Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[DeistPaladin]

What?

He's on second. "I don't know" is on 3rd.

[Justtristo]

How many ways are there to say it? The dying/resurrected vegetation god was a common motif in the Ancient Mediterrranean. "Jesus" was nothing special. In fact, the only thing that sets xtianity apart from the other cults was the viciousness of their followers in stamping out earlier religions.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/th...urrection/

The origins of the dying and rising gods are to be found in the Sumerian and Akkadian myths associated with Dumuzi and his borrowing of vegetation forms from Ningishzida and possibly Damu. The result is a god who is celebrated as one who does go into the underworld for part of the year and then re-emerges. That such rituals did take place among West Semites as early as 18th century Mari is shown from texts there. This certainly could have influenced the Baal myths at Ugarit and Dumuzi remained a force in the background of the Phoenician and later Mediterranean rituals and myths associated with vegetation. Mettinger has provided the reader with a valuable guide of all important ancient sources relevant to this question. From a great mass of diverse data he has judiciously argued a conclusion that may not persuade everyone but becomes a primary source for future discussion.

Richard S. Hess, Ph.D.
Professor of Old Testament
Denver Seminary

( I deliberately put Professor Hess' position at the Denver Seminary in the quote so that xtians can shit bricks.

I like that even more than muffins.

I will add a opinion I express of how the Jesus story we read in the gospels got first written. Jews around turn of the first millennium CE had messianic expectation, which were main cause of three major wars against the Roman Empire. In the aftermath of the third and last one (Bar Kochba) some decided that the Messiah had already arrived, just that few noticed he had arrived.

Using some interpretation from the book of Daniel, they decided that this Messiah lived around 30AD. So they combed through the Old Testament to determine what such a Messiah would have done, the result being a lot of the stories we read in the Gospels. Also they cribbed a lot from the Historian Josephus in order to make the story sound historically credible.

[hoppimike]

Lots of interesting posts (including about waffles )... but what is wrong with the Zeitgeist excerpt? All those facts were false? or?

[DeistPaladin]

Lots of interesting posts (including about waffles )... but what is wrong with the Zeitgeist excerpt? All those facts were false? or?

I think it's important to be very careful about this topic. Christian apologists are fond of "poisoning the well", harping on single mistakes to discredit the whole. There is a lot of sloppy research out there that I've learned to be wary of.

Let me use another part of Zeitgeist to underscore my point. The second part is about how 9/11 was an inside job. Now, I think that the Bush misadministration was negligent in "keeping us safe" and obsessed with Saddam. I believe 9/11 happened because the administration was asleep at the switch, not complicit. I also believe that Bush, Cheney, et al were eager to take advantage of the situation to lie us into a costly war, line the pockets of their oil and defense contractor interests, etc. None of that requires speculation in elaborate conspiracy theories. It only relies on the facts. Those that scream "9/11 was an inside job" discredit Bush critics.

Same thing with Jesus. I don't believe in the miracle working godman and I think the Gospels are mythmaking and urban legend. However, when it comes to the historicity of an alleged mortal Jesus, I'm careful about my sources because there's some wild conspiracy theories out there akin to the Truthers.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Lots of interesting posts (including about waffles )... but what is wrong with the Zeitgeist excerpt? All those facts were false? or?

I think it's important to be very careful about this topic. Christian apologists are fond of "poisoning the well", harping on single mistakes to discredit the whole. There is a lot of sloppy research out there that I've learned to be wary of.

Let me use another part of Zeitgeist to underscore my point. The second part is about how 9/11 was an inside job. Now, I think that the Bush misadministration was negligent in "keeping us safe" and obsessed with Saddam. I believe 9/11 happened because the administration was asleep at the switch, not complicit. I also believe that Bush, Cheney, et al were eager to take advantage of the situation to lie us into a costly war, line the pockets of their oil and defense contractor interests, etc. None of that requires speculation in elaborate conspiracy theories. It only relies on the facts. Those that scream "9/11 was an inside job" discredit Bush critics.

Same thing with Jesus. I don't believe in the miracle working godman and I think the Gospels are mythmaking and urban legend. However, when it comes to the historicity of an alleged mortal Jesus, I'm careful about my sources because there's some wild conspiracy theories out there akin to the Truthers.

I was once in some apologism class and we were covering the mythisist theories and the guy leading the class seriously told us to watch Zeitgeist to understand the mythisist position, as if that was at all representative of the whole movement.

Another similar tacit I've seen in apologist books is mixing up hacks like Dan Brown with reputable phd scholars. The average reader of these books won't know the difference and winds up thinking that all the different views and arguments are just as crazy as the Da Vinci Code, or Zeitgeist, or ancient aliens.

[DeistPaladin]

Another similar tacit I've seen in apologist books is mixing up hacks like Dan Brown with reputable phd scholars.

Seriously? Dan Brown? He wrote fiction and labeled it as such. That's moving past poisoning the well and strawmanning and into outright lying.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Another similar tacit I've seen in apologist books is mixing up hacks like Dan Brown with reputable phd scholars.

Seriously? Dan Brown? He wrote fiction and labeled it as such. That's moving past poisoning the well and strawmanning and into outright lying.

Well, they say he was making a real argument through the use of fiction. I don't know if that's true. I never read it. I've only seen reviews from apologists and atheists alike.

[Annik]

I think the myth likely took many aspects of different, popular religious parts. It's not something they blatantly copied from one myths, but something blatantly copied from several. Time also allowed it to twist and warp into Jesus as we know him... A fair-skinned white man with feathery hair (wtf?).

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think the myth likely took many aspects of different, popular religious parts. It's not something they blatantly copied from one myths, but something blatantly copied from several. Time also allowed it to twist and warp into Jesus as we know him... A fair-skinned white man with feathery hair (wtf?).

Don't forget the british accent!

[Minimalist]

Another similar tacit I've seen in apologist books is mixing up hacks like Dan Brown with reputable phd scholars.

Seriously? Dan Brown? He wrote fiction and labeled it as such. That's moving past poisoning the well and strawmanning and into outright lying.

When did that ever slow them down?