Vorkosigan

The religion was already there, pharoah. The people they are trying to convert did not know the tale was fiction, the narrative presents itself as fact in the usual style of Hellenistic fiction. Mark-as-fiction does not imply Jesus is fiction, only the tale of his life is. Additionally, Luke clearly knows Mark is a fiction based on the OT, for he goes back to rescue details from the texts Mark drew on and uses them to embellish his own text. For example, the Gethsemane Scene of Jesus praying in the garden is based on the scene where Elijah is hiding in a cave on the run from Jezebel. Luke realized that and went back to that scene to retrieve the angel, which Mark left out, and added it to his tale. This shows that Luke was aware Mark was a fiction, and he was aware how Mark was constructed.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Who says Australians aren't poets?

spin

A sonnet to Unsung Art

Australians, like most other blokes,
They don't just favour beer and jokes:
While bangers sizzle on their grills
They'll oft indulge their lit'''ry skills.
It therefore comes as no great shock,
while pouring down a glass of hock,
They form a thought both sharp and terse
And capture it in rancid verse.

And as the world perceives them as
Plain cultureless as Bruce and Baz,
Potatoes couched before the tube
(The footy for their brains is lube),
The rest with talent quite unsung
Let pearls trip off their very tongue.


spin

RED DAVE

Having read Vorkosigan's work on Mark, I conclude that its author was like the James Joyce of his time: take multiple references and layering over each other to form a whole (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Messiah). I highly recommend his stuff:

Vorkosigan's Commentary on Mark

RED DAVE

Chris Weimer

Eh? Before you dismiss Jediism, try actually talking to some of the fanatics. To them, the force is as it is described by Lucas. Whether or not Skywalker existed may be debated, but surely some contend it could have happened. And in the days where media was not able to document its fabrication, surely something like that could have been believed over time. By your method of reasoning, Zeus really does exist and he really came down to earth in the form of a bull and impregnated girls. Or Achilles really was invincible except for the one part of his heal, for no one would believe it if it didn't happen.

pharoah

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. The way that I see it, there are two ways to succesfully start your own religion:

• Base your god(s) on the god(s) of a currently successful religion. This is what the Romans, Christians, Muslims and Mormons did. This is the way to go, in my opinion.
  
• Invent a god or gods out of thin air. This is what the Scientologists and the Hebrews to some extent did. This approach is somewhat riskier than the above approach but it has the advantage of not inheriting existing baggage.

These two approaches have been verified by history to work over and over again. So to me, the very worst thing that you can do as a religion entrepreneur is to try to base your religion on a character in a fictional construct that's known to be a fictional construct by the people of your era. You have a huge credibility problem that I would assert is impossible to overcome. Now if Mark was written as fiction and this was known to the readers of his day, then I stand by my earlier assertion that no NT authors would have tried to formulate a religion based upon a Jesus known to be fictitious to the people of that era. However, if Mark was written as fiction but presented as fact then it falls into the category of basing your god on an existing god.

Let me guess, the dieties in Jediism are Darth Vader (The Father), Luke Skywalker (The Son) and the Force (The Holy Ghost).

Killer Mike

Christian Mythology is like taking stories about Superman and believing them as real. What about all those "eyewitnesses" who have seen Superman do all those amazing things in Superman stories :Cheeky: :rolling:

Chris Weimer

Eh, not quite. For example, the Romans often deified people after the death (such as Julius Caesar or Antinous). Furthermore, if certain people saw the work as fiction, but others as literal history, there wouldn't be any conflict. Like Matthew, he constructed the massacre of the infants based off of Moses, but not what might have actually happened to Jesus. He knew it was fiction, but later others didn't realize it as such.

pharoah

This is no different than what the Roman Catholics do now. However, the common thread is that this was (is) done within the framework of an already established religion. In effect, another god joined the pantheon.

You'll get no argument from me except for a minor quibble about Matthew. It's impossible to say now whether he fabricated the story whole cloth or whether he may have been associated with some early Gentile sect that superimposed pagan myths on top of Xianity.

Chris Weimer

But in that case, Jesus joined the already existing Jewish religion.

I don't see how a Jesus-Moses connection is either Gentilic or pagan?