|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 28, 2007 18:39:40 GMT -4
I should try to get this thread on track:
Instead of focusing on Biblical documents, this thread was started to find out information on the Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian etc. documents that record the myth ingredients that were used to create the Jesus Myth. I'm having a hard time sourcing them. I don't doubt that Jesus existed, and the New Testament documents exceed all expectations for their availability, condition and reliability of text considering they go back almost two thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 28, 2007 19:00:41 GMT -4
Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Aug 28, 2007 19:37:14 GMT -4
Given the complete lack of evidence about Jesus outside of the bible, showing me internal consistency in the bible does not constitute proof. Not so. There are several ancient sources other than Josephus that mention Him, including the Talmud. You ought to know that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2007 20:38:47 GMT -4
You're proceding on an unproven assumption, that these other myths were used in creating the Biblical story. Similarity does not prove origination.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Aug 28, 2007 23:04:33 GMT -4
I believe most of the myths are corrupted tales based on the OT, with the exception of post-Christian myths, like Mithraism. While the book of Genesis may not be the oldest writing, it relates the oldest history which pre-dates the Babylonian and Sumerian myths; so people knew of the promised savior since Adam. I don't know if that's what you're looking for ginnie. I don't know where you'd find the actual writings.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 29, 2007 1:42:54 GMT -4
Okay, let me see if I can clarify this thread: Take the New Testament for example. It was written, let's say from around 70 to 100 A,D. Some of Paul's writings may be earlier. There are fragments on papyrus of New Testament writings found as old as 130 A.D. (Let's not quibble if I'm off a bit here). There are a few inconsistencies in New Testament writings found over the years, but most of it is amazingly consistent. (Of course there are a few interpolations, scribe errors and changes made in different texts, but on the whole they are pretty much alike as far as the stories that are in them). Can we agree on this for now? Okay. Now, there have been books written, and websites put up concerning the so called 'Jesus Myth', or similarities between the Biblical life of Jesus and other myths from different cultures , e.g. Horus/Osiris?Dionysius e.g. From this site: www.suite101.com/article.cfm/atheism/106446All of Jesus' attributes and miracles were already present in earlier myths. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after three days on the spring equinox, and ascended to Heaven.Now, what is the source of the above? When was it written? How old are the documents? Originals? Written a thousand years later? Reliable? Acknowledged by scholars as accurate? Perhaps no documents in history has been studied as much as Biblical ones, and they hold up pretty well as sources for how Christianity began, or at least how the first Christians thought and believed. If the connections can be made between New Testament details about Jesus's life and the older myths does that even mean that Jesus did not exist? Was it a common style of writing at the time of embellishing the life of 'holy men' (to use a term)? Now, as far as my own thoughts? I believe he existed. I do not believe he was God. But on the other hand, I think he was a wonderful and spectacular person who can in death still inspire and uplift peoples lives today. Perhaps the best role model in history. I believe some of the NT was embellished: the three wise men, birth in the stable, angels, virgin birth, resurrection, ascension among a few things. I know some Christians say that if you don't believe that Jesus died for our sins and was not resurrected, that he would mean nothing. I don't believe that, and it would be taking away from Jesus the specialness of his life, because it was important and did mean something even if he wasn't God the Son.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 29, 2007 8:16:55 GMT -4
That's kind of a gauntlet smack, so I need to respond. The Mishnah was written around 200 CE and the Gemera around 500 CE, so we have a problem using the Talmud right on the face of it. I know of no scholarship that proves Yeshu or Jeshu ben Pandera of the Talmud was Jesus of the New Testament. I know of no scholarship that shows a chain of Talmudic evidence showing the historicity of Jesus. Christians claim it, but that does not make it so.
As to the topic of this thread, I will see what I can find. I have read the same things you have, but have also not seen the actual sources. I suppose the story of Heracles would be one with obvious similarities. Heracles was the son of Zeus and a mortal virgin female, I believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 29, 2007 11:41:06 GMT -4
I got a pretty good laugh out of the link you gave us, since it is so obviously anti-Christian. It's arguments don't really amount to much. "Even Christian leaders considered Jesus purely as a mythical figure and did not know anything about his life." The argument seems to be that the earliest writings of church leaders do not contain the Gospel stories. But should they? Most of the New Testament, and specifically the parts written before the Gospels, are letters from Paul and a few of the other apostles to members of the church. These letters don't contain much about the life or miracles of Jesus, but should they have? They were written to people who were already believers, who had already heard the basic stories from those who had converted them. So it's not at all surprising that they don't go into a great detail about Jesus' life and works. What other writings from early leaders of the church do we have that show they had no knowledge of Jesus' life? There aren't any. So this part of the article was an argument from ignorance (lack of evidence). The claim that Paul said Jesus was Joseph's son in Romans 1:1-3 is misleading. That text declares that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" That doesn't mean that Paul considered Joseph to be Jesus' father. In fact if Mary was also of the line of David, which is the LDS view, then Jesus was "of the seed of David according to the flesh." In the very next verse Paul calls Jesus the Son of God, and continues to do so often throughout the epistle. Should other historians of the day, mostly concerned with the battles and policies of Rome, have really taken notice of yet another Jewish cult in a backwater of the Empire full of a bunch of religious zealots full of superstitions? One thing the article is correct on is that there were a lot of would-be messiahs in Jesus' time. Wouldn't a gentile historian just chalk up rumors of spiritual happenings in Judea as "just another of those fake Jewish messiahs" and not bother to record it? "People can believe things that are reported to have happened near them even if they are false. The Mormons are a good example of this." What is that supposed to mean? The fact that the Gospels seem to contradict themselves on some minor points isn't evidence that they are fabrications. Other histories of the day contradict each other in similar ways, and eyewitness reports often do the same. In fact, the police often disrregard eyewitness reports that agree too much, as that may indicate the witnessess have talked with each other and contaminated each other's memories of the event (unconsciously).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 29, 2007 12:29:23 GMT -4
I agree with most of what you said. Part of my point is that about that site is that it is kind of like a Moon Hoax Site, only focusing on the 'Jesus Myth' instead. I don't like wild presumptions and shoddy evidence whether it is pro or anti Christian. I'm a bit of an amateur historian (really amateur some would say), so when books or websites are full of unsubstantiated claims, it bothers me. Some I can brush off, like Mu or Atlantis or Hollow Earth sites, but when the purpose is to discredit the life of Jesus in a very unprofessional way, and without proper research, then it bothers me. This site debunks the myth: tektonics.org/copycat/osy.htmlI'll be visiting the library to find out more stuff... ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 29, 2007 14:28:18 GMT -4
Heracles was the son of Zeus and a mortal virgin female, I believe. Since Zeus disguised himself as her husband in order to sleep with her, probably not. The Greeks didn't go in much for virginity except in the cases of Athene and Artemis.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 29, 2007 14:43:44 GMT -4
I thought I read something about a vow of chastity that his mother had taken. Can’t cite it. Could well be wrong about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Aug 29, 2007 15:00:13 GMT -4
wdmundt
He's not. Keep searching.
Proof Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.
Problems 1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser. 2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah. 3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 29, 2007 15:17:14 GMT -4
Please show me.
I do. What good is it if it was written after 70 CE? Or later? And if you do want to use it as proof, does it disprove the idea that Jesus was crucified?
Christians do often think that.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 29, 2007 15:21:09 GMT -4
Sorry, Dead Hoosiers, I replied and now your whole previous reply is gone. Now I just have to say... what?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 29, 2007 15:22:35 GMT -4
How do we know Mary the mother of Jesus was not a hairdresser?
|
|