and there is also Robin Hood and King Arthur. So, yes, there are plenty of mythical people who have been historicized. Doesn't really help, because there are many more historical people who have been mythicized. Again, I can't think of any man-myths who turned into god-myths. Not that such a thing is essential. But, what MJ needs is more and better analogies to attested history.

Those will be forthcoming.

aa5874 · 03-11-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

I tend then to agree with mountianman's idea of the two being seperate but later associated. This seems to solve the dilemma of "how the proclaimer became the proclaimed".

Why did you assume that there was a "proclaimer"?

You MUST first show that there was a proclaimer using historical evidence or information.

If you examine what the authors of the NT and church writers proclaimed about Jesus, it should be obvious that, without any credible historical evidence to contradict, the creature proclaimed was a some kind of myth without history.

And there is no Jewish tradition for Gods to mate with humans or for Jews to worship men as Gods with the ability to forgive sins.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.