Yellum Notnef

I`m not confused at all and you ARE attempting extremely weak apologetics (ie: "anythings possible" and "things happen") for the validity of the Jesus story.

I have no interest in this debate,but there are many here who will enjoy this if you stick around.

Good luck.
You`re gonna need it.

Btw,I suggest you check out the library here and take a look at the other side of the argument before getting yourself in any deeper.

Anti-Creedance Front

With the Mithraist/Zoroastrian/Sumerian theory, it doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist. Actually, it would be stupid to support that theory and disbelieve in the historicity of Jesus. As the ancient documents coorespond to real places, so does the New Testament. I don't think anyone would just make up the fact that Jesus was in all those places in Israel and elsewhere.

copernicus

This has been a great thread about the Mithraism/Christianity conundrum, but, Cheryl, it seems a little silly to argue against illogical leaps in one breath and embrace mystical precognition of an event in another. Why not argue, as some ancient christians did, that Satan invented similar pagan mythologies in order to confuse and befuddle humans away from Christ? The christian mythos is not like a scientific hypothesis, which is subject to verification by empirical tests. By the same logic, one could argue that the historical birth of Christ didn't really happen back in the Roman era and that all of christianity was just another case of "great souls and seers" hypothesizing some yet-to-happen event.

Eudaimonist

I don't see at all how that follows. Fiction often refers to real places in order to give people a familiar frame of reference. I can easily see this happening back then.

Anti-Creedance Front

Yes, but I can't see someone deliberately conspiring to make things up. In the case of the Christian mythologies, they came about through juxtaposition, mistranslation, and borrowing. Therefore, even if they did borrow the Jesus story, there must have been an original account to borrow from. I'm not going to argue steadfastly that there was a Jesus person, as there are no absolutes in this world, but that's my thinking at the moment.

Yellum Notnef

But what about the earlier religions that had resurrected godmen? We all agree that Mithra,Dionysus,Attis etc were not based on real people so how do you suppose they all came about and what were their creators conspiring?

Anti-Creedance Front

I think they came about through linguistic mutation. Ever read the book Snow Crash? Good book. Great fucking book. Heh heh. Anyway, in there, Neal Stephenson introduces the concept of cultural flux (what I call it), in that there was an ancient virus that spread physically, mentally (through religion and the ancient Sumerian goddess Asherah), and digitally, on computers, also affecting human beings. I know this part is a little sci-fi, but it's a fiction novel, so you get the picture. My main point is that by plagiarizing and "borrowing", we get messed up things like the Triune Godhead and the belief that a reform leader became a god (or always was God) when he was executed. If you look at them from the outside, they're very esoteric concepts.

As I said in this same thread, the Old Testament is so garbled it's barely legible. The contradictions, the pagan elements (sacrifice, supernatural creatures, etc.), and the oh-so-hard-to-believe epic adventures... all evidence of some intermingling of faiths. In fact, I believe paganism is man's natural religion, not necessarily rational, but it comes natural to humans. I think most new concepts in the Middle East came from cultural flux. The eastern philosophies lean towards more, well, philosophy, but I'm not going to dismiss them from being somewhat pagan too. Again, I'm not going to argue that Jesus was resurrected or any of that stuff, but I believe he at least existed. The tales about his life are probably really far fetched too, but there has got to be an ancient man under there somewhere.

LuckyCharm

Well, my login issues seem to be resolved now, but something seems to be wrong with the tags in the migrated messages. Oh well, let's see how this goes....

From copernicus:
I wouldn't doubt it. But then again, if you don't believe in God, your probably don't believe in Satan, either. Actually, now that you bring this up, I don't believe Satan can create anything new -- his power lies in twisting what already is into a grotesque caricature of itself. So sincere appreciation becomes self-serving flattery, religious devotion becomes murderous fanaticism, and the concept of a Servant God is used against itself, to cast doubt upon the very Incarnation of same.

It could be argued, certainly, and some have done so. However, there is enough evidence for most scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike, to be convinced of His historical reality. There's more evidence for Jesus' earthly life than there is for those of Theodosius or Scipio, yet we don't see any raging debates or campaigns to disprove their existence, do we?

I'm certainly not qualified to offer any more convincing arguments than I'm sure most of you have already seen -- I am not a historian, an archaeologist, or an expert in ancient Greek or Hebrew textual criticism. I do, however, like to think I have a little common sense, and to argue that any historical account can be disproven by drawing similarities to myths and legends is simply fallacious, IMO. Evaluate the evidence on its own merits, first -- does it ring false or true as it stands?

To reject anything out of hand simply because you've heard so many similar stories before that turned out to be false can be very foolish. I see it all the time in my job (computer support). Customer calls or writes in saying, "My blah-blah-blah won't do blah-blah-blah!" Initial reaction: "Stupid customer..." Yet, in just a few cases, upon deeper investigation, the customer has actually turned out to be right!! *gasp, shudder*

~~Cheryl

parkdalian

I agree, but to offer evidence of a statement such as "God is a myth", it's useful to show examples of phenomena that are similar. We know that sane people can believe the most extravagant claims, usually because they are indoctrinated from infancy.

We can say: "Many people believed that Zeus existed therefore Zeus is real." Zeus is a god, and God is a god, therefore God may exist.

Or we can say: "Many people believed that Zeus existed, but Zeus, along with a large pantheon of gods, is a myth." Zeus is a god, and God is a god, therefore God may be a delusion.

Monotheism aside, which argument looks better to you?

You're trying to turn the fact of mythical gods on its head. The point is made about mythical figures by atheists for the purpose of proving that masses of people can be credulous and absolutely wrong (formally known as the "Appeal To Belief" fallacy), not that God cannot exist. It is simply a response to theists asking rhetorically, "How can so many be so wrong?"

idiom

On a side note I think the Bible actually teaches a form of henotheism. So maybe all the many people were not in fact wrong. Just a lot of gods/priests were liars. (ever read Small Gods? Terry Pratchett. very funny)

So you just gotta figure out who is original and correct.

On the topic of the thread I am wondering why Jacob Maccabees is never brought up. Surely he is one of the founding images of the messiah cults. Also at 196 B.C. he is old enough to be parrallel with or older than mithraisim being further evidence against that type of borrowing.

The Jews were looking for an emulation of David, defeating the oppresors and cleansing the temple. Mr maccabees was the first modern to do it further building the idea the new messiah would do the same.

The historiocity of Jesus in being a messianic pretender named yeshua who was tried and executed is uncontrovertible. There were dozens of messianic pretenders. With a name as common as that even if he didnt exist you would have expected him to.

Then he gets executed. If you want to build a descent myth then take it froma far more likely (jewish) source.