I guess what I'm talking about here is the Christ-myth theory--the idea Jesus is based on other myths from pagan religions. I think this theory is a little ridiculous. Do you have an opinion on the idea of Jesus being based on myths.

I think the character of Jesus is the Gospels has a historical basis but the claims about Jesus are wildly exaggerated and non-historical.

(July 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm)Marnie Wrote: I think this theory is a little ridiculous.

Really? Virgin births, sons of gods etc are really nothing new. Many ancient mythologies had a multitude of similarities with the whole Jesus thing.

(July 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm)Marnie Wrote: I think this theory is a little ridiculous.

Really? Virgin births, sons of gods etc are really nothing new. Many ancient mythologies had a multitude of similarities with the whole Jesus thing.

I know stuff like that is a pretty common theme in Paganism, but I was talking more about people proclaiming Jesus is entirely a myth with no historical basis. I just read an article from a website. I liked it, so I looked at another one. The article was about how the myth of Jesus was deliberately created by the evangelists based on Krishna and Buddha. Ummm...

Hmmm, Minimalist is probably the best guy here to give you information on Jesus being a myth.

Quote:I guess what I'm talking about here is the Christ-myth theory--the idea Jesus is based on other myths from pagan religions.

The word 'pagan"comes from the Latin 'paganus' meaning ' country dweller' or 'rustic' as we might say 'yokel' or 'redneck'. In my opinion, one may not use the term 'pagan religion as as definitive or descriptive term. "Pagans"' had the same gods as the rest of the broad population.

Christianity presented no new ideas, on any level. Beginning as a purely Jewish sect,it later borrowed ideas from several sources,but from not single source as far as I'm aware. The biggest single influence on the development of Christianity was (arguably) Saul/ Paul of Tarsus whose background was Judaism and Greek ideas.

I think care needs to be taken not to conflate correlation and causation. This has been done to the point of absurdity in that appalling piece of crackpottery, 'Zeitgeist'

Quote: but I was talking more about people proclaiming Jesus is entirely a myth with no historical basis.

And what do you think the "historical basis" for jesus might be?

Careful....there are people here who know this stuff.


(Here's a little hint. Just because the bible says so means exactly shit.)

Quote:but I was talking more about people proclaiming Jesus is entirely a myth with no historical basis.

As it turns out,there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus. BUT, absence of evidence is not proof of absence,,although it's usually a pretty good indicator.

Nor is their enough credible evidence [in my opinion] to assert categorically that the figure of Jesus is entirely myth.


My position: It's plausible,even likely that in first century Judea: There lived a wondering ,devout Jewish teacher with a small band of followers. That his name was something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf. That he founded a small,very Jewish sect. That he was crucified as were THOUSANDS of Jews during the Roman occupation.

The same may not be said of the Jesus of the New Testament. HE is almost certainly a mythical figure,fleshed out over 300 years,by anecdote, hyperbole,censorship and forgery.He did not emerge as full god/man until after the first Nicene council in 325 ce. The emperor Constantine dragged church leaders kicking and screaming and forced them to cobble together a canon for purely political reasons; order and stability in his empire.

There is no credible evidence that Constantine became a Christian,although it is thought he may have done so shortly before his death. The Roman empire did not become officially and intolerantly Christian until the emperor Theodosius in 380 CE. Official persecution of 'pagans' began in 381

(July 29, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: but I was talking more about people proclaiming Jesus is entirely a myth with no historical basis.

And what do you think the "historical basis" for jesus might be?

Careful....there are people here who know this stuff.


(Here's a little hint. Just because the bible says so means exactly shit.)

As in Jesus existing as a person and the miraculous claims of miracles and his Resurrection are exaggerated. I can see how Christianity has similarities to other religion's Gods and beliefs.

I'm unsure how to phrase this, but if you believe Jesus is entirely a myth and there was no wandering preacher the Gospels were vaguely based on, how did the myth of Jesus develop and how did the infusion of the culture's take place? Was it a purposeful creation of the character of Jesus?

---

(July 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:but I was talking more about people proclaiming Jesus is entirely a myth with no historical basis.

As it turns out,there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus. BUT, absence of evidence is not proof of absence,,although it's usually a pretty good indicator.

Nor is their enough credible evidence [in my opinion] to assert categorically that the figure of Jesus is entirely myth.


My position: It's plausible,even likely that in first century Judea: There lived a wondering ,devout Jewish teacher with a small band of followers. That his name was something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf. That he founded a small,very Jewish sect. That he was crucified as were THOUSANDS of Jews during the Roman occupation.

The same may not be said of the Jesus of the New Testament. HE is almost certainly a mythical figure,fleshed out over 300 years,by anecdote, hyperbole,censorship and forgery.He did not emerge as full god/man until after the first Nicene council in 325 ce. The emperor Constantine dragged church leaders kicking and screaming and forced them to cobble together a canon for purely political reasons; order and stability in his empire.

There is no credible evidence that Constantine became a Christian,although it is thought he may have done so shortly before his death. The Roman empire did not become officially and intolerantly Christian until the emperor Theodosius in 380 CE. Official persecution of 'pagans' began in 381

You believe the same things about Jesus that I do. The Gospels portray the "Christ of Faith" and not the Jesus of history.

So, instead of raising the dead, he gave some guy the Heimlich? Exaggeration is one thing...lol, boldfaced bullshit is another. Go ahead and stretch it a little, but don't break it......

Quote:I'm unsure how to phrase this, but if you believe Jesus is entirely a myth and there was no wandering preacher the Gospels were vaguely based on, how did the myth of Jesus develop and how did the infusion of the culture's take place? Was it a purposeful creation of the character of Jesus?

Let's defuse the argument by eliminating jesus for a moment.

How do you think the stories of Apollo or Hercules got started? Thor?
Shiva? Quetzlcoatl? Arvernus? Osiris? Marduk? Ishtar? Moluch? etc. etc. etc.

Somehow, the human imagination managed to concoct all of these but "jesus" needs a historical basis? This is called "special pleading" and xtians are famous for it.


Now, back to Part I.

Quote:As in Jesus existing as a person and the miraculous claims of miracles and his Resurrection are exaggerated.

What is jesus without the resurrection? As H. L. Mencken noted,

Quote:There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

The muslims make a lot of absurd claims about mohammad but they don't claim he came back from the dead.