BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:42 AM

The allegory is the description, not the subject.

Exactly - That is why I cannot see why an allegory cannot contain historic events. The two are not related. Although the allegory may be made up - Which under the OED definition it may not always be - The story can contain real people. Therefore the false logic is -

a) a made-up story (therefore not real), or
b) a real bloke (therefore not a made-up story)

An allegory can be a made up story about a real bloke or even a real event used to describe or explain something else. I am sure that the bible stories are very allegorical - But that does not preclude them from containing some element of truth. Anyone who says they are either completely true or completely false can never realy prove that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:29 AM

"Did I read somewhere that arrogance is a sign of intelligence? "

George W. Bush is arrogant.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:38 AM

And therefore intelligent. Ah.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:57 AM

On a good day George Bush couldn't find his arse with both hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:11 AM

Anyone who says they are either completely true or completely false can never realy prove that

Not true! For instance, one can prove that an ark built to the dimensions given in the Noah story cannot hold all the animals on the earth. One can prove Jonah could not have lived in a whale. Unless you mean one cannot prove/disprove these things to the satisfaction of everybody; that's the tricky bit ... when you throw an omnipotent being into the mix all things are possible, even the impossible. But then that unmoving refusal to recognize what amounts to a defeat of mythical belief is what the conjuror depends upon.

Works for other myths as well as those in the bible (and better, our mythmakers today are assisted by incomprehensible technology and the average-joe's poor understanding of what science and logic really are). I wasn't at Mons so how can I say with 100% certainty the angel didn't appear? I've never been to Roswell. I've never poked my fingers into Jesus's wounds.

Happy Friday by the way. (I can't prove it's Friday. Just a concensus arrived at between me and others on the planet ;O)

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:26 AM

There's a nickle's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. If you put a nickle on a table, a Democrat will steal it from you. A Republican will kill you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:33 AM

In the United States anyone can be President.


































That's the problem.

George Carlin

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:48 PM

The only way to insert a historical character into a fictional story and be able to prove this to be the case is that a real and verifiable story with that person in it must also exist or his own records must be located and verified. When you don't have that, you don't have a case for saying the person is historical even if the story is obviously not. Since we have no verifiable biography or history of Jesus Christ other than the fictional story, it is great folly and totally dishonest to assert then that the character is real but the story false. The very idea is absurd. Until a verifiable story pops up for comparison, both persona and story must be considered fictional. Jesus Christ is fictional--period.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:55 PM

Dead-end argument. To people who believe in Jesus, your lack of acceptance means nothing. Basically, in their world He exists. He doesn't in yours. It's no big deal that they cannot prove to you that He lived. Neither can you prove He didn't. No point having an argument no one can win. As you have proven on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:12 PM

An argument [philosophically speaking] is a reason advanced for or against a proposition. It could transpire between two opposing factions where neither concedes to the points presented by the other and is therefore viewed as unwon. But there may well be third party observers who dismiss one side in favour of the other in which case there would indeed be a winner and a loser. Or in perpetual argument, as in this topic, two winners and two losers.

I think advancement lies in common ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:39 PM

"Did not!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"

And nobody so far has presented an acceptable reason or believable evidence for either position. After several hundred posts on a couple of threads, continuing with this "Did not! Did too!" stuff gets a bit silly, don't you think?

There are intelligent, rational people on both sides of the issue. The horse is dead. Continuing to flog it is not going to make it stand up and whinny, much less win the Derby.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:42 PM

"nobody so far has presented an acceptable reason or believable evidence for either position"

Bull... just for one, the total lack of ANY contemporary account from people who were writing about exactly what Jesus was supposed to be on about is very telling in it's silence....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:52 PM

There are contemporary accounts, but nobody wants to believe them. Maybe they're authentic, maybe not. Still up in the air.

Over and out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM

"There are contemporary accounts"

Ya... whatever....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:38 PM

Some folks have a skewed view of how proof works. It goes like this:

When you make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Hence, the claim that Jesus Christ was historical must be proven. You don't ask the con side to prove it because one does not prove the negative. This prevents the pro side from invalidly trying to turn the tables to "prove he didn't." That is not where the burden of proof lies so no one has to prove he didn't.

Nor can you try to prove your claim by saying, "You can't prove anyone existed. Prove Lincoln existed." Okay, I will. We have his photos, we have his words, his handwriting, many accounts by those who knew him. His eldest son, Robert, lived well into the 20th century. If we had any such proof as this with Jesus Christ, we'd have no reason to question his historicity. The burden of proof really doesn't lie on the person claiming Lincoln existed but on the one who claims he didn't. We won't find any photos of Christ, of course, but we should at least have a plethora of accounts contemporary with Jesus Christ had he actually existed. We have nothing. Even the spurious Josephus quote and the misinterpreted Tacitus quote were not contemporary to Jesus Christ.

Even so, compelling evidence has been brought forth that presents a very strong case that Jesus Christ was not historical and even this has yet to be satifactorily rebutted.

You have to prove Jesus Christ was historical and if you fail, then your case is considered wrong or false until you can prove it. None of this "he's real to those that believe." That's as silly as saying the tooth fairy is real to those who believe. So what? Doesn't make them right. It does make them gullible though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:50 PM

Got nothing to prove to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 08:57 PM

Just about everything that can be said about the whole matter has been said. Repeating it doesn't make it more credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:16 PM

Instead of disputing the claims of Christianity, I'm thinking I should found my own sect or denomination of the religion. The Non-historic Jesus sect. Call it "The Universal Church of the Soully Allegorical Jesus"

and we shall be called "non-hissies."

and our slogan will be: "I Like the Christ in You."

and our belief system officially encapsulated in the phrase: "Jesus died for your sins, figuratively speaking. You still have to pay for everything."

and this is our cheer: "Nag Nag Nag Hammadi/When the soul departs, we eat the body" (well, we did say we like the Christ in you)

and our eschatology officially expressed as: "Trust Us On This One--He's a No-Show."

Bumpstickers include: "Not Even Paul Believed That!"

"In case of Rupture, my john will be occupied."

"Careful--Psychopath Onboard."

And here's some of our hilarious top-notch humor:

Q: What did Jesus call Judas's kiss?

A: A-pucker lips now.

But don't fall over yet:

Q: What did the non-hissie say to Jesus?

A: Get real!

What a knee-slapper!

I believe I could take over the Christian edifice from the inside out in this manner. And then only the heretics will still profess the historical abomination. Ha ha!

And on the billboard out front: "Cuz you folks will believe anything." Amen!

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:40 PM

Well, that's one way to make yourself a prophet. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:17 AM

Just repeating what has been said above by me and others before. There is no proof in either camp. Proof as in evidence that would stand up in court. Using the court analogy there is plenty of 'expert witness' testimony but that asks for a supposition. Whether that type of evidence would be enough to convict or aquit the defendants of existing is another matter!

Clinton. 'Whatever' is not a particularly good argument. Don made a valid point. Why be so dismissive?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:33 AM

"Don made a valid point."

No, actually he didn't.... not according to most historians worth their salt.....

There are NO contemporary accounts of this so-called Jesus.... everything that we have written about him was written well after his death....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:58 AM

Looks like a dead-end discussion to me. I think of bible scholarship as an oxymoron.

But if you want some careful analysis, check out books by Bart Ehrman.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:35 AM

Far better than 'whatever, Clinton:-) So why did not say that in the first place?

Is it true though? Alleged contemporary and nearly contemporary accounts of Jesus include Tertullian, Josephus, and Celsus. They can of course never be verified but that does not mean they have to be fake. If he was the trouble maker detailed in the books may the existing religious leaders not have wanted to ensure he did not get popular? How better than to stop the 'popular press' of the time reporting on him? It has been known to happen even now - why not then? Maybe that is why only scrapy details survived?

Personaly I think it likely that the figure of Jesus, whoever he was, was merged with the previous pagan gods and stories for political ends by the early church. I also think it likely that they used both existing myths and existing characters rather than make something up from scratch. The Christian churches track record for 'borrowing' other peoples beliefs is positively verifible. Why should they have chosen to make things up rather than do as they have always done since?

I have to agree of course. No-one can say whether he did realy exist. But to say categoricaly that he did not is a pretty strong conclusion to make on the scant evidence. I am pretty sure he would not have been the miracle working peace hippy of popular belief but on the evidence available I would say it is more likely that the man did exist. If not the legend!

We will probably never agree but reasoned argument is far better than derision don't you think?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:05 PM

"So why did not say that in the first place?"

Cause it's been said over and over and over in this thread.... and still they cling to "Yes there is" with NO evidence to back it up....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:07 PM

>>There is no proof in either camp. Proof as in evidence that would stand up in court. Using the court analogy there is plenty of 'expert witness' testimony but that asks for a supposition. Whether that type of evidence would be enough to convict or aquit the defendants of existing is another matter!<<

But in a court of law only one side is required to prove something. One side must prove guilt, for example. The other side does not have to prove innocence. If guilt is not proven, innocence is presumed.

Likewise, the historicity of Jesus Christ must be proven. Those who question it are not required to prove non-historicity. If the side that favors historicity fails to prove their case, non-historicity is likewise presumed.

And like the defense, the non-historists have a right to defend against statements made by the prosecution or the historists, in this case. You may offer evidence but they have the right to rebut it. If they fail to do so, you win. So far, two primary pieces have been offered and both rebutted convincingly.

That's pretty much where it stands as of now and has stood for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:13 PM

"No-one can say whether he did realy exist. But to say categoricaly that he did not is a pretty strong conclusion to make on the scant evidence."

See post from From: 282RA
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:38 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:15 PM

>>But if you want some careful analysis, check out books by Bart Ehrman.<<

I've read a very provocative and wonderfully insightful book called "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" (Oxford University Press, 1993) by Bart D. Ehrman (Assoc. prof. of Religious Studies at U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and he has a highly interesting take on what early Christianity was like before the NT and the orthodoxy was established.

We know in the early days of this religion, there were hundreds of competing views about who and what Jesus Christ was. Some groups didn't even regard Jesus and Christ as the same being. Some said a divine Christ came to inhabit a human Jesus. Others said Jesus Christ was a man chosen by god. Others said he was the son of god and not really begotten on earth 2000 years ago but that he "pre-existed" his earthly incarnation. All sorts of views that competed for supremacy--for orthodoxy. What we call orthodox today was just another competing view at one time with no more claim to orthodoxy than any other group.

Ehrman believes that not only is the modern orthodoxy not orthodox in the 2nd and 3rd centuries but that the NT itself does not express an orthodox view except where it has been provably corrupted by scribes of the orthodox persuasion, which occurred from the 2nd to the 4th centuries.

The original writings that comprise the canon were Adoptionist. Adoptionists held that Jesus was an ordinary man who was, at some point, declared by god to be His son. There was no miraculous birth with angels, guiding stars or pregnant virgins.   Ehrman points out that even the Adoptionist creed appears to have changed over time. The oldest form of Adoptionism held that Jesus was not appointed or declared the son of god until his resurrection. A later form took over that held that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism.

For instance, in Mark 1:1, we read, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God." Ehrman mentions eight important early texts that omit the phrase "son of god." Scholars try to account for the omission by saying it was a mistake on the part of the scribes but Ehrman finds it odd that such a mistake would appear immediately in a text rather than somewhere in the middle and that every scribe who copied a Markan gospel text independently of the others managed to make the same mistake over and over again.
Then we read of the baptism of Jesus by John:

"And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, 'Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.'" (Mk 1:10-11)

Here was originally an Adoptionist moment. For them, Jesus became son of god at that moment. He was not the son of god before then. First of all, the wording of the passage indicates that ONLY Jesus saw the heavens part and dove descend and the voice of god speak to him. No one else present saw or heard anything. This would be odd for Jesus to require this personal epiphany were he already the actual son of god especially since his miraculous birth would have made everyone around him aware of his special status. Nevertheless, orthodox Christians of today can say there is no declaration of god that Jesus was only appointed his son at that moment. IOW, Jesus still could have been preexistent in this baptism account and it is therefore not Adoptionist.

Luke 3:22 also recounts the incident but the earliest Lukan manuscripts do not have god saying, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Rather, god says, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten thee." This is an important distinction.

By saying "today I have begotten thee" we see that god adopted Jesus as his son at that moment and that Jesus was not an actual semi-divine son of god from birth and was not pre-existent. He was an ordinary man who was adopted by god at his baptism. So even Mark's account of the baptism was corrupted by the orthodoxy so the preexistence of Jesus could not be questioned here.

The baptism incident, too central to Christianity to be deleted, had to be changed to choke off the Adoptionist claims which were apparently quite widespread at that time (remember that two Roman Church bishops--Irenaeus and Papias--did not believe Jesus died on the cross but lived in Asia to age 50). Strangely, though, the early Lukan MSS did not remove the Adoptionist language from 3:22 even though it blatantly contradicted Luke's claim in 1:35 where he wrote:

"And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.'"

So we see why the early Lukan MSS were changed, they contradicted the orthodox claim put forth in 1:35--namely that Jesus was son of god from birth. Ehrman believes 3:22 to be an original verse of text since it would be highly questionable that scribes educated in the later orthodox school would have added Adoptionist Christology.
The Lukan MSS, which include Acts, must have been hugely revised because Acts is strewn with Adoptionist statements--some of them extremely blatant. In Acts 10:37-38, Jesus is declared to be adopted by god at his baptism:

"the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power..."

We find traces of the older Adoptionist creed that Jesus was adopted at his resurrection in Acts 2:36 spoken by Peter:

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

In 5:30-31, we find a more blatant example:

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

Ehrman feels blatant creeds as this were not deleted because they represented an older Adoptionist Christology no longer practiced and so did not present a problem to the anti-Adoptionist group pushing to become the orthodoxy.

The Adoptionist creed is an older Christology than Paul's since he addresses the Adoptionists in his opening lines in Romans:

"...the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead..."(Rom 1:3-4)

Once again, we run across Jesus being designated as Son of God at his resurrection. Paul was forced to address the issue of Adoptionism and Jesus being descended from David because these were the main groups he would preach to in Rome (assuming he ever really went there--he wasn't in Rome when he wrote Romans and there is no record he ever went there much less died there).

The Transfiguration, if Spong is correct, was a post-resurrection event recast as a pre-resurrection one. The very nature of the episode indicates that Jesus was already dead when it occurred and that Peter would have no reason to want to build a tabernacle to Jesus right then and there were Jesus still alive--Luke even includes a bit about Peter saying this in his confusion.

If Spong is right--and I think he is--then this may have been another original Adoptionist moment that came at the resurrection since while he was on the mount with Peter, John and James, a "bright cloud" comes over them and a voice declares Jesus to be his son and that the others listen to him. A strange order since they were already following him. This then may have originally been the moment Jesus first appeared after his death. Again, the Transfiguration episode may have been so central to orthodox Christology that the incident was not deleted but changed from post- to pre-resurrection status.

Why not just write entirely new gospels instead of revising old Adoptionist literature? Same reason. These writings were THE Christian writings of that period and for the orthodoxy to be regarded as legitimate they would have to gradually revise the original documents rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water by creating entirely new ones.

This indicates that the miraculous birth movement came up through the Adoptionist church and, by degrees, took it over.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 12:57 PM

Mmmmm - Looks very much like a hung jury in the court of law example! There is evidence - but some believe it and others don't. Pretty much like black holes realy. There is plenty of evidence that they should exist, some would even say must exist, but no substantiated proof. I think until Mr Wells lends us his clever machine we will never 'know'.

I still believe that the balance of evidence is in favour of there being an historic JC. I still think it is no great step of 'faith' but a reasonable supposition that the powers that were at the time used an historic rather than fictional character on which to base their messiah. I think that although the Jesus myth was created as an analogy their is no reason to assume the character himself is a figment of someones imagination.

If someone chooses to hold a differing viewpoint then that is fine by me. As long as they don't try to force it on me and as long as I am not derided for my own views. Remember of course that most, if not all, of 'history' is based on someones viewpoint. And when we get two people chronacling events those viewpoints rarely co-incide.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:21 PM

Final "PROOF" of Black Holes came down th epike as long ago as 2002....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_milkyway_021016.html

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:24 PM

>>Mmmmm - Looks very much like a hung jury in the court of law example! There is evidence - but some believe it and others don't. Pretty much like black holes realy. There is plenty of evidence that they should exist, some would even say must exist, but no substantiated proof. I think until Mr Wells lends us his clever machine we will never 'know'.<<

Once again, this fails to address the basic premise of having a court of law: one side must prove something through the presenting of evidence while the other must defend against that evidence or offer counter-evidence. We're not worried about hung juries right now. We're concerned about the fact that the historists have not yet presented a viable case. Until that happens, it is never going to go before a jury. It's going to be thrown out at the hearing stage for lack of evidence.

>>I still believe that the balance of evidence is in favour of there being an historic JC.<<

And we're asking you to present that evidence to us for our study but, other than a couple of very weak and questionable examples, you have not complied.

>>I still think it is no great step of 'faith' but a reasonable supposition that the powers that were at the time used an historic rather than fictional character on which to base their messiah.<<

Powers? Who were these powers?

>>I think that although the Jesus myth was created as an analogy their is no reason to assume the character himself is a figment of someones imagination.<<

You have backasswards. Because the story is clearly a myth, we have no reason to assume the main character of such a story is real when he doesn't turn up in any other non-mythical accounts.

>>If someone chooses to hold a differing viewpoint then that is fine by me. As long as they don't try to force it on me and as long as I am not derided for my own views.<<

I get that a lot from believers even though they seem to practice that least of anybody.

>>Remember of course that most, if not all, of 'history' is based on someones viewpoint. And when we get two people chronacling events those viewpoints rarely co-incide.<<

That doesn't invalidate evidence. Two historians may not agree on how Pearl Harbor was planned and carried out or why but the documents concerning the attacks, the eyewitness accounts, the statements of people involved in the decision-making, etc. once set down are preserved and there for anyone to peruse. That evidence doesn't change, no two people may agree on the implications of the evidence but the evidence itself is objective and there for study and analysis. Two historians may not agree about exactly how or why Pearl Harbor happened but both agree it happened and when it happened and who the major players were.

It that evidence in the historist case of Jesus that is entirely lacking. There is no history to write for Jesus simply because we have no historical account. If we did, we wouldn't nned to construct a history for Jesus because we already have one. But all we have here is mythology and that is not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:45 PM

Proof schmoof. It no longer matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:01 PM

282RA - are you AR282? You both have an unusual way of quoting, between >> << marks, when there is absolutely no need. What I said was actual only about 2 posts up! Nothing to do with the argument and doesn't invalidate your points in any way. Just wondering why you would do it?

I've already said fine - you are entitled to your point of view. I am entitled to mine. Both our views are as valid as anyone elses. I would not dream of depricating your standpoint. All I ask is that for one minute you imaginne that someone else may be right. I am not saying that I am or that you are. Just that eother of us MAY be.

Clinton. I got as far as The observations rule out nearly all other possible explanations for the tremendous amount of matter. The 'nearly all' statement stopped me in my tracks. If there can be another explanation then it is still supposition. Just like this argument. Sorry.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:11 PM

"Both our views are as valid as anyone elses."

All views, all opinions are NOT created equal.....

Ask me about art.... you'll see.... my opinion ain't worth a hill of dingleberrys.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:12 PM

"If there can be another explanation then it is still supposition"

You go ahead and cling to that 0.0001% if you need to....

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:25 PM

Some people can't stand ambiguity. It drives them crazy and they have to have everything nailed down or they start to feel insecure. This is the mind-set of the fundamentalist, who can't reach a decision without consulting the Bible, as if it were the Boy Scout manual.

Interestingly enough, one finds the same mind-set in the hard-charging atheist. If anyone else does believe in God, or Jesus, or Zoroaster, they seem to feel compelled to attack that person's beliefs. Repeatedly. Incessantly. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. It's a manifestation of their insecurity. It's just as persistent--and for the same reason--as the evangelist who insists on saving your soul and just won't leave you alone.

The essence of religious belief is mystery. Not knowing for sure. Some folks just can't handle that.

That's why this thread has gone on for so long, simply repeating the same things over and over again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:40 PM

Yep, Don. I have lurked in this thread and found myself thinking that there is not a lot of difference between religious fundamentalist, and atheist fundamentalists. Both are intolerant of others views and seem to feel that it is necessary.

BTW,282, you made an incorrect statement above when you said, "You have to prove Jesus Christ was historical and if you fail, then your case is considered wrong or false.....". Nope, it is only considered unproven. Also, you continually draw analogies to a court of law. This is a bogus, pseudo intellectual analogy. The discussion centers around beliefs. Beliefs do not have a burden of proof. They are simply beliefs. Hence, given that proofs are not necessary, the only thing you have is your beliefs.

You need to lighten up a bit, 282. You come off shrieky and strident. It is enough to simply not buy into the Jesus story. I can respect that and your reasons for it. All the rest just makes you sound as though you have this unhealthy need to pound anyone who disagrees with you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:01 PM

Sorry Clinton - Just seen the latest Dr Who and Black Holes DO exist after all:-) Your views about art are certainly as valid as mine btw!

Court of law is an interesting thing. We are talking about the UK / USA model here I guess? Did you know that in France the theory is that should be no real difference between defence and prosecution? The object of the excercise is to find the truth. If both sides agree that there is no proof either way then they move to a balance of probabilities model.

I do not know if there is any such proof that Jesus did exist, although why anyone thinks I must, or even want to, prove it is beyond me. What I do know is that there are an awful lot of things that we cannot prove. Just because we cannot prove them does not mean they do not exist.

But then again I am an optomist. Perhaps I should be more cynical in my views. I don't think it would make me a better or happier person though.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:10 PM

Let's contrast the historicity of a being called Jesus with the Egyptian pyramids.

The pyramids are old but are indisputably still here, they are physical, available for viewing; they have been researched and conjectured about and theories abound concerning their function(s), their reason(s) for being, the way they were built. In recent years there has been more agreement on all this but there is still plenty of unknown territory in the subject.

One of these is tangible, the other relies on man's vagaries, subject to the ups and downs of civilizations and the histories kept-or not kept. One of them is old but the other is much older.

Why are we surprised that proof is lacking?

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:11 PM

>>Some people can't stand ambiguity.<<

What's wrong with that? Especially where it need not exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:18 PM

>>BTW,282, you made an incorrect statement above when you said, "You have to prove Jesus Christ was historical and if you fail, then your case is considered wrong or false.....". Nope, it is only considered unproven.<<

Not in a court of law. We were comparing arguing about the historicity of Jesus Christ to presenting evidence in court. In court, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If the guilt is not proven, the innocence is then presumed. Likewise, if the historic Jesus is not proven, this personage must then be considered non-historic. You can suspend judgment if you wish but in a court of law, a judgment must be rendered one way or another. If we impose this same standard on the Jesus argument, then he must be presumed to be non-historical.

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:27 PM

282RA, you prove my point. Thank you.

You just can't let it go.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:31 PM

All I know is,

(A) nobody answered my question and
(B) I'm glad Jesus is a deity and resurrection-compatible, because
(C) Mudcat has surely beaten him (the subject) to death-- many times over!

Which mkaes me wonder (again) why
(A) nobody answered my question.

But now I think I know the answer-- it's because, "Who has the biggest penis?" is too easily and objectively answered, instead!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:31 PM

Jonah was swallowed by a sea ship, not a whale. Where do you not see this?
Jesus walked near the Mississippi in Minnesota and it's true he was not the one hung on the cross. That's why Peter denied him. It wasn't him but an imposer so Jesus could make his get-away.

Hail! Hail! Hail! to the Mudcat Bard (ye plebes kneel here). Bardic Defender of All that Is Vile Among Wimmens and Wolves from MN!!! I resemble that Wimmens from MN remark although, 'vile' I'm at it-these may be my myths or not....!

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:35 PM

"We were comparing arguing about the historicity of Jesus Christ to presenting evidence in court."

Isn't there a current court case on this very subject??

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:44 PM

AR282/282AR. Why do you state that in court you are innocent until proven guity? It is well known that is true in a lot of cases. But not in all. It seems to be one of those many false premises that you accuse others of.

BTW - if your previous posts are anything to go by you will now accuse me of changing the subject. I wish to point out in advance thet the above is in response to your statement.

I am quite happy to go on but is there any real point? You have your view. I have mine. Never the twain shall meet. I don't consider your views any better or worse than mine or anyone elses either. I would argue with a fundemental Christian just as vehemently. Just don't assume that you are better than me or your views better than mine please.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:29 PM

Atheism is not necessarilly a fundamentalist belief since it posits the idea that religion in itself is a corruptible entity. I think this fact has been proven categorically and historically.

Keeping an open mind that the Earth is flat is intellectually dishonest because it opposes what we know to be scienfically accurate. Creationism and other pseudo-scientific "religious" constructs fall into this category.

The existence of Jesus can't be proven. But the myth is related to others such as Isis and Mithras that share similar stories.

"Deism" might make some sense in that it doesn't require a religious text to support it. Most of the founding Fathers of the Constitution such as Jefferson and Franklyn were Deists. Jefferson's famous razor blade to the New Testament serves as an example.

"Deism" can't be proved or disproved either.

The motive for atheism is that religiosity is possibly a form of corruptible madness. Blood has been historically spilt over it.

That said, the myth of Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount IMHO is a good thing in that is holds a behavioral model that makes sense for the survival of our species. If we regard it as a myth (in the Joseph Campbell sense) and not a historical fact, it makes for a better world. The consistency of this myth, however, can not be found in the bible that we know of today. It is a schizophrenic text, badly written by hack scribes in the beginning and better educated scribes later who were fostering their personal agendas.

I believe that the value of religion is only as good as the morality of the people who practice it. I see very little of "morality" in religion as it is being practiced by in large today. I believe as do many Atheists that morality comes first and then if religion supports
it than that's one thing. Religion was probably invented to codify morality so that laws could prevail in a society. The problem has been that many laws are not sacrosanct and can be immoral or unjust.

I have no problem with people professing their religious belief as long as it doesn't promulgate violence, sado-masochism, cruelty or brutality. If it makes people get through the night to believe that the moon is of green cheese, why not?

But an intellectual discussion on religion gets into the area of metaphysics and philosophy which has no empirical basis whatever. The value of such a discussion may be that it helps a society define ethical behavior.

I do have a problem though with those who claim that god told them to go to war.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:34 PM

Just spotted a whopping hole AR/RA. You say When you make the claim, you have the burden of proof. Hence, the claim that Jesus Christ was historical must be proven.

This whole thread (and your other one) was started with the claim that Jesus was not an historical character. Surely then, by your own admission, the burden of proof is with you? The claim is that Jesus was NOT historical. All opposing views were therefore counter claims. Which you go on to say do not need proving.

Just how many cakes do want to eat?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM

I'm not equating atheism with religious fundamentalism; what I am equating are the folks on both sides of the issue who seem compelled to argue incessantly over things that simple can't be proven, yet even admitting that, they seem to be demanding that others believe as they do.

I think Frank has a solid handle on this whole issue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 06:40 PM

I agree

Subject: RE: BS: Jesus as mythic god like Zeus
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 07:41 PM

It still does not matter.