(September 7, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(September 7, 2015 at 10:15 am)Irrational Wrote: It sure as hell is ad hoc especially without evidence to back your assertions. And please don't derail to other more general points. Let's stick to what the authentic Pauline Epistles say about Jesus first. Provide evidence that the words I provided are meant to be understood in the fashion you argue for, and not literally.

Those translations are literal. I'm not claiming those passages are metaphorical, I'm claiming they're about a story with different details than the Euhemerized version with all the vaguely historical places and people in it. At no point did I claim Paul was not speaking literally, only that he is understood and translated incorrectly and also probably redacted (intentionally and/or otherwise) to support the Jesus of Nazareth story.

I understand your view. I really do. What I'm after is evidence for your interpretation.

Quote:"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth."


Celsus c 185 AD

So, one by one....

Quote:In Greek mythology, Danaë (/ˈdæn.i.iː/[1] or /ˈdæn.ə.iː/ DAN-ə-ee, as personal name also /dəˈnaɪ/ də-NY, Greek: Δανάη Ancient: [da'na.ɛː] Modern: [ða'na.i]) was a daughter of King Acrisius of Argos and his wife Queen Eurydice. She was the mother of the hero Perseus by Zeus. She was sometimes credited with founding the city of Ardea in Latium during the Bronze Age.

Disappointed by his lack of male heirs, Acrisius asked an oracle if this would change. The oracle told him that he would be killed by his daughter's son. She was childless and, meaning to keep her so, he shut her up in a bronze tower or cave. But Zeus came to her in the form of golden rain, that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb. Soon after, their child Perseus was born.

Quote:Melanippe, daughter of Chiron the Centaurus, was once called Thetis. Brought up on Mount Helicon, a girl especially fond of hunting, she was wooed by Aeolus, son of Hellen, and grandson of Jove [Zeus], and conceived a child by him. When her time drew near, she fled into the forest, so that her father, who supposed her a virgin, might not see that she had given birth to a grandchild.

Quote:Aleus, king in Tegea and father of Auge, had been told by an oracle that he would be overthrown by his grandson.[2] So, according to varying myths, he forced Auge to become a virginal priestess of Athena Alea, in which condition she was violated by Heracles. Although the infant Telephus was hidden in the temple, his cries revealed his presence and Aleus ordered the child exposed on Mt. Parthenion, the "mountain of the Virgin".

Quote:In Greek mythology, Antiope (/ænˈtaɪ.əpiː/; Greek: Ἀντιόπη) was the daughter of the Boeotian river god Asopus, according to Homer;[1] in later sources[2] she is called the daughter of the "nocturnal" king Nycteus of Thebes or, in the Cypria, of Lycurgus, but for Homer her site is purely Boeotian. She was the mother of Amphion and Zethus.
Her beauty attracted Zeus, who, assuming the form of a satyr, took her by force.[3] A.B. Cook noted that her myth "took on a Dionysiac colouring, Antiope being represented as a Maenad and Zeus as a Satyr".[4] This is the sole mythic episode in which Zeus is transformed into a satyr. After this she was carried off by Epopeus, who was venerated as a hero in Sicyon;[5] he would not give her up till compelled by her uncle Lycus.

In case any one is wondering where they got their ideas from.

Not sure what your point here is. Are you trying to say that Jesus was never seen as an earthly figure by the early Christians because ... look what these irrelevant texts about ancient Greek mythological characters say!!!

(September 6, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 6, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Drich Wrote: That's the thing I'm pointing out. Even in a hypotheitical I'm not willing to surrender my reasoning ability to some unnamed expert. I would like to see the evidence and decide from there. Which again I point to the impossibility of said evidence.

I did a thread like this some time ago:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-11941.html

If you want to know what I think read the OP

So, you would keep ASKing in spite of evidence that God does not exist?

I point back to my first response in this thread. What does proof of non existence look like? Again the best we can do is to point out an inability to confirm a given set of parameters. To that end I say that anyone who stops A/S/K-ing for the truth is a fool to stop till they find it, and 10x's a fool to let the truth go one they know of it, just because pop culture wants to change the parameters just so they can confirm a bias.

(September 6, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(September 6, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Drich Wrote: That's the thing I'm pointing out. Even in a hypotheitical I'm not willing to surrender my reasoning ability to some unnamed expert. I would like to see the evidence and decide from there. Which again I point to the impossibility of said evidence.

I did a thread like this some time ago:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-11941.html

If you want to know what I think read the OP

"My answer to your hypothetical is that I refuse to consider your hypothetical." How droll.


The hypothetical situation is that, for whatever reason, you have been successfully convinced that Jesus did not exist. That's the hypothetical. Whatever hypothetical evidence it would take, that's what you have. What that evidence actually entails is completely irrelevant to the situation because we're not asking what would convince you. We're wanting to know about you would do if you were hypothetically convinced, and your only response is to demand to know how you were hypothetically convinced. All you're doing is dodging the question by refusing to even remotely entertain the presented hypothesis.

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

(September 8, 2015 at 9:17 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 6, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: "My answer to your hypothetical is that I refuse to consider your hypothetical." How droll.


The hypothetical situation is that, for whatever reason, you have been successfully convinced that Jesus did not exist. That's the hypothetical. Whatever hypothetical evidence it would take, that's what you have. What that evidence actually entails is completely irrelevant to the situation because we're not asking what would convince you. We're wanting to know about you would do if you were hypothetically convinced, and your only response is to demand to know how you were hypothetically convinced. All you're doing is dodging the question by refusing to even remotely entertain the presented hypothesis.

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

Which leads to a lot of circular thinking in your case, don't you think?

(September 7, 2015 at 11:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth."


Celsus c 185 AD

So, one by one....

Quote:In Greek mythology, Danaë (/ˈdæn.i.iː/[1] or /ˈdæn.ə.iː/ DAN-ə-ee, as personal name also /dəˈnaɪ/ də-NY, Greek: Δανάη Ancient: [da'na.ɛː] Modern: [ða'na.i]) was a daughter of King Acrisius of Argos and his wife Queen Eurydice. She was the mother of the hero Perseus by Zeus. She was sometimes credited with founding the city of Ardea in Latium during the Bronze Age.

Disappointed by his lack of male heirs, Acrisius asked an oracle if this would change. The oracle told him that he would be killed by his daughter's son. She was childless and, meaning to keep her so, he shut her up in a bronze tower or cave. But Zeus came to her in the form of golden rain, that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb. Soon after, their child Perseus was born.

Quote:Melanippe, daughter of Chiron the Centaurus, was once called Thetis. Brought up on Mount Helicon, a girl especially fond of hunting, she was wooed by Aeolus, son of Hellen, and grandson of Jove [Zeus], and conceived a child by him. When her time drew near, she fled into the forest, so that her father, who supposed her a virgin, might not see that she had given birth to a grandchild.

Quote:Aleus, king in Tegea and father of Auge, had been told by an oracle that he would be overthrown by his grandson.[2] So, according to varying myths, he forced Auge to become a virginal priestess of Athena Alea, in which condition she was violated by Heracles. Although the infant Telephus was hidden in the temple, his cries revealed his presence and Aleus ordered the child exposed on Mt. Parthenion, the "mountain of the Virgin".

Quote:In Greek mythology, Antiope (/ænˈtaɪ.əpiː/; Greek: Ἀντιόπη) was the daughter of the Boeotian river god Asopus, according to Homer;[1] in later sources[2] she is called the daughter of the "nocturnal" king Nycteus of Thebes or, in the Cypria, of Lycurgus, but for Homer her site is purely Boeotian. She was the mother of Amphion and Zethus.
Her beauty attracted Zeus, who, assuming the form of a satyr, took her by force.[3] A.B. Cook noted that her myth "took on a Dionysiac colouring, Antiope being represented as a Maenad and Zeus as a Satyr".[4] This is the sole mythic episode in which Zeus is transformed into a satyr. After this she was carried off by Epopeus, who was venerated as a hero in Sicyon;[5] he would not give her up till compelled by her uncle Lycus.

In case any one is wondering where they got their ideas from.

Ok, but that only lends credence to the possibility of the story of his birth being borrowed from mythology.  Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?  His inclusion of this passage lends credence to Jesus' existence in history and subsequently his non-belief in the Christians claims.  Celsus was an opponent of Early Christianity, so to see claims such as this are not surprising.  But think about it.  If Jesus didn't exist, why attack the stories attributed to him and not just attack his actual existence, or mention him at all?

(September 8, 2015 at 9:57 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(September 7, 2015 at 11:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So, one by one....







In case any one is wondering where they got their ideas from.

Ok, but that only lends credence to the possibility of the story of his birth being borrowed from mythology.  Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?  His inclusion of this passage lends credence to Jesus' existence in history and subsequently his non-belief in the Christians claims.  Celsus was an opponent of Early Christianity, so to see claims such as this are not surprising.  But think about it.  If Jesus didn't exist, why attack the stories attributed to him and not just attack his actual existence, or mention him at all?

It should be doubted whether these characters were said to have been given birth by virgins. I know according to the myth Danae was no virgin when she gave birth to Perseus.

Some people don't read their mythologies well.

And by the way, evidence tells us there was no virgin birth in the original Jesus story. So doesn't matter what other myths say about how their characters were born.

It occurs to me an experiment, so to speak, has already been conducted that speaks to the topic.

(If my recollections are off, a reference would be much appreciated)

Some of the first European explorers to reach Japan brought missionaries and they established a small Christian community there. Japan fairly rapidly closed the foreigners access to the Japanese public for a very long time. When missionaries were finally allowed back in Japan, they discovered the descendants of the few converts from long before. Due to the brevity of the initial contact, the Japanese folks received an incomplete version of the faith. The new missionaries were more than happy to offer a full download of Christianity but the Japanese people wanted no part of it. Despite clear and overwhelming evidence the Japanese proto-Christians had received an incomplete mess of theology, they were comfortable with what they had and were not going to allow for anyone, correctly motivated or not, to correct their faith.

I think this illustrates a common shared trait amongst the religiousites, even overwhelming and conclusive evidence of Doctrinal Error ain't gonna be enough.

Should absolute evidence, for instance, of the nonexistence of Jesus ever be discovered, it won't be enough.

I'd even go further and assert that if Jesus unequivocally came back, performed miracles, yada, yada, yada, there would most likely be a majority of His followers that would not subject themselves to any matters of doctrine, dogma, rules, Commandments, strictures, edicts or teachings that He might clarify, revise or extend.

You can count on that. Hell, they ain't following shit CLEARLY recorded in the Bible and attributed to Jesus as it is. No hypotheticals needed.

(September 8, 2015 at 9:17 am)Drich Wrote: But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

So, essentially the answer to the question "what would you do if offered incontrovertible evidence that Jesus never existed?" for you, is "decide that the evidence doesn't count because I've presupposed that I can't possibly be wrong about my religious beliefs."

Shocker.