NOGO

The Sacred Mushroon and the Cross. I have read this book. I think that, to many this is too far-fetched to contemplate.

God is a big penis in the sky who pours his semen on earth as rain. The mushroom (the amanita muscaria) grows and is in the image of the father. It has a stem and a canopy with a split making it resemble the male organ. Therefore the idea of the son of God.

People were encouraged to go the countryside and experience the "Kingdom of God" by eating this mushroom which is an hallucinogen.

The Gospel stories were written as a coded guide to the community of consumers.

Jayman

Vorkosigan:
We wouldn't bother with applying historical methodology to books/movies that are meant as fiction.

Vorkosigan

That's my point. How do you know the gospels aren't fictions? The criteria Meier proposed can only be used if the gospels are historical -- they cannot determine if the gospels contain any history. First you need a way to know that there is history in the gospels. Note that when you apply Meier's criteria to fictions, especially fictions like Heinlein's which are overtly didactic and historical, they make genuine history of it.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

Did Christianity start with Jesus?

I am currently reading "Jesus" by Michael Grant.
Michael Grant is basically saying that Jesus was a man who went around preaching the Kindom of God and was so infatuated with it that he was willing to die for it.

Wow! What Michael Grant must now explain is how a person can come up with something like this without a community with similar beliefs which raised him and gave him these crazy ideas?

This is the problem of treating myth as history.

There are two ways out of this dilemma. Either Jesus must be reduced to a credible character in first century history or back he goes as God and myth.

The only credible character that I can think of is a man who claimed to be the anointed one of God. The kingdom of God was a kingdom here on earth as the "Our Father" clearly says with the anointed one as ruler. The kingdom, of course, leaves no place for the Romans. The rest must be legend and myth.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Jayman

I've basically been trying to avoid this point the entire thread because it is extremely complex and I don't have the expertise to debate it. So I'll just try to give a few thoughts on it.

How do we know whether a book is meant as history or as fiction? This is a huge question that effects every writing in the history of mankind, except those writings which explicitly state they are meant as fiction. I could buy a book on American history and ask the same question. What in this book tells me that it's trying to be an historical account and not just a story about a mythical land? When John Grisham writes a new book how does the librarian know whether to put the book into fiction or non-fiction? It seems that the author and his audience decide whether the book is meant as fiction or non-fiction. When a high schooler opens a history (or math/science/english/etc.) book she and her teacher appear to merely assume that the book is non-fiction based on a general consensus.

In closing, unless a book explicitly states that it is fiction, there is nothing in the text itself which shows that it is meant as non-fiction. There just seems to be some intuitive (?) or generally-agreed upon decision when deciding the ficticiousness (sp?) of a book.

Toto

So if my right-thinking friends and I agree that the Bible is fiction, you have no way to change our minds?

Jayman

It all depends on what you take as evidence. Just realize that if you need certain evidence to convince you that the Bible is non-fiction you should be consistent with every other piece of writing that comes your way. That means if you need evidence X to convince you that yesterday's newspaper is factual then you should agree that the Bible is factual if you are given evidence X.

Just think how sticky this issue is. Try answering this question: So if my right-thinking friends and I agree that the yesterday's newspaper is fiction, you have no way to change our minds? How can you show us that yesterday's newspaper contains factual stories?

Toto

In fact, from my experience, a certain amount of what is printed in newspapers is factually incorrect. There is an entire industry devoted to press criticism.

For any given newspaper story, if I care about it, I can launch my own independent investigation. I can interview the witnesses, read documents myself, etc. I can also read the works of other journalists or skeptical investigators.

Certainly, if a newspaper reported that someone rose from the dead, (or that aliens had taken over the White House) I would want more evidence than a newspaper story (especially if it were only reported in one of the supermarket tabloids.)

I have no such way of independently verifying the gospels.

This is really quite basic. Are you trying to say that there is some evidence X that would convince anyone of the accuracy of the gospels? If so, let's have it.

lpetrich

Bede gets broken up over someone comparing Jesus Christ to Romulus and Remus. Let's see:

They were described as being sons of a god and a virgin (the Christian God and Mary; Mars and Rhea Silvia)

A wicked king tried to kill them (Herod, Amulius)

They escape to safety (his parents take him to Egypt, they float in a basket down the Tiber)

They grow up in a distant land before returning home (Egypt, downstream Tiber)

They found something (the Christian church, Rome)

Just before they rise up into heaven, they appear to some faithful followers

They are worshipped as gods

Vorkosigan

I agree. To put it more formally, and non-intuitively, one way to know is to look at the totality of the evidence, and the context of the work. But in this case, for some reason, the default is that this myth is history. Do you know of other myths regarded that way? Mohammed's life, and for much the same reason.

Vorkosigan