Jesus, Myth, etc.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Sample rebuttal of the "allegations" against Christian religion


[/ QUOTE ]

How about a link? The quote you gave references the Passover and Exodus, not Christianity.

Also, I haven't endorsed everything at the site. What I've read so far is very scholarly though some of the examples given for illustration, not proof, might be considered weak or mediocre.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Who would you think actually believes (or believed, in antiquity) in the reality of Greek mythology? Not even the Greeks, it seems. Your bedlam would be very sparsely populated.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to a question that implied there's no difference between Jesus and mythology. I wasn't saying anyone believes in mythology. That's the point. And your point about persecution is a good one as well.

[BPA234]

I am not sure there is any value in debating whether or not Christianity is based on myth. The story of Christianity possesses many of the plot requirements that satisfy the definition of myth; journey into darkness, friends and allies, major challenge or test, appearance of all being lost, final victory.

Joseph Campbell has written extensively on myth and any first year writing student could expound ad infinitum on the mythical correlations in the story of Christianity.

On the same note, any student of ancient history could outline a comprehensive list of mythical antecedents that could be cited as Christian derivations.

For that matter, since there have been television shows produced on this very subject, regular watchers of the discovery channel could do the same.

Why does any of the above even matter? Certainly as a believer you are not a phenominalist or an empiricist. So why are you bothered by the argument that Christianity is a derivation of discredited ancient myths?

In my opinion, if you are a believer, the argument is irrelevant and only serves to reduce your credibility. As does, arguing that what can be objectively seen, touched, tested and proven is false, because the findings contradict whatever version of the bible you believe.

Finally, if you are going to embrace self-education, which I admire and respect your decision to do so, you may want to research the person you are getting into bed with for the next couple of years.



Con-Statements
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/002146.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4/024jph.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/holding1.html

Pro-Statement
http://www.ex-atheist.com/j-p-holding.html

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The story of Christianity possesses many of the plot requirements that satisfy the definition of myth


[/ QUOTE ]

To talk about "Christianity" and "plot" is to give the impression of fiction or myth. Do you talk about the exploits of Alexander or Napoleon in terms of plot?

[ QUOTE ]

Why does any of the above even matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't see why it matters whether Christianity is true or not?

[ QUOTE ]

you may want to research the person


[/ QUOTE ]

Holding states on his site that the name he is using is the one he was born with, answering a question why he doesn't use his real name. He fails as a con artist.

As to the second link there appears to be a running battle between the author and Holding - you will find some information on this guy, not very flattering, at Holding's site.

I don't always agree with Tektonics - I completely reject their preterist position, for instance. But I think it's one of the best organized and informative apologetic sites on the net.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are actually interested in this question and not just making superficial and absurd allegations you can't defend see this.

Anyone who wants to engage in genuine debate I would be glad to discuss the title question in the light of the information given here. I haven't read it all but plan to over the next couple of years. Yeah, it's voluminous.

So much for intellectual dishonesty and being afraid of nitwits.

[/ QUOTE ]

nr,

i'll start by stating that the historical human being 'jeshua' existed. i'll continue by saying that collective christianity as it developed over the next 2k years became what it needed to be in order to survive and thrive in the jungle of human ideas.

it does not matter what word label is attached to this matter of historical fact. anybody that does not like what the idea became is essentially indicting the entire human condition.

jeshua is not a myth - although it's possible that stories about that human could be. the council of nicea was very serious about rejecting literary works about the life of jesus that were too "mythological"; they really were searching for content that had the maximum amount of legitimacy possible and they were in a much better position to accomplish that goal than we are today. there are several books on the apocrypha - "the other bible" by barnstone is probably the best:

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Bible-Willis...TF8&s=books

the bible looks like a sciene textbook compared to the apocryphal books. i'm not implying that the bible is a science text book; rather, i am asking everyone to get a good picture of the magnitude of what they rejected as "myth". if the council of nicea really wanted myth then they'd have rejected the 66 books of the bible and adopted most if not all of the apocrypha as well as written some more stuff on their own right then and there. the fact that mythological writings existed beside credible books does not imply that all literary works were myth. the council of nicea really did try to separate fact from fiction.

*********
with this in mind, it must be said that the farther removed we become from some historical incident the more that incident fades from the objective into the subjective.

to rephrase this, nearly any objective fact can become myth given enough time and change. the existence of giant reptiles millions of years ago is well documented within the fossile record; however, if you fast forward to certain conditions wherein there is no available physical evidence then dinosaurs can become pure myth.

this would seem to be in accordance with the ideas about entropy that apply to most everything including information.

fact = lo entropy
myth = hi entropy

if god exists then god is fully aware of this reality within our world. the mount sinai event might have been real (very objective) but we're so far removed from it that it is fading to myth (and no human being has the power to prevent it from becoming myth). it's probably accurate to say that the sinai event was already fading 2k years ago when jesus showed up. we are now about the same distance removed from the jesus event as the jews were removed from the sinai event. the jesus event is fading into myth (and no human being has the power to prevent it from becoming myth).

if god exists and the sinai event and the jesus event were actual instances of objective contact then we're due for another contact event.

(assuming god is interested in regulating the fact/myth entropy here on earth)

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the council of nicea was very serious about rejecting literary works about the life of jesus


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point here, one I haven't considered before. I'm going to put it in my repertoire. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the council of nicea was very serious about rejecting literary works about the life of jesus


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point here, one I haven't considered before. I'm going to put it in my repertoire. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

for the record, you misquoted me by chopping my sentence and thus changing the meaning to something different than my original intent.

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

for the record, you misquoted me by chopping my sentence and thus changing the meaning to something different than my original intent.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so? It wasn't intentional. I just included a quote to identify the post to which I was responding. My comment about your point was meant to apply to the fact that the people who assembled the canon were studious to exclude myth and include what they considered fact. Isn't that the point you were making?

[BPA234]

You post this:
"For those of you who are actually interested in this question and not just making superficial and absurd allegations you can't defend see this.

Anyone who wants to engage in genuine debate I would be glad to discuss the title question in the light of the information given here. I haven't read it all but plan to over the next couple of years. Yeah, it's voluminous.

So much for intellectual dishonesty and being afraid of nitwits."


I reply with this:

I am not sure there is any value in debating whether or not Christianity is based on myth. The story of Christianity possesses many of the plot requirements that satisfy the definition of myth; journey into darkness, friends and allies, major challenge or test, appearance of all being lost, final victory.

Joseph Campbell has written extensively on myth and any first year writing student could expound ad infinitum on the mythical correlations in the story of Christianity.

On the same note, any student of ancient history could outline a comprehensive list of mythical antecedents that could be cited as Christian derivations.

For that matter, since there have been television shows produced on this very subject, regular watchers of the discovery channel could do the same.

Why does any of the above even matter? Certainly as a believer you are not a phenominalist or an empiricist. So why are you bothered by the argument that Christianity is a derivation of discredited ancient myths?

In my opinion, if you are a believer, the argument is irrelevant and only serves to reduce your credibility. As does, arguing that what can be objectively seen, touched, tested and proven is false, because the findings contradict whatever version of the bible you believe.

Finally, if you are going to embrace self-education, which I admire and respect your decision to do so, you may want to research the person you are getting into bed with for the next couple of years.



Con-Statements
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/002146.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4/024jph.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/holding1.html

Pro-Statement
http://www.ex-atheist.com/j-p-holding.html"


And you reply to me with this:


Quote:

The story of Christianity possesses many of the plot requirements that satisfy the definition of myth




To talk about "Christianity" and "plot" is to give the impression of fiction or myth. Do you talk about the exploits of Alexander or Napoleon in terms of plot?

Quote:

Why does any of the above even matter?




You really don't see why it matters whether Christianity is true or not?

Quote:

you may want to research the person




Holding states on his site that the name he is using is the one he was born with, answering a question why he doesn't use his real name. He fails as a con artist.

As to the second link there appears to be a running battle between the author and Holding - you will find some information on this guy, not very flattering, at Holding's site.

I don't always agree with Tektonics - I completely reject their preterist position, for instance. But I think it's one of the best organized and informative apologetic sites on the net."





You read my post, picked out a couple of sentences and quoted me out of context. Why would you do that? Why bother? You appear to simply want to argue your mis-perceptions of what I wrote.

I believe I articulated my points clearly and I stand behind the factually supported statements that I made.

As far as your support of Holding, I provided the sites that I listed as a service to you. From what I read about him, I would question his motives, education and background and his value as a credible source.

IMO, there is a difference between educating yourself and reinforcing preexisting beliefs. If you are seeking the former, I wish you the best. If the latter, I think you are making a mistake.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You read my post, picked out a couple of sentences and quoted me out of context. Why would you do that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the only other option is to quote your entire post? Why would I do that?

[ QUOTE ]

You appear to simply want to argue your mis-perceptions of what I wrote.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you identify my misperceptions instead of making vague allegations?

[ QUOTE ]

As far as your support of Holding, I provided the sites that I listed as a service to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

To which I responded. The main one, which you failed to mention, unintentionally I'm sure, was from the website of a person involved in making a movie about how Christ doesn't exist, starring such gems as Richard Dawkins. I was really shocked to find this man has a problem with Holding.

[ QUOTE ]

From what I read about him, I would question his motives, education and background and his value as a credible source.


[/ QUOTE ]

Question away. Don't bother demonstrating where he's wrong though. How could that be relevant? Just attack his background, that's so much more credible.