GunnerJ

Most of us don't think he was raised from the dead, or that there's a god to sit at the right hand of, so where is your point exactly? Jesus wasn't "turned into" a myhtic hero, he is a mythic hero. These are patterns we see in gods and heros from myths around the world. Why should we presume your myths are special?

BTW, what the hell does Robin Hood have to do with anything? Perhaps you should look into Mithraism, Attis/Adonis worship, Orphism, or Osirus worship.

RyanS2

Robin Hood never claimed anything. Robin Hood was written... as a... piece of fiction. Orpheus, Dionysus, Osiris, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad..... were written... as real historical people... who purportedly existed.... and taught throughout areas...

By very inception, (hint, hint, save the World, cleanse all the sins of the people, teach the infallible Logos, the incarnate of God, make people come back from the dead), Jesus is a mythic hero. There's no reason to not assume, based upon the evidence of all the other names listed above who are fictional persona's, that some exception should be made in the case of Yeshua Ben Yosef. The burden of proof lies on Christians to show us that this person existed, (to which we have Josephus primarily, and three other sources which are not very helpful), four books of the New Testament that are contradictory in what they say about his life, the Epistles of Paul which look at Jesus as a mythological figure, and not a lot else.

Since the idea that someone named Yeshua Ben Yosef did exist isn't too far fetched, (a guy named Osiris could have existed), most of the arguments against Jesus is the claim that he was the Son of God, that he was resurrected, (I don't see how he was even crucified, neither in Roman or Jewish court was "blasphemy" a crime, particularly because Josephus records other "Yeshua's" who claimed the same sort of miraculous persona, yet none were put to trial or murdered), and since most of the claims are just ludicrous, (water does not turn to wine, dead people cannot be resurrected, demons do not possess pigs to run off the side of a mountain), an atheistic standpoint matters little whether or not a historical Jesus actually existed. He's as mythic as Hercules, in every form and action.

lpetrich

Metacrock, Metacrock, Metacrock, Lord Raglan's mythic-hero list was created without reference to Jesus Christ -- however, JC's Gospel biographies fit like a glove.

Divine, miraculous, or aristocratic parentage:

• Jesus Christ: Both the Christian God and the son of that deity; his stepfather Joseph is descended from King David, and his mother Mary may be.
• Moses: His parents are both from the priestly Levite tribe.
• Romulus and Remus: Their father was the god Mars; their mother Rhea Silvia was the daughter of King Numitor.
• Hercules: His father was Zeus.
• Perseus: His father was Zeus, and his mother Danae was the daughter of King Acrisius.
• Oedipus: His father was Laius ruler of Thebes.
• Krishna: Avatar of Vishnu, his father was the nobleman Vasudeva, and his mother was Devaki, sister of a king.
• Buddha: Enlightened being on his last incarnation, his father was King Suddhodhana and his mother was Maya, daughter of that king's uncle, who was a king of a neighboring kingdom.
• Mohammed: Nothing notable about his parents.
• Charles Darwin: His father's father was noted biologist Erasmus Darwin, and his parents were among England's wealthier citizens.

A wicked leader tries to kill them in their infancy:

• Jesus Christ: Suspecting that some rival king will be born, King Herod orders the killing of all the baby boys in JC's birthplace, Bethlehem; JC's parents flee to Egypt with him.
• Moses: The Pharaoh orders the murder of Israelite baby boys; Moses's mother puts the baby Moses in a basket and places it in the Nile River. And he is raised by the Pharaoh's daughter.
• Romulus and Remus: King Amulius made Rhea Silvia a Vestal Virgin, but the god Mars has other plans, and eventually the two R's are born. To escape that king, RS puts them into a basket and places it in the Tiber River. And the twins are raised by a wolf.
• Hercules: Zeus's wife Hera sends two snakes to kill him; the baby Hercules strangles them.
• Perseus: King Acrisius learns that Danae will have a son who will eventually kill him, so he shuts her up in a dungeon. However, Zeus turns himself into gold dust and pours himself in. As a result, she has Perseus, and Acrisius does not have the heart to kill him directly, shutting up D and P in a trunk and tossing it into the sea. However, it reaches shore elsewhere, and the two survive.
• Oedipus: Laius goes to an oracle and discovers that his baby son will grow up, kill him, and marry his wife. Laius gives the baby to a slave to dispose of, but that slave gives him to a fellow herdsman, who raises him.
• Krishna: Devaki and Vasudeva have child after child, but the wicked King Kamsa kills seven of them. Krishna escapes by being switched with a girl that two others had at the same time; the girl's parents then raise Krishna in their home far away from King Kamsa.
• Buddha: King Suddhodhana wants the Buddha to succeed him rather than become a religious teacher, so he spoils the kid. But as the Buddha grows up, he sees an old man, a sick man, a monk, and a dead man, and he decides to fly the coop in search of enlightenment.
• Mohammed: Nothing unusual about his birth, and nobody tries to get him when he was a baby.
• Charles Darwin: Nothing unusual about his birth, and nobody tries to get him when he was a baby.

Lord Raglan's list includes various other parallels, but I don't have the patience to go into them.

It's easy to see that the Gospels' account of Jesus Christ's parentage and infancy is much like those of various people usually considered mythical, and unlike those of real people.

However, the reappearance of similar mythic motives in different places causes one to wonder why this similarity has happened. Is it what makes an interesting story?

And what does Metacrock think that ancient mythic heroes were about? And how is Jesus Christ to be distinguished from them?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Metacrock

REally, not on my boards. Hmmmm, maybe you should use EZB. O well sure man.

lpetrich

In effect,

"The Christian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary"

I chose that phrasing to evoke some well-known hairsplitting from a recent President, which is what that argument is. Hairsplitting.

Rising up into Heaven or Olympus or whatever is certainly an unusual way to end one's life, it must be said; Jesus Christ follows in the footsteps of Romulus, Hercules, Krishna, and Mohammed, who were described by some of their followers as having risen up to the realm of the Gods.

Besides Jesus Christ, I could find only two:

Moses dies on top of Mt. Pisgah. - Deut 34:1-6

Hercules dies on top of Mt. Oeta. - <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html" target="_blank">http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html</a>

I'm not sure why Lord Raglan included this feature; I'd have to find his original paper somewhere. However, Lord Raglan's profile is only a hero-story average; actual hero stories typically differ from it in some respect.

How doesn't it count?

Reactor

So uh... RyanS2, let me understand what you're saying here. Because Jesus fits a certain persona of some mythical hero, he is in fact a mythical hero. Did you take your logic tablets this morning? Because if you did, I must have forgotten mine. I didn't know that's how we drew logical conclusions these days. Let me see if that works for apples.

You know, now I think about it, most fruits are similar in a number of ways. An apple could in fact be an orange couldn't it? I mean, it fits most of the same criteria. And, if you don't feel like butting in right now to tell me just how much of an idiot I sound like, I'm going to butt in right now and tell myself. Same base logic. Skewy conclusion- and yes, oversimplified, I realise that. Even so the principle is the same, especially when you're claiming it as a conclusion for fact. I call that a theory, and a weak one at that.

So lets move on to the other points. You said,

Sure there is. There are lots of reasons, but you've dismissed every one of them based on your conclusion that Jesus is (by default) a mythic hero. Try reading the bible. You'll find lots of interesting things in there. Jesus may have fit the (cleverly designed) portrait of a mythic hero, but I could also strap Jesus into a persona that makes him look like a 2000 year old tour guide. It's not hard, and just because he fits the bill, doesn't mean he automatically *is* that very thing.

Still with me? Hope so. I realise that to admit you *could* (even slightly!) be wrong is a hard thing. Hold on, we're almost done. You also said,

True, but pushing your luck once too often is something that can lead to that kind of thing, isn't it? I think the bible tells us a quite believeable story of how and why these things did happen. Jesus pissed people off. Some guys set him up. He died. Now if that isn't believeable as something that could happen, then you can take some time explaining to me why we see it happening so often today? It's human arrogance, pride, and personal justice. I've never read a story more personally believeable, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian.

Let me quote you one last time here.

Well they'd sure have to be, or he'd have been a pretty boring saviour, wouldn't he? I think what you're trying to say here is, "I think they're ludicrous." Not, they are ludicrous. I'm a big skeptic of 'miracles' personally, and even I've seen a few things that go far and beyond my explaining. I used to think the ages of people in Genesis were ludicrous. At least I did, until I found out how easy it now is for scientists to extend the age of cells in the body (they can even have them last forever). Oh- it's so simple, and it would have been even simpler for God.

You think the 'miracles' are ludicrous? I think you're off-the-wall comments about them being ludicrous, are just as ludicrous. But, with me saying all of this, don't get your panties in a twist (not trying to say you're a girl- it's just a saying...)- instead, think about what I've said. You're whole weight seems to be sitting on a bunch of interesting sounding theories. Be careful- you could be wrong.

...and so could I (ha!) but I'm more then ready for that

RyanS2

No, lots of real people get crucified to save the World from eternal damnation!!! Why, just last week I met someone who did just that. It happens at least once a week.

"In the ancient world there was a very widespread belief in the sufferings and deaths of gods as being beneficial to man. Adonis, Attis, Dionysos, Herakles, Mithra, Osiris, and other deities, were all saviour-gods whose deaths were regarded as sacrifices made on behalf of mankind; and it is to be noticed that in almost every case there is clear evidence that the god sacrificed himself to himself."

Sir Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity

"Did you take your logic tablets this morning? Because if you did, I must have forgotten mine. I didn't know that's how we drew logical conclusions these days. Let me see if that works for apples."

I feel a strawman coming up.

"You know, now I think about it, most fruits are similar in a number of ways. An apple could in fact be an orange couldn't it? I mean, it fits most of the same criteria."

Chemical composition, smell, color, method of spreading the seeds, exactly what are these criteria? You don't even try to back up your own argument because you don't have one. At this point, you're into the wonderful world of free association, or, "it's so because I say so." If you want me to provide references to show there is nothing new or wonderous in the Jesus myth story, I can, but let's see you prove that an orange and an apple are the same. Hence we get the expression, "comparing apples to oranges". Your fallacy of argument is so flimsy you drop it immediately, as shown here.

"And, if you don't feel like butting in right now to tell me just how much of an idiot I sound like, I'm going to butt in right now and tell myself. Same base logic. Skewy conclusion- and yes, oversimplified, I realise that. Even so the principle is the same, especially when you're claiming it as a conclusion for fact. I call that a theory, and a weak one at that."

Nope, it's a repeated, conclusive demonstration based upon factual evidence that Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Krishna, et al. didn't exist, and yet all were thought to have existed in their day. That's factual, repeated, conclusive studies.

"Well they'd sure have to be, or he'd have been a pretty boring saviour, wouldn't he? I think what you're trying to say here is, "I think they're ludicrous." Not, they are ludicrous."

Well, when you can show me how to turn the chemical composition of water into wine, I'll be convinced. And when you start raising people from the dead after three days death, well golly, I'll be absolutely astounded. But, we both know you can't right? I can also say, without hesitation, that you don't know anyone who can raise dead people, or heal blind people by touching them. This is again, facts, cold, hard, and conclusive. Burden of proof is on you. Can you show me someone who can?

"I'm a big skeptic of 'miracles' personally, and even I've seen a few things that go far and beyond my explaining. I used to think the ages of people in Genesis were ludicrous. At least I did, until I found out how easy it now is for scientists to extend the age of cells in the body (they can even have them last forever)."

Yes, and viruses can survive indefinetely in suspended animation. Saying that "cells" can live forever is one thing, but cells do not come under the effects and stimuli that a human does, (metabolism, exercise, radiation, ozone exposure, carcinogens, etc.) upon which the mitochondria produce a variety of damaging chemicals, known as free radicals. Free radicals are oxygen molecules that lose one of their electrons to another molecule, which causes the oxygen molecule to become reactive. In this state, the new molecule looks for a way to bond with other molecules. When it does find an electron mate, it bonds with it, causing it to have an extra electron. The new electron then makes this molecule highly reactive, and a cyclic destruction ritual begins. They come in seven basic groups: Superoxide Anion Radical, Hydrogen Peroxide, Hydroxyl Radical, Dehydroepiandrosterone Singlet Oxygen, Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Radical, Organic/Fatty Acid Hydroperoxides, and Oxidized Protein.

Even then, humans also come into contact with another foreign element we call "plaque". It invades the body, cuts off the flow of nutrition and oxygen to cells, and starts killing them off. It's a glob of parasitic organisms which exist and feed off our bodies. You can also keep chicken cells alive for an indefinite time period as well, but chickens only live to be seven years out in the wild. (7 weeks in confinement). These little known errors, using what we term "science", seem to totally elude you. An experiment using a variety of controllable factors versus nature is quite a different thing. Put those human cells next to some foreign phagocytes and lets' see how long they last!

"Oh- it's so simple, and it would have been even simpler for God."

Umm.. you may wish to try this argument on someone who doesn't know quite a bit about human physiology and why we live to be a certain age. Someone who doesn't know about how the Mitochondrial Permeability Transition Pore can cause cellular aptosis and excitatory signals within the brain.

"You think the 'miracles' are ludicrous? I think you're off-the-wall comments about them being ludicrous, are just as ludicrous."

Like I said, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove that people can be resurrected, or that water can turn into wine, or that the annual sacrifice of the pagan king was necessary for the harvest of the grain, it's all on YOU, (yes you), to prove that these things can happen. You can't. We both know it, because if you could, you wouldn't be talking to me, you'd be doing it. Your hypothesis, thesis, and all argumentative statements, are absolutely ridiculous.

"But, with me saying all of this, don't get your panties in a twist (not trying to say you're a girl- it's just a saying...)- instead, think about what I've said."

So far, nothing. You said an apple and an orange have a lot in common, and that human cells can live indefinitely in controllable laboratory experiments. (Here's some news for you. We can also perform cloning in laboratories, but it doesn't happen naturally.)

"You're whole weight seems to be sitting on a bunch of interesting sounding theories. Be careful- you could be wrong.

...and so could I (ha!) but I'm more then ready for that "

To be wrong? Anytime someone writes, expresses an opinion, there is a chance of being "wrong". I already know and accept that. However, your comparisons are what would be called "reductio ad absurdum". It's not an argumentative strategy, it's an argumentative fallacy.

lpetrich

I have

And that's why I think that it's a convincing conclusion. I wonder if Reactor thinks that Romulus and Remus, Hercules, Perseus, Oedipus, and Krishna are all historical figures, complete with the divine parentage of all of them but Oedipus.

Which I've done.

Try it, Reactor. I was using Lord Raglan's profile, which was NOT designed with Jesus Christ in mind. Yet he fits very well.

I was reluctant to respond to RyanS2 because much of his verbiage does not make sense, but I'm not going to claim that that was necessarily the case. And even if blasphemy was not a crime, then they could have gotten him on some other charge, such as leading a rebellion.

There are serious implausibilities, such as Pontius Pilate letting himself be bullied into crucifying Jesus Christ, when the Jewish authorities could have stoned him then and there. Also, in Matthew, there is the spectacle of a lynch mob saying that "his blood be on us and on all our children", as if they were deciding that there was something wrong with JC's execution and that they were accepting responsibility.

However, for Muslims, Mohammed does just fine, and the earlier biographies of him mention no miracle-working.

Also, does Reactor believe that:

Apollonius of Tyana and Sai Baba raised people from the dead?

Sai Baba materialized some candy and turned some water into gasoline for a car?

Roman Emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and one with a withered hand?

Statues of pagan deities would bleed and moan and do similar things?

"No God but Allah" is scribbled in Arabic inside some tomato?

Reactor

Do you really want to know what I think about all of those guys, or are you trying to get me to dig a really massive hole and fall into it? There's not much that bugs me more than someone pretending to honestly care what I had for the last 86,000 breakfasts, or whether I feel some of the 2300 letter a's in the bible were added after the fact. Am I supposed to have made my mind up about these guys?

I've seen Lord Raglan's profile, and I think it's pretty daft. There- that's what I think. It goes to say nothing conclusive about Jesus Christ, other that him being subject to Lord Raglan (whoever that guy is) and his obviously much sought-after profiles.

I have no idea why RyanS2 said Strawman, I'm not woried about what Sir Arthur Weigall thinks, I have no idea what a "Mitochondrial Permeability Transition Pore" is or how it can cause cellular aptosis and excitatory signals within the brain- nor do I believe it has much bearing on the lengthing of a cell's temamere. (sure hope I didn't misspell something in all of that)

I'm not bothered that RyanS2 thinks my points are reductio ad absurdum (try the word 'stupid') or that he missed a point I feel any child above the age of five could understand. I'm also not worried that none of you guys asked me to explain all of this to you, or that Romulus, Remus, Hercules, Perseus, Oedipus, and Krishna aren't even real. Xena may be, however.

I'm not worried that there may not be 2300 letter a's in the bible, or that some guy cut open a tomato in such a way he could read "No god but Allah." I'm not even worried that some things in life seem improbable, but happen none the less. I'm also not worried about all the cut and posting... damn, anyone can sound right when you're doing that.

Okay, I suppose I should answer about those peeps at the end of your post, lpetrich. Just in case you really did mean it

Unsure. Unsure. Unsure. Unsure. I doubt it was there before the tomato was opened. Unsure.

Anyhow, I hope those were the kinds of answers you were after. Oh and, yes, there are one too many unsures. Sorry about that.

lpetrich

First, I've found site with a fairly comprehensive comparison of hero origin myths: <a href="http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/b-birth.htm" target="_blank">http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/b-birth.htm</a>

And hero death myths: <a href="http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/c-death.htm" target="_blank">http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/c-death.htm</a>

And hero dragon-fighting myths: <a href="http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/d-combat.htm" target="_blank">http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/d-combat.htm</a> (yes, Jonah and the sea monster make it in)

There is a lot more interesting stuff at these pages' parent: <a href="http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/synthesis.htm" target="_blank">http://home.hetnet.nl/~mavds/synthesis.htm</a> -- much of the work is useful even if one rejects the Velikovsky-style catastrophe theories that the author seems to be sympathetic to.

Haven't you ever wondered about them? I hope that when you consider them, that you will reach some understanding of us Internet Infidels' beliefs.

What's your reasoning behind that? Distaste for its conclusion?

The point of mentioning that is to note that if anyone other than Jesus Christ had the biography that the Gospels give him, he'd be dismissed as a mostly-fairy-tale figure, like the way that Romulus and Remus, Hercules, Krishna, etc. are dismissed.

I'm not intimidated by discussions of cellular and molecular biology and biochemistry.

Thanx for considering these questions.