Metacrock

Meta => I'm sure there must have been some influence from pagan religion, but not as much people think.. Why would a buch of jews base a Messianich cult on pagan sources when most of their symbolism is present in OT?

and I'm also ticked off at how much of that sencrenicity is just plain made up. you have to watch your sources. Jesus myther's speak of all these "dying rising savior gods" and so on, but if you read the acutal myths of the figures they point out, most of them were not crucified and didn't rise from the dead. Mithras didn't even die.

Metacrock

Meta => In the examples that I point out things like the function of the god, where he's from, what he does, how he dies, were very fluid and changed a lot.

But what's the link between a world tree and crucifiction? There are not a bunch of pagan gods who get crucified. that's an exaggeration of the Jeus-myther's not in the real myths. Look them up in books written by scholars about myth, not in "Jesus didn't exist" books. You will see the real myths are very different.


Here's my link on it. This is the index to alll of my pages on Jesus and mythology, please read them all.





Mythological Jesus?

Metacrock

Meta => Hey I didn't start this stuff, I don't just have a perverse need merely to prove that Jesus existed.I mean there's a whole movement out there trying to spread that bunk. Ok so maybe a little obsessive about fighting it, but I didn't start it.

besides yea that's true we can't prove much about him, but ultimately the canonical Gospels and chruch traditions really are the most authoritative sources, and the individual is just stucking with dealing with the issue of his deity in the heart. That's just the way it is, probably the way God wants it.

BTW Thomas didn't doubt the crucification, he doubted the res.

Metacrock

Meta => Why do you think that the calim that Jesus existed is supernatural? Why couldn't he have been an ordinary guy who just thought he was the Messiah?


What supernatural claims have we made in this thred?

Metacrock

Meta => Christ mythers invest a lot of their argument in the fact that we don't have hard, absolute, empirical proof for historical Jesus (not the kind we have for hitoircal John Wayne for example). But they miss the fact that histoiry is not based upon empirical proof, so that's an unfiar standard.


You're the one making the supernatural claim here, remember?




Meta => No I had forgotten that. In fact I still can't remember it. What supernatural claim am I making?




I've never made either one of these claims, so I need not prove either of these claims.




Meta => So why are you posting here? I didn't say you did btw.




So the sentence with the most substance in your reply is a (badly spelled) parroting of what I said in my first response to you. Surely you can do better!

Meta => i really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you could have done better and quoted the passage in question.

Metacrock

Meta => Just to correct your small correction, there is no official The Mexican Version endoursed by the Mexican government. There was one officer who was imprioned years after the Alamo and wrote memoirs in which the version where Crockett lives is found. But there is good evidence from hand wirtting analysis that this is a fabrication added by the person taking dictation from this officer as he died in prision.

It's added into an eailer portion of his diary and doesn't fit the hand writting of the orignal secretary. I think both versions were dictated.

But that doesn't really change my argument. Because the basic facts that was an Alamo and that Corckett was there are accepted by all. The traditional version of his death is validated not only my Mrs. Dickenson but also by a Mexican Captin who claims to have seen him die, and that he died bravely at the Alamo. The only way this differs from tradtion is that according to the captin he was subdued, after fighting so bravely he exhausted himself, taken and hacked to peices with a sword after refusing to beg for his life.

That is an eye witness calim. It agrees in most parts with Dickenson's testimony. (I'm a Texan, don't mess with Texas History!)

Metacrock

Meta => Ok Peter, pardon my peranoia.



It seems that you are saying that a story is true if there are not alternative versions of the story (but rather multiple versions that agree on the basics).


Meta =>I'm not trying to pass some kind of dictum that this is always the case, but given the other lines of argument about historians and documents, and given the prfousion of sources that dealt with Jesus in the frist two centuries, and the fact that myth always proliferates and that multiple verions usually happen, it just seems that the unanimity of it is too great to be a myth; at least not in the basic story line.




I will let Vorkosigan tell us what cases of myth or legend with basic agreement exist in other cultures because he is better at that kind of stuff than I am.


Meta =>No, because there aren't enough versions of it. There are houndreds of documents that claimed to be Gospels and Acts and all epistles, but only two accounts of that story. Having two is closer to multiple attestation but I wouldn't try to argue for it. I never argue for the historicity of Biblical miracles, except the resurrection, and I'm not arguing for that here.







Meta => "fan fiction?" So maybe Paul was just a first century Derridian? Maybe Grace is just deconstruction in the first century? I think that's a very ver weak argument to try and read back into the ancient world a kind of literature that didn't really exist at that time or in that place. There were some fictions, but not really a genre of 'fan fiction.' NO real novels until the 17th century. I don't think you can make Matt and Luke into prodo-Fieldings or ancinet world Richardsons.

I'm sure there are certain core sources that all of these things go back to. But we have several "lost Gosple" framents that seem early, even they agree on all of these major details (a couple of them are listed on the back pages of my argument in my link--plus Egerton 2, GPete, and Nichademus, and so on). I see no reason not to assume that the orignal core source was the community itself and that they really felt that they wittnessed these events. As to what they really saw I can't say. But I have reason to believe they didn't really believe that some among their number saw the risen christ and that they felt this way form the day after Easter.






Meta => Well but it's still lurking there in the meaning of the term "Christ." The Messiah is transformed from savior/liberator of the Jews, to savior of everyone, but he's still the promised Messiah of the Jews. Jewish Christianity lasted until the fourth century.




Meta => I know John stands out on the day, but I don't see it denying the death at noon. I think the problem with the day is just some heavy duty Jewish thing ivolving the differences in the Qumran calendar and the one used by talmudists. I think that can't be resolved without more knowledge of heterodox Judaism. Another thing, anytime you use John you are stepping into a very very layered world, and a text that shows signs of having been endlessly debated by very complex and layered communtiy. So it's going to have lots of enigma and complixity.




Meta =>Is that the one where they say he wasn't flesh and blood? His death on the cross was an illusion? If not, I don't know about it. If so, it still echos the orignal story in the new verison. They don't deny a crucification, they just deny the effects of it. They are explaining the original story which assumes the original story.




Meta => I think given that diversity it is all the more amazing that they kept as much uniformity as they did. That makes my arugment all the stroner. But you know, I am not claiming this as a universal standard for all historicity. I just think given the other arguments, it's a good indication.







Earl Doherty writes:



This argument needs to be more fully qualified and explicated before it will be convincing to me.

Meta =>Well, to be charitable, I don't find Mr. Doherty's work to be convencing either.

Metacrock

Meta => There actually weren't many dying rising savior gods in the Levant. Palistine was not greatly influenced by these cults. Mroeover the Jews were notorious for being exclucivistic. They thought pagan religion was run by demons. They may have had some exposure, but would not have taken them seriously.







Meta => It's true that the culture of Asia Minor was influential to the Jews in terms of how Jews of Asia Minor treated women. The freindships and warm personal feelings Paul expressed for women in his greetings probably are a reflection of that cultural up brining. But that in no way means that he was influenced by their mystery cults. It doesnt' matter that Jews were there, that does't prove that they altered their own religious views to suit the sorrounding culture. It might also mean that he was more sophisticated in his understanding of how not to be taken in by them.

I think it's real clear that Paul was combatting the mystery cults, he was not influenced by them. I think I prove this on my Jesus PUzzell 2 pages. I'll put up a thread soon.

Goliath

Metacrock,

Simple: because you believe that Jesus was the son of a god.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Metacrock,

There you go rambling on about evidence again. I'm not interested in evidence for supernatural claims. I'm interested in proof only.

That Jesus Christ existed.

Because I'm interested in seeing a proof that Jesus Christ existed. It's become readily apparent, however, that you are incapable of (or unwilling to) provide such a proof.

Then why did you want me to prove that the xian god doesn't exist!?

Sincerely,

Goliath