29 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI've heard a bit about it, especially from Robert Price, a member of the Jesus Seminar. I don't know though. I'm really on the fence. It seems to me that either Jesus was a spiritualist who inspired a following that over the years catipulted and augmented an semi-ordinary individual's ideas into a mythology that would have died out like the the deluded icon upon which it was based if it weren't for the conversion of Constantine or . . .
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
i never realized how much of jesus' life, as depicted in the NT, is strikingly similar to previous mythological characters.
anyone have any thoughts on this?
Paul created a messiah in a time when messiahs were common superstition and knowing that the learned of Hebrews would see through his chickanery he peddled it to non-Hebrews with little sucess, leading to his execution, but through some fortuitous circumstances his teaching became the hegemonic superstition of the Western world.
Either way, if not for a bit of luck we'd probably still worship Jupiter.
29 May 05
Originally posted by telerionyes, i am not sure either.
I've heard a bit about it, especially from Robert Price, a member of the Jesus Seminar. I don't know though. I'm really on the fence. It seems to me that either Jesus was a spiritualist who inspired a following that over the years catipulted and augmented an semi-ordinary individual's ideas into a mythology that would have died out like the the delud ...[text shortened]... e Western world.
Either way, if not for a bit of luck we'd probably still worship Jupiter.
the documentary 'the god who wasn't there' definitely promotes the latter explanation -- basically that paul chalked up a messiah who of course bore striking resemblance to other mythological characters other people had chalked up. they cite some reasons for why this might be true, but it's speculation.
i am not sure what i think about it. i think it would be hard to make an informed decisision unless i did a whole lot more research on the subject. the question is probably moot anyway.
29 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJellothe question is probably moot anyway.
yes, i am not sure either.
the documentary 'the god who wasn't there' definitely promotes the latter explanation -- basically that paul chalked up a messiah who of course bore striking resemblance to other mythological characters other people had chalked up. they cite some reasons for why this might be true, but it's speculation.
i am not sure ...[text shortened]... n unless i did a whole lot more research on the subject. the question is probably moot anyway.
Yes, I've begun to question my purpose in this forum as well.
29 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, I've double posted yet again. Now I must say something interesting.
yes, i am not sure either.
the documentary 'the god who wasn't there' definitely promotes the latter explanation -- basically that paul chalked up a messiah who of course bore striking resemblance to other mythological characters o ...[text shortened]... e research on the subject. the question is probably moot anyway.
Is it better to confront xtians in the discourse of metaphysical matters lest their position become the subconscious default or norm, or should we ignore them trusting to the critical thinking skills of our fellow man to see through the arbitrariness of xtian arguments -- figuring that it probably doesn't matter anyway?
29 May 05
Originally posted by telerionwow, that's a good question.
Well, I've double posted yet again. Now I must say something interesting.
Is it better to confront xtians in the discourse of metaphysical matters lest their position become the subconscious default or norm, or should we ignore them trusting to the critical thinking skills of our fellow man to see through the arbitrariness of xtian arguments -- figuring that it probably doesn't matter anyway?
in my neck of the woods, the xtian stance is already the default, although i imagine it is not that way everywhere.
wow, how to answer that question... i guess my fascination with the arbitrariness of faith is just that -- a fascination. in that sense, i would ultimately say it doesn't matter anyway and my attempts at debunking the myths would be shelved away and dusted off only periodically, sort of as a hobby.
however, it does get to me when children get arbitrary crap shoved down their throat and get taught that it is really how the world works. something in me takes offense to that and it's like i feel the need to somehow step into debunking character, like a superhero who puts on his costume when he hears the young woman scream. i think people should be allowed to make up their own minds.
so in short, i would take the stance that there are times to confront the myths and times to say whatever. i'm not sure that's much of an answer.
29 May 05
2 edits
Yes. It seems fairly obvious (to me at any rate), that the Jesus Tale is one that has been co-opted from earlier religious works. Another link I've found on the subject (although the HTML is horrible):
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html
I also find it fascinating that there is no historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, despite what many apologists may claim. The cynic in me would suppose that early Christians decided to "modernize" an already ancient legend in order to legitimize themselves and gain greater political/spritual/economic power.
edit ...and for the record, I'd be happy with Jupiter. Although, I'd probably be at the feet of Venus with a splash of Bacchus on the side.
29 May 05
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe famous René Girard has a lot of thoughts on this issue:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
i never realized how much of jesus' life, as depicted in the NT, is strikingly similar to previous mythological characters.
anyone have any thoughts on this?
http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html
René Girard: " ..............
An analysis of that event-exploring the anthropological aspects of the Passion that we cannot neglect if we take the dogma of the Incarnation seriously-not only reveals the falsity of contemporary anthropology's skepticism about human nature. It also utterly discredits the notion that Christianity is in any sense mythological. The world's myths do not reveal a way to interpret the Gospels, but exactly the reverse: the Gospels reveal to us the way to interpret myth.
...................... "
http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html
An interesting site that explains the way René Girard sees the Scapegoatmechanism, a form of violence, as a way of restoring order in a society is:
http://www.strauss.za.com/phl/wdb_scapegoat.html
29 May 05
5 edits
Originally posted by David CSo, only atheists, without any vested interests of course regarding this issue, can be objective ...... ?
Vested interests. He's R.C.
You'd better look at him more seriously. Investigate his reasonings and his arguments. Google on his name. He's a well respected scholar and not just in RC circles. His work is very interesting for people trying to understand myths, the Gospel and their relation to human history. According to him the Gospel is the key for understanding myths and human history as a whole.
29 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe
So, only atheists, without any vested interests of course regarding this issue, can be objective ...... ?
I can't recall having made that assertion. Perhaps by implication, granted. Avowed atheists may not be the best choice, either...however, I would trust their impartiality to a greater degree.
You'd better look at him more seriously.
I have no desire to do so, although I appreciate the demand.
According to him the Gospel is the key for understanding myths and human history as a whole.
I understand that. However, I would contend that the earlier texts from which the gospels are derived are the key to understanding human history as a whole, including those burned and destroyed throught the Common Era by the keepers of the very gospels Girard reveres. So, we are at a loggerhead. Whatever shall we do?
29 May 05
Originally posted by David CDavid C: " ... either...however, I would trust their impartiality to a greater degree."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b] So, only atheists, without any vested interests of course regarding this issue, can be objective ...... ?
I can't recall having made that assertion. Perhaps by implication, granted. Avowed atheists may not be the best choice, either...however, I would trust their impartiality to a greater degree.
You'd ...[text shortened]... he keepers of the very gospels Girard reveres. So, we are at a loggerhead. Whatever shall we do?
..... and why is that ?