godfry n. glad

Similar "eruptions" of mythos? Do they need be salvific myths?

How about the Buddha stories?

What about the tales associated with Lao Tsu?

Did anybody think of Krishna?

And, then, there's the Mithraic mysteries...almost contemporaneous with the rise of Christianity...a predecessor, which, if the latest theory by Ulansey is anywhere near accurate, preceded Christianity by about 250 years in near the same area.

Then, there's Zarathustra (Zoroaster).

And, what about the reoccuring Mahdi mythos?

Even Confucius has come under deconstruction as a possible mythic construct.

godfry n. glad

NOGO

Yes some still believe that because it is a fact.
Most people in 1492 believe the earth to be flat.
The ones that believed the earth was a ball also believed that there could not be anybody on the other side because they would have to walk around upside down.

Copernicus was accused of "sending the earth off into space".
So flat or no flat the earth was not in "space".

The word Mediterranean means the middle of the earth. It was thought that the sea by that name was in the centre of the world.
All maps were drawn with that in mind showing Jerusalem as the ansolute centre. All maps in the middle ages were drawn from a flat earth perspective.

Of course the idea that the earth was a sphere was known from ancient Greeks. Among literate people in Europe the possibility of a spherical earth was therefore known. But what proof did anyone have?

Columbus was seeking another route to the orient. It was a business adventure. But most people at the time did not believe this to be possible and for the rest is was only a theoretical possibility.

NOGO

Most people would disagree.

What I don't understand is the word "Therefore" above.
It makes it sound like a conclusion.
Conclusion to what?

Mark wrote during or right after the rebellion of 66-70 AD.

Mark 13:19
"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.

"until now"

When is this "now" which Mark speaks of?

1) the time Jesus spoke ?
2) the time Mark wrote ?
3) the time of the event which is refered to?

I give you two guesses.

chapka

Anyone who had ever been on a boat knew the earth was round. That's why there is a horizon. In my understanding, Columbus' dispute was about circumference, not shape. Columbus thought that the world was small enough that the Orient would be about where North America is.

Do you have any evidence for the Columbus vs. the flat earthers story that predates Washington Irving? All the historians I've read have pretty much agreed that Irving made the thing up out of whole cloth.

NOGO

First Christianity does not stand or fall on the HJ issue.

I am no longer a Christian not because Jesus did not exist but because I refute what Christianity teaches.

1. That the death of one man saved us all
2. that God needed a human sacrifice to forgive us
3. that humans did anything to required salvation.
4. the concept of sin
(David killed a man and declared - "I have sinned against the Lord."
I call it a crime against the community and not a sin against the Lord.)
5. The concept that one must believe in order to be saved.
etc
etc


Second the myth makers were not out to fool people.
These stories were written in good faith
if there was any deceit it was done in the fourth century by people who were not only believers but were also interested in power. Some evidence was then destroyed other may have been altered.

My personal opinion is that we are dealing with two stories which were merged together. Thus the HJ and the MJ were confused and merged into one faith.

The real answer is that the evidence left behind is insufficient and that is why were are still talking about.

One must also add that the day people stop believing in Christianity will also be the day when the issue of the HJ vs the MJ will also die.

rlogan

yes, the spin-meister correctly points out I wuz Spoofin'.

In great anticipation I await the nefarious Vinnie's positng on the dating of Mark.

I am curious to see if he puts the Didache in there. I don't see how any reference outside the dubious texts themselves gets us earlier than about 124 from the Apology of Aristides. That is, I don't see how we can confirm a written gospel until then:

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

Another Peter Kirby website attraction

Attonitus

Of course, serious no, rlogan simply exemplified about my spouting opinion, a clever guy this rlogan

Attonitus

Or maybe HJ does not stand or fall on the Xianity?. Unfortunately HJ was only Jewish and he never know to anybody Xian

spin

Perhaps you may be interested in the dating information provided by the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

As to the date and occasion of the "Apology" there are opinion of opinion. While some critics hold, with Eusebius, that it was presented to Hadrian, others maintain that it was written during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).

Are you assuming that "gospel" implies written source? It is merely an old English translation by parts of the Greek eu-aggelion, good message, good news. Does that imply written source or oral tradition?


spin

Peter Kirby

We have had a detailed and extensive discussion of the Aristides passage here already. I will look it up when search is working.

best,
Peter Kirby