Toto

Mr. outhouse: you are new here (relatively). Please stop recycling bad arguments that have been beaten down in the past. The Jesus Myth theory does not depend on applying different standards to presumed historical figures.

.

outhouse

well then, lets cut through the meat and get to the bone


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,[4] some scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence.[5]

Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.


According to Cambridge theologian Graham Stanton, the scholarly mainstream rejects the myth thesis,[41] and, in 1934, Quaker biblical scholar Herbert George Wood identified serious methodological deficiencies in the approach

Toto

Proof by wikipedia? You haven't scratched the surface, much less gotten to the bone.

footnote 4 goes to Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, 1944. A very strange source - outdated, and contains an egregious error based on a lack of knowledge of the Greek word ektrwma.

It's true - at the present, most contemporary scholars believe that. But the basis for their beliefs is subject to challenge.

You left out the last footnote: "^{[42][Need quotation to verify]} "

Wood, Herbert George (1934). Christianity and the Nature of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xxxiii & 54. ISBN 9781001439921.

The mythicist theories of 1934 were probably deficient, but then so were the theories of the historical Jesus. There have been some advances in historiography since then.

Seriously - do you know how many people have come here and preached that mainstream scholars reject mythcism and have not been able to score a point?

Vorkosigan

Heh. In reality, this is of course disputed and there are many theories about which of the 00s of floods or flood possibilities is THE flood.

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

What was the lack of knowledge you refer to out of curiousity? The fact that as the "w" sound (represented at one time by the greek letter wau) died out in early greek, and therefore even by the time of Attic geek (let alone koine) no greek word would be transliterated ektrwma?

outhouse

Sorry bud, its pretty much set in stone.

you wont find a decent scholar argue against it either.


it was the worst regional flood since the ice age in the whole area dealing with people who migrated to Israel, and originates exactly where noahs story is said to. This was a devistating flood and loss of life was extreme due to the early civilizations that set up next to the river and had no idea what a 5000 year flood could do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_flood



Origins of the Genesis Ark story

The story of Noah's Ark in Genesis is considered by modern scholars to be directly dependent upon the Babylonian version,[35] which it parallels point by point, in the correct order, from beginning to end.[36] It is a composite text,[37] with some parts belonging to the Jahwist source and some to the Priestly source.[38] The Jahwist version has modified the Babylonian text to make it conform to a monotheistic theology

outhouse

Ah but its on you to prove he was a mythical charactor, and so far everyone who has tried lacks education on the subject and has failed.

Price has given the best rebuttle and his arguement is so weak I busted it.

Doherty isnt even a scholar is he??


No matter how you slice it, there is more evidence for a HJ then romans creating a myth from nothing.

Mythers cannot agree on how the legend started and have not even built a decent replacement hypothesis that makes sense, they have created a straw house with a wolf outside called scholarship's


The fact roman's hellenistic influence on the story create's myth all on its own, does not discredit the core.

PhilosopherJay

Hi steve_bnk,

While there are Western motifs in "Star Wars," more directly, it came from George Lucas' desire to remake "Space Soldiers," the first 1934 Flash Gordon serial.
Perhaps the largest historical event that influenced Space Soldiers was the Boxer Rebellion, when the Chinese rose up in 1898 and tried to throw out the imperialist western powers that had established spheres of influence in their country. The imperialist powers portrayed this as "The Yellow Peril" forecasting that if the fanatical Boxers won in China, they would invade and enslave America and Europe. This was simply attributing to the Boxers what the Western Powers of the United States and Europe had already done to China.
In any case, the leading villain in Space Soldiers, Ming the Merciless, was based on the evil Fu Manchu character which developed out of Yellow Peril propaganda and first appeared in a serial The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu in 1912, by Sax Rohmer, published by William Randolph Hearst in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

So we can say that Star Wars is based on a fiction (Space Soldiers) which is based partly on a fiction (Fu Manchu) which is based on historical prediction/propaganda/fantasy projection (Yellow Peril Propaganda), which is based on an historical event (The Boxer Rebellion)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

Outhouse, it's well known that the flood stories in the Bible are dependent on earlier traditions. What can't be shown with any surety is which of the many floods in the middle east drove the development of the general flood legend there. Large floods are common, and some scholars argue that it was the flooding of the Black Sea that sparked the development of the myth. Even within Mesopotamia archaeology there is disagreement. You cite Woolley and Mallowan from the 1920s and 30s. By the 1960s Mallowan was rethinking the whole thing (see his 1964 paper on it).

It would be nice if things fell into nice neat holes but it doesn't work that way in real life.

Vorkosigan

steve_bnk

There is no evidence for an HJ, no coorborating contemporary accounts or Roman records. To me it makes more sense that there was an historical charater on which the tale began, but that is an opnion.

Buddhists have the same problem, no historical coorboration. When I raised the question on the eastern forum some time ago there was some suprise when some looked for validation and there was none. They had assumned it was there.

There is no way to know how much of what became Buddhist theology can be attributed to a single source. As with a possible HJ in the numerous wandering Jewish mystics, in India there would have been no lack of wandering mystics which could have been the base of the story.

Thwe gospels plus acts take the form of a modified Greek action/adventure tale of the times. The gospels were promotiional not theological, written as a script to talk to when adressing potential converts.