The assertion that the dying/resurrected god idea did not get going until the mid 2d century AD - when xtianity acutally got going, btw - seems quite absurd.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba11.htm

Quote:AMONG the gods of Babylonia none achieved wider and more enduring fame than Tammuz, who was loved by Ishtar, the amorous Queen of Heaven--the beautiful youth who died and was mourned for and came to life again. He does not figure by his popular name in any of the city pantheons, but from the earliest times of which we have knowledge until the passing of Babylonian civilization, he played a prominent part in the religious life of the people

and,

Quote:There is every possibility, therefore, that the Tammuz ritual may have been attached to a harvest god of the pre-Hellenic Greeks, who received at the same time the new name of Adonis. Osiris of Egypt resembles Tammuz, but his Mesopotamian origin has not been proved. It would appear probable that Tammuz, Attis, Osiris, and the deities represented by Adonis and Diarmid were all developed from an archaic god of fertility and vegetation,

Further, Plutarch dates the contact of the Romans with Mithraism to the campaign of Pompey against the Cilician pirates (c 67 BC ) when they overran the city of Tarsus. Oddly.....or perhaps not so oddly... the alleged "Paul" also came from Tarsus.

(May 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articl...tory.htm#3

Quote:The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.

I'm sure the fundies will show up whining soon enough. Before you do, give some thought to how long a link like this would last any any xtian boards. They are terrified that any of you will ever do any thinking.

In far too many cases their terror is misplaced. Thinking is not big in xtian circles.

---

I've taken a quick look into it. And I want to say my view upon it:
1. I believe that an honest skeptic would rather believe that Jesus Christ existed, but that people started to combine his story with lots of magical fairytales. Consider:
a) In the period of time when Jesus lived (before Jesus and after Him, perhaps up to 70 AD) the Jews were fanatically waiting for the Messiah (which means, anointed, as the kings were anointed, and this anointed king was supposed to be a descendant of David and in the Old Testament was supposed to finally come to save the Jews from their enemies and ensure everlasting peace). There were many in that time that claimed to be the Messiah. And this makes Jesus Christ a likely existing claimant, no matter the stories.
b) I do believe that people are rather to take a historical person and fill him with fairytales, rather than creating one from scratch. Even the god of wine and parties of the greeks, Dionysus, might had been a man that liked parties and had a lot of vines, which would have remained in history, and finally transformed into a god.
c) The Christianity was born as a heresy of Judaism. That put it in a strange position of being hated and despised by it, while later was persecuted by the romans. If all was from 100% fairytale, and there never existed ANY Jesus Christ, then all of it would have lasted only a few years, and most surely developed as a sect, in a secluded single place, rather than everywhere throughout the empire. Think about it: if you invented a story from scratch about a Jesus Christ, would you keep it even if it threatens your life? Or if you were a convert in Greece and found out from Judea that there was actually no claimant of Messiah, would you keep your beliefs to death? (and yes, people did travel in that time, and the jews throughout the empire were traveling to Jerusalem at least once a year - one or some celebrations that needed to be held in Jerusalem)

2. "Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. " - there is no evidence to such a claim. It is only a speculation. And about the "historicized", it's quite foolish (my opinion): for pagans, the stories of the pagan gods were real ("history"), so how could the stories about Jesus Christ be to His adepts?

3. It is obvious that most of what is written in the gospels are written in the Old Testament. And the Jews were expecting the messiah to be as he is described throughout the old testament. If the stories (whether real or not) of Jesus Christ and what is written in the Old Testament would have not matched at all, perhaps no one would have ever become a follower of Jesus, or believe that He was the Messiah!

4. About the Sanhedrin and Mishnah: the Mishnah was written in the early 3rd century AD. The Talmud (which includes the Mishnah) are traditions of the Jews and teachings, along with any other commandments that were imposed by their clergy. It is possible that the traditions and teachings, etc. of the early 3rd century Judaism not to reflect exactly the early 1st century (besides of the fact that, as Christianity spread, Judaism and Christianity became increasingly separated, which would have influenced both to teach against the other, in order to try to protect their followers from converting to the other).

Now I'm not going to study carefully if indeed the Mishnah teaches so, anyway, some of them:
"1) No criminal session was allowed at night." - I believe it was in the early morning exactly. Remember Peter and the rooster?
"5) No one could be found guilty on his own confession." - well, everybody accused him, I don't get it.
"6) No blasphemy charge could be sustained unless the accused pronounced the name of God in front of witnesses." - Didn't Jesus do that when being judged?
"7) The Sanhedrin were allowed to execute people on their own and did not need the Romans to do so for them." - It is possible for them not to be allowed to execute anybody in that day (if it was a holy day or something), so to ask this from the romans. It is likewise possible that the Jewish clergy not to want to be blamed by the people of killing Jesus (that might have caused the people that believed Jesus to despise their clergy). On the other side, they got in the background by sending him to the romans.

---

(May 13, 2011 at 7:31 am)theVOID Wrote: Zeitgeist, especially the part on religion, is complete bullshit.

Here's a reputable account of Zeitgeist:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/zeitgeist-refuted/

THANK GOODNESS I HEAR THIS!!
You have no idea how many still blindly believe it! And it gets more frightening when you see people around (in real life) that you know, that if you say it's bullshit, they look at you as if they want to kill you or something, for saying that! (or simply call you an idiot for not seeing what EVERYBODY is seeing)

The same with everything that is called "Zeitgeist". e.g. there are people that hate America and see it as the source of all evil, for what they've seen in Zeitgeist. I've even been told that America actually doesn't produce anything, doesn't export anything, but only lives of money that does not actually exist, that it's all the "BANKS", which are always corrupted always doing evil. And it's interesting that if you find a source like wikipedia that shows about how things are going, or anything else, they call it a LIE! - like everything is a lie, except what that documentary said.

(May 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articl...tory.htm#3

I look forward to reading this. At first glance, I thought it was curious that he mentions Mark as the earliest account of Jesus. Does he mention the Sayings of Q or the passion narrative? I suppose it's just as well to start from the gospel that we have rather than muddying the waters by referencing possible earlier accounts.

Quote:1. I believe that an honest skeptic would rather believe that Jesus Christ existed, but that people started to combine his story with lots of magical fairytales.

Yeah, Z, and one can find that as a pretty standard fallback position among non-fundie xtians who understand the problems with their gospels. It's the "there must be a grain of historical truth" argument.

However, when you go on to say,

Quote: b) I do believe that people are rather to take a historical person and fill him with fairytales, rather than creating one from scratch.

most xtians will draw the line as soon as you say "so, then you think that Zeus and Osiris and Thor and Quetzlcoatl and Shiva and Enki and Borvo and Asshur and Astarte and Sin and Marduk, etc., etc, etc. also have an actual person behind them. At that point they bail out and resort to special pleading that they only mean the "real god." You, I must admit, have gone them one better. Let's open a bottle of wine and raise a toast to Dyonisius! The problem is that xtians do not worship the name. They worship the magic tricks. There had to be 100 people named Jesus, son of Joseph wandering around 1st Century Palestine. The fact still remains that we have no historical record of any of them doing anything....least of all coming back from the dead after being crucified by a Roman magistrate.

Secondly, "sons of god" walking around was far from a foreign concept in the Greco-Roman world.
Asclepius was the son of Apollo who in turn was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Hercules was also a son of Zeus and another mortal woman.....randy old goat that Zeus! These were far from unique examples. One might almost think of this as part of the "sales pitch" to a Greco-Roman audience. As indeed the early xtian writer Justin Martyr wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160.

Quote:And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

Can you imagine a later xtian equating jesus to pagan gods and not being declared a heretic for it?

As far as the messiah goes, the Jews expected a military leader who would vanquish their enemies and gather all jews together and rebuild the temple. One can hardly blame them for rejecting what they were handed by the rather inept jesus.

If you take the time to read Bart Ehrman you'll see that the growing anti-semitic tendencies of xtians follow an increasing tone of vehemence. And why not? The Jews were exceedingly unpopular. Between 66 and 135 there were 3 serious revolts which the Romans had to suppress. By the end of it they were a stateless people. As the second century writer Celsus wrote:

Quote:"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put out faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

Definitely an unpopular group!

Finally, because I don't want to get this too long.

Quote:If all was from 100% fairytale, and there never existed ANY Jesus Christ, then all of it would have lasted only a few years, and most surely developed as a sect, in a secluded single place, rather than everywhere throughout the empire.

Again we come full circle to the idea of a "founder." Was Osiris real? If not, explain how Egyptian religion lasted from sometime before 3000 BC to the 4th century AD when it was forcibly stamped out by xtians? Greek mythology begins in the Middle Bronze Age and continues for 2 millenia....how could it have done so without an actual Zeus?

In the 4th century, Constantine rewarded his xtian supporters in the war against Maxentius. While he legalized xtianity it was not until after the reign of Julian the Apostate that xtians realized they had to take steps to secure their livelihood. The pograms against the pagans began in that time period. When you give a church a sword control becomes simple. If you give me the power to torture and kill people I could have millions believing in a holy toaster in 20 years. "Greet with joy the warm bread which is the staff of life, brothers..... And if you argue I'll tie you to a stake and burn your ass."
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon.

(May 13, 2011 at 7:31 am)theVOID Wrote: Zeitgeist, especially the part on religion, is complete bullshit.

Here's a reputable account of Zeitgeist:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/zeitgeist-refuted/

Zeitgeist may have some good points, but I pretty much agree with Void. I dont think it is COMPLETE bullshit, but there is a hefty helping of Bullcrap in it.

This is nothing but conspiracy theory bullshit made into an emotional video.

They post the 9/11 conspiracy crap as well...that is a MAJOR red flag.

---

Justin Martyr flips us the bird

(May 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oddly.....or perhaps not so oddly... the alleged "Paul" also came from Tarsus.

Wow, are you also questioning the historicity of Paul? You are a skeptic among skeptics my friend.

To be sure the "Mythic Jesus" camp is a minority (even more so the "Mythic Paul" camp), but any group that can make a legitimate argument is a legitimate group. The position seems kind of reactionary to me, to assume a person as historically located as Jesus is false. It's very historically interesting though. It always seemed to me that just using the same methods of historical science we use for any other historical event it would be hard to deny that Jesus existed. Let’s see:

First of all, to say Jesus is fake you would have to assume that "Paul" was not really writing in the time period he said he was, and therefore the letters were retroactive inventions that were never really addressed to anyone. Otherwise the letters represent someone who is too plugged-in to the Christian community too soon after the "death" of Jesus to be talking about a fake person. Also the disciples don't really make any sense in this system. Why would they go to a group of Jews who were expecting a military leader and earthly king and tell them, "Oh, the messiah was already here, he wasn't at all what you expected, he was publicly shamed and executed by the Romans"? The kind of Messiah Jesus represented is not what any of the Jewish groups expected or wanted, inventing a messiah executed as a criminal was not a quick way to make friends. Also curious, why would the disciples then die to defend the story they made up when all they had to do to live is recant? So if Jesus is fake, the disciples also have to be fake. If the disciples are fake, then all of the people mentioned talking to them are likely fake too. Pontius Pilate is mentioned in other sources, but then again, so are Jesus and Paul, so fair's fair, he's fake too (and yes I'm aware of the supposed problems with the secondary sources for Jesus, I just don't think they're convincing enough to disregard the source) (also I'm kidding about Pontius Pilate, he could have been thrown in as a detail to make the story seem more real).

So if some is writing a completely fake story about Jesus they have to make up a few dozen completely imaginary people. Now, this story will circulate throughout the Roman world, which includes the region it is set in. The story is written with a ridiculous amount of detail for a mythological account. There are way more locations, people, times, and other details about the setting than any Greco-Roman myth. So apparently the author wanted the story to be believed as fact. The problem is, the story mentions several high-profile events that many people in the region would have seen or heard of, so no one will believe it. Unless of course you circulate the story well after all of those people are dead, which would be about fifty years, give or take a few years. The most likely date scholarship has for the gospels puts them about fifty years after the events in question. So, purely fictional events?

That would make absolutely no sense. First of all, there would still be some people alive who could counter those claims. People could live into their 70's, 80's, or even 90’s in the Roman world, especially if they had any kind of wealth. Second, there was record keeping and practices of oral tradition. People would have been aware of the history of the place they lived. Still, if you have a REALLY critical stance on dating the NT you can get around some of this. But the biggest question is, why? Why would anyone in Jewish society make up a story about a messiah who came, who was nothing like what anyone expected, and died a shameful death on the cross? It's not a story anyone would have liked. There was no benefit for being part of the Christian movement, the Jews hated them and the Romans hated them. If they stayed Jewish at least the Jews would have liked them. Also, the story in Luke-Acts involves the spread of the church well into the 50's CE (events also attested by Paul’s letters). So now you have stories about stuff that happened EVEN later, and the story claims a wide following for the movement all over a network of important cities, and ALSO claims several high-profile events in those cities that would have meant people were aware of the Christian presence in the communities.

So for Jesus to purely mythical, the Christian movement would have had to come into existence out of nothing in the 80's CE or later. The only problem is, that's not what the historical record says. The historians Tacitus and Suetonius both record Christian persecutions taking place in 64 CE, as well as other persecutions in 52 and 57. Also, Christianity had become big enough by around 100 CE to be a problem for the Romans. Pliny the Younger writes the Roman emperor c. 112 CE to ask him how to deal with Christians, and the emperor responds. The emperor already knew of the Christians, and apparently he had thought out a specific policy for dealing with them. This suggests an empire-wide issue, and the letter verifies a Christian presence in the city which is at least 20 years old. Also you have Clement of Rome, who was the third bishop of the church, writing c. 95 CE to a Christian church that already has some ecclesiastical structure and has spread to numerous cities. Also, Clement grew up during the spread of the Jesus movement, and knew Peter and Paul personally.

As for the account of Jesus being derived from the OT text, there are a lot of similarities, but this doesn’t mean that Jesus was created out of the Jewish mythical tradition. Keep in mind that contemporary Jewish documents show that the picture of the messiah they expected looked nothing like Jesus. The picture of Jesus as the promised Messiah of Scripture was something that only made sense in retrospect. What you see in the Gospels are several authors re-reading the text in light of Jesus. This creates a distinct hermeneutic where it seems obvious that Jesus fits the picture. Basically, hindsight is 20-20. The argument that Price makes from the OT is basically just copying what the NT authors came up with when they were trying to convince people that Jesus was actually the Messiah. It might be fair to see things Price’s way, but if the Jesus story was just a part of the mythos, why were the NT authors trying to prove that Jesus fit into the story. Paul quotes the OT for proof, and so do the Gospels when they say, “this was done to fulfill what was written…” At the very least we see a group that is outside the norm of Jewish tradition, so the Jesus movement is not a natural evolution of Jewish myth.

So to me, the Jesus movement being based around an entirely fictitious person makes no sense. It seems that the writings of the NT represent an attempt to re-interpret the story of Jesus to people in various contexts, (the argument of whether or not Jesus was really Divine or just a moral teacher is a completely separate issue). So while I can see the debate about what Jesus’s life really signified, I have to side with the consensus of modern scholarship on the issue of his existence.

Wow, what a fun rant! It’s been a while since I just spouted out a big, rambling post about something. “Mythic Jesus” turned out to be the perfect thing, thanks Min!

(May 13, 2011 at 11:08 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: The story is written with a ridiculous amount of detail for a mythological account. There are way more locations, people, times, and other details about the setting than any Greco-Roman myth. So apparently the author wanted the story to be believed as fact.

One could argue that Lord or the Rings and the Harry Potter Series have a ridiculous amount of detail in them and they are KNOWN to be mythological.


EDIT: Spelling error

Quote:Wow, are you also questioning the historicity of Paul? You are a skeptic among skeptics my friend.

Thank you.


Now. I just spent 25 minutes typing out a reply only to lose it to some computer glitch. Before I waste any more time I will ask you for an honest answer.

Are you really interesting in having the story you have been told challenged or would I just be wasting more of my time?

(May 14, 2011 at 12:24 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(May 13, 2011 at 11:08 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: The story is written with a ridiculous amount of detail for a mythological account. There are way more locations, people, times, and other details about the setting than any Greco-Roman myth. So apparently the author wanted the story to be believed as fact.

One could argue that Lord or the Rings and the Harry Potter Series have a ridiculous amount of detail in them and they are KNOWN to be mythological.


EDIT: Spelling error

Yes, both of those being modern fiction. I guess you could put forward the idea of an ancient J.K. Rowling, but the kind of modern fiction you're talking about has thousands of years of developements in writing conventions behind it. I haven't seen an example of Greco-Roman myth with the same level of detail, but I would be interested if you did.

Did I misspell something or did you? I wrote this thing fast and loose so I'd be thrilled if it didn't have a million errors!

(May 14, 2011 at 12:30 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Wow, are you also questioning the historicity of Paul? You are a skeptic among skeptics my friend.

Thank you.


Now. I just spent 25 minutes typing out a reply only to lose it to some computer glitch. Before I waste any more time I will ask you for an honest answer.

Are you really interesting in having the story you have been told challenged or would I just be wasting more of my time?

Oh man, losing a post sucks. Anyway, in regards to your question, I am like Doctor House, from the hit show House. I like to bounce my ideas off of random people, and if they're stupid I like for them to be shot down. It's part of my process of figuring things out; I'm basically just thinking out loud. If my ideas are just glaringly wrong in some way I would much rather someone point it out so I can come up better ones.

So yes, I would like to hear a counter-argument, but you can just give me the cliff notes if you don't want to spend another 20 minutes.

Thanks guys!

Quote:So yes, I would like to hear a counter-argument, but you can just give me the cliff notes if you don't want to spend another 20 minutes.

No, this cannot be reduced to the length of a bible verse. Some things are far too complex to be handled with a platitude.

I'll write it out on WordPerfect and then paste it here. My fellow atheists may enjoy it as well.

"I'll be back"......said the soon to be divorced ex-governor of California.