Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[Oberon]

Hog slop. Wells now considers that Paul's Christ may have come from Jewish literature that places a Jesus type being sacrificed in or about the year 100BCE. I don't have a problem with that.

Wells also believes, as I quoted above and you conveniently ignore here, that the Jesus in Q is historical, just that the dying and resurrecting Christ is not.

And, he also specifically states DOES BELIEVE Paul thought Jesus was historical:

From Wells
"Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). "

You should really familiarize yourself with your own sources. As bad as they are, they are all you have, and you continually get them wrong.

Doherty considers that Paul's Christ is completely mythical and that it's impossible to connect Paul's Christ with a Jesus type from a distant past.

Doherty isn't a scholar at all.

Neither Doherty, Well's, nor Price consider a Jesus from Paul's recent history.

Again, Doherty isn't a scholar, Wells believes Jesus was historical and that Paul believed he was but that the "Christ myth" was grafted onto the historical figure, and Price now stands alone as the only scholar in anything close to a related field who has consistently and continually denied the historical Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

The original question which started this thread was “Why is it that Greek mythology is considered a myth but Christianity is not? What makes a myth and what makes Christianity not a myth?” I have as yet only concentrated on Jesus as a historical figure to differentiate between Greek myth and Christianity. However, this is only a part (albeit an important part) of the answer. Below I intend to go into more detail on the difference.

I have divided the explanations below into three sections. The first deals with the difference between Greek cults one hand (although what I say also applies to similar cultic traditions, e.g. Roman), and Christianity on the other (although again what I say also applies to other similar religious traditions like Islam). The second deals with the difference between Greek myth (and other similar polytheistic myths) and Christian religious tradition. The third deals with the false dichotomy between a figure of “myth” and a figure of history. In other words, a given figure may be ahistorical, but not mythical.


1) Greek Cults vs. Christianity



I should start by explaining that I am not using cult in a derogatory sense here, and my usage should be clearly differentiated from cults in contemporary times where a strong personality dominates and brainwashes adherents and so on. Rather, my use of cult refers to a localized set of religious/spiritual practices and traditions which usually center on a particular deity.

The Greeks (along with most polytheistic cultures) did not have a central religion. Rather, people in the Greek culture generally belonged to at least one (and often more) cults, each with a specific set of rituals and practices (for example, sacrifice). Although deities may have been worshipped across the culture, generally each local cult had its own particular version of the larger tradition. In other words, the accepted myth, types of sacrifice, religious functions, etc, usually differed.

This is in stark contrast to early Christianity. While the earliest Christians actually belonged to a sect of Judaism, by the time they were clearly identifiable as Christians and separate from Judaism, they were probably too large, diversely located, and homogenous to be called a cult. In other words, even before the Christians were actually Christians (and not Jews) a number of different communities interacted with each other and based their religious understanding on a shared, not localized tradition. Unlike with Greek cults, which operated for the most part very independently of each other, the early Christians tended to be more homogenous (although there was certainly variety, like the various Gnostic groups) and more importantly less localized. This is evidenced by the sharing from the beginning of specific religious texts, communication between churches, the acknowledgement by separate churches of specific authority figures, the authority of specific Christian churches, etc.

A more important difference between Greek (and other pagan) cults and Christianity (and other similar religious traditions) has to do with the nature of religious beliefs and practices in the two.

Greek cultic practice was first and foremost a way of warding off the wrath of the gods. Other important aspects involved manipulation/utilization of the gods (via sacrifice, prayer, or even magic), important communal functions, etc. What is important to note is that philosophy, morality, even theology almost always existed apart from cultic practice.

This is in stark contrast to Christianity, where from the beginning it was Jesus’ teachings and the OT commands which formed an integral moral structure within the religion itself. Theology too was implicit within not only the OT but the epistles and John. Likewise, philosophy, from the earliest patristic authors onward was central to Christian understanding. In other words, Christianity as a religion operated on a different level from the cultic traditions of Greece.

 

[Oberon]

2) Myths vs. Christianity

Even more important (for this thread) than how the cults themselves operated is how myth was understood. First, it is important to clarify what I mean by myths. Today the word myth, usually colloquially but occasionally in scholarly discourse, may mean anything fantastic and UNTRUE. Certainly, the adjectival form of the word (mythic) is often used with this sense. It is possible for Christians themselves to refer to fantastical or miraculous parts of their beliefs as mythic, without implying they don’t believe these mythic events happened. However, when I, as a non-believer (and I think most people do as well) use the word mythic it implies that I don’t consider it real or am at least skeptical of it.

The word myth, both in scholarly discourse and even more so in ancient times, is and was used differently. The word is most often used in academic works to refer to a particular genre of received tradition. To understand what that means, I think it is important to look at the word itself.

The word “myth” comes from the Greek muthos (plural muthoi). In its most typical use, it meant anything which might be spoken. For example, in Book 1 of the Illiad (line 565) Zeus says to Hera ἀλλ᾽ ἀκέουσα κάθησο, ἐμῷ δ᾽ ἐπιπείθεο μύθῳ/all’ akeousa katheso emo d’ epipeitheo mutho/ but sit quietly and obey my command. The word I translated as “command” is actually muthos. Another example of a different use of the word is found in the Medea (line 1081-2) in which the Chorus proclaims: πολλάκις ἤδη διὰ λεπτοτέρων μύθων ἔμολον/pollakis ede dia leptoteron muthon emolon/many times already I have come upon more subtle arguments. The word for “arguments” here is again mythos. As may be seen, the word muthos had substantial semantic range.

However, for our purposes, two particular and semantically related usages are important. The first involves muthos as any type of fable/folktale type story involving heroes and gods in the far past. The second, which actually concerns these same stories, is the specific use of the stories in cultic practice. In other words, every Greek (or Roman, Phoenician, etc) would have been familiar with a vast store of received myth. These myths were told and retold apart from cultic practice. However, every cult had specific myths (and often specific versions of a more widespread myth) associated with it. So while the cult worshippers at a particular shrine of Hera, or practitioners in a certain Dionysian mystery rite as part of some local Dionsyian cult, and so on, had specific myths associated and used by that particular cult, each member would not only probably belong to other cults, they would be familiar with a number of myths that existed apart from any cultic practice (for example, a particular story of Heracles, or the myths of Jason and Medea referenced above).

What is especially important to note is that these myths (both types) not only belonged to a different genre than the gospels and early Christian Jesus tradition, but that they differed on a functional level as well. Any Greek myth existed in a myriad of forms. Even central parts of the myth (such as whether or not Mithras or Osiris actually died and were brought back to life) would change. Innovation into myth (for example, the killing of Medea’s children by Medea was likely an innovation by Euripides) was common and completely acceptable. So while most of the Greeks probably believed that not only did the gods of their myths exist, but that in some sense parts of the stories were true, they were perfectly happy to believe and retell mutually exclusive versions of various myths. To determine “what actually happened” in any given myth was unimportant, and nonsensical. There was no real “historical” interest, nor attempts to reconcile vastly different versions of the same story.

What was important was more often a central explanation or explanations of various phenomena encoded within the cultic tradition via myths. In other words, various aspects of nature (like lightning) could be explained by Zeus. The Desire which drove young lovers to do foolish things might be explained by Eros. And so on.

This is in specific contrast with Christian tradition. The variations in the gospels are always minor (frequently chronological) and are the mark of independent stories about and sayings of Jesus present in the Jesus tradition which were recorded by the “biographers” in their attempts to write his bio/vita. Central aspects of the story do not alter the way they do in myth (for example, Jesus always dies and is resurrected, is always teachings, always performs miracles, etc). Early Christians also treated the Jesus tradition differently from the beginning. Even our earliest sources (Paul, Q, Mark) are fundamentally interested not just in the stories of Jesus, nor in his nature as the son of God, but in his teachings. Q is a collection consisting solely of sayings, after all. Paul takes pains at one point to distinguish his advice on divorce and marriage from Jesus’.

Additionally, there is none of the central mark of cultic myth (the explanation, analysis, or attempt to understand various phenomena) present in the gospels. Jesus is not a dying and resurrecting God representing a renewal of nature. He is not the personification of Justice or Eros. None of the stories explain why floods occur, why ships are wrecked in the ocean, what an earthquake really is, etc. They are primarily stories of a wonder-worker and teacher and the story of his death (and in two versions his birth). The most important part of the story for early Christians, the resurrection and its meanings, receives surprisingly little attention. In fact in Mark, Jesus never actually comes back and stays to teach his disciples. Rather, we are left just with the fact that he has risen. This was too disconcerting for early Christians, who added an epilogue after Mark 16:8.

In other words, apart from the historicity question, the myths of the Greeks were treated by the Greeks themselves quite differently from the way the Christians treated their traditions.

 

[Oberon]

3) Myth and History: The false Dichotomy

One of the problems here seems to be the assumption that if Jesus wasn’t historical he is mythical. First, the evidence for Jesus’ historicity, as I have argued repeated here and in other threads, has been considered overwhelming enough to be accepted by virtually every expert not only in the specific field of Biblicial/NT studies or even early Christian studies (where the verdict is unanimous) but also by those in other fields relating to ancient history in this area (e.g. classicists).

However, that has already been argued, and those who haven’t done the research continue to argue against historicity.

The point I make here is that ahistorical does not mean mythical. Basically, there are many figures from ancient history whose historicity is far less certain than with Jesus, but are not mythical.

Figures like Hercules, Dionysus, Hera, etc, are all mythical figures, and from our earliest records are treated as such. I have already gone over how and what myth is above, so here I will only say that these figures are treated differently, even by the ancients themselves, than other figures who are either probably historical, or possibly historical, but we can’t know.

For example, let’s take Homer. We have no contemporary or even near contemporary references to Homer. Nothing is said of him until centuries after when he is said to have lived (whenever that may be). Furthermore, scholars are divided on whether the Iliad and the Odyssey were written by a single poet (although there is probably a consensus that they were), let alone whether it was the same poet (if memory serves, no consensus exists on this issue). Even the ancient Greeks wondered if he ever actually lived.

However, the treatment of Homer was very different from that of Orpheus or Hercules or other figures from myth. There was never the widely varying cultic tradition concerning him. Although there were rumors about his life, these did not operate nor were treated the same way as myth was. He was regarded (by both the ancient Greeks and modern scholars) either as having lived or not, and some ancient Greeks certainly believed he was the “blind poet” they had heard stories about, but he was not a figure of myth and was not treated as one. Scholars today cannot say whether or not Homer ever lived. It is possible that he did, but the evidence for historicity simply isn’t there to make the judgment. However, this does not mean that Homer was a myth: it simply means he was ahistorical in that we can’t know whether he lived or not.

Another good example is Pythagoras. Like Jesus, Pythagoras inspired a number of followers. Like Jesus, he was thought by numerous people to have performed miracles and worked wonders. Pythagoras is also accepted as historical by scholars. Yet we have less information concerning him than for Jesus. We have only a few short references to him within a century of his life, which all survive in fragmentary form. The famous “life” of Pythagoras by Diogenes Laertius was written nearly eight centuries later, and it was based significantly on rumors and traditions that had circulated and were added to for hundreds of years. We know next to nothing about his life, yet he is not a mythical figure. He is probably a historical one, even though we have less information for him than for Jesus.

In short, there are people whose historicity is probable, possible, or in doubt, but who nonetheless exist quite apart from myth. Jesus is again nearly universally regarded as historical by everyone who is even close to an expert in the field. He certainly is more historical than Pythagoras or Homer. As such, even if one accepts the ridiculous arguments of ahistoricity, that doesn’t make Jesus myth.

 

[themadhair]

Solid scholarship is on Oberon's side here.
There are some dissenting POV's but the preponderance of Biblical scholars are in agreement with Oberon here. Sorry.

This is true. But, can you at least see why I am finding the whole 'experts agree on this' in lieu of a definitive argument wholly unconvincing? Almost everything presented seems to boil down to 'the experts'. I've never seen that approach as pronounced in other areas of scholarship and research.

 

[dogsgod]

Wells also believes, as I quoted above and you conveniently ignore here, that the Jesus in Q is historical, just that the dying and resurrecting Christ is not.

And, he also specifically states DOES BELIEVE Paul thought Jesus was historical:

From Wells
"Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). "

You should really familiarize yourself with your own sources. As bad as they are, they are all you have, and you continually get them wrong.



Doherty isn't a scholar at all.

Again, Doherty isn't a scholar, Wells believes Jesus was historical and that Paul believed he was but that the "Christ myth" was grafted onto the historical figure, and Price now stands alone as the only scholar in anything close to a related field who has consistently and continually denied the historical Jesus.

When you state that Wells believes Q/Jesus was historical, or that Paul believed Jesus to be historical, he doesn't share in the historical hog slop that you and your so called "experts" swallow.

 

[dogsgod]

This is true. But, can you at least see why I am finding the whole 'experts agree on this' in lieu of a definitive argument wholly unconvincing? Almost everything presented seems to boil down to 'the experts'. I've never seen that approach as pronounced in other areas of scholarship and research.

I think viewing the gospels and Acts as historical accounts of actual events qualifies one as an expert.

 

[Oberon]

This is true. But, can you at least see why I am finding the whole 'experts agree on this' in lieu of a definitive argument wholly unconvincing? Almost everything presented seems to boil down to 'the experts'. I've never seen that approach as pronounced in other areas of scholarship and research.

This is a forum, not an area of scholarship. You haven't actually read the scholarship. If you had, you would know that this approach isn't used. Rather, if you actually took the time to do the research, you would know there is a reason why Jesus' historicity is so universally accepted. Instead you are reading responses in a forum, and you feel justified in making the statement that "I've never seen that approach as pronounced in other areas of scholarship and research." What scholarship have you read to make that statement?

It is people like you, who use this type of argument, that makes arguing for evolution impossible. The arguments are there, but for people who refuse to accept the fact that evolution is accepted by the entire scientific community, you have to detail the entire argument from the ground up. Unfortunately, that involves writing a book, and no one on a forum is going to do that for you.

The issues concerning Jesus' historicity are complex. They involve understanding religion, particularly Judaism and the types of religions which flourished around where Christianity developed, an indepth analysis of the sources, and knowledge of the background of the earliest christians, the cultural forces at play, historical sources which describe movements similar to early christianity and personalities similar to Christianity, understanding the nature of ancient historical texts, understanding oral tradition in general and in the Jesus tradition in particular, and on and on. There are mountains of scholarship devoted to the issue.

Yet you want me, in a few posts, to summarize thousands of pages of scholarship in a way that would convince you. That is simply not possible.

For example, just the smallest part of arguments for historicity would require me to build from the ground up. I told you that the references by Josephus to Jesus are regarded by most experts (almost all with respect to the second) as genuine. You don't accept that. So I give you a more detailed account. You have yet to respond to that.

I tell you about how ancient genres of history worked, and that the presence of the fantastic 1) does not make a myth and 2) does not make it ahistorical. I give examples from specific texts of ancient history, and I give you a fairly detailed account of how myth functioned. And this could go on and on until I have built from the ground up for you what scholarship has already determined over the course of a few centuries.

Short of doing that, at some point one has to appeal to authority. In fact, all scholarship builds off of earlier scholarship (regardless of discipline, whether we are talking psychology or case theory in linguistics).

Back to the example of evolution. I could present a non-believer with experiments in which evolution was actually observed. I could present explanations of genetic theory. But there are always crackpot writers and websites which will contradict these views based on basic or more complex errors (like the ones dogsgod uses) and unless I was willing to write a book detailing the issues involved, you could always just say "i am unconvinced."

I have presented you with an introduction to why scholars across the board accept the historical Jesus. You remain unconvinced (something I anticipated from the beginning, and don't much care about). Fine. Your research consists of reading the NT, and deciding it doesn't sound like history to you. You want me to do the rest of the work for you. That just isn't going to happen. I have given an introduction to historical jesus scholarship, but that is more for the benefit of others, so they don't have to rely on the junk dogsgod digs up from google.

 

[Oberon]

When you state that Wells believes Q/Jesus was historical, or that Paul believed Jesus to be historical, he doesn't share in the historical hog slop that you and your so called "experts" swallow.

It is true that Wells is more skeptical than most scholars (of course, he is also a professor of german studies). However, (unlike Price) after devastating critiques by actual experts in the field like J. Dunn Wells has backed off his "jesus is mythical" and acknowledges that he is historical.


And why do you suppose that an agnostic like Bart Ehrman who writes books on how christianity has distorted the message of Jesus, or Crossan who believes that Jesus' body was thrown to the dogs to be eaten, or Jewish scholars like Vermes, and so many others who have no religious reason for accepting Jesus' historicity, all do so? Why is it so universal among all the people that who have studied the matter the most disagree with you?



You are the genius who has learned from your websites, without doing any real research at all, that Jesus is mythical, and they are all people who accept "hog slop." You are the one who likes fallacies presented in a language you can't read. Does ad hominem mean anything to you?

I think viewing the gospels and Acts as historical accounts of actual events qualifies one as an expert

You are the one who used acts as historical account in order to make your case that Paul doesn't refer to James as a brother of the lord. You treat the sources as historical when it suits you.

 

[sojourner]

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

This isn't a fallacy. it's the considered consensus of the scholars who have spent lifetimes studying this stuff and know a whole lot more about it than the rest of us. I trust them -- they're the experts.

 

[themadhair]

It is people like you, who use this type of argument, that makes arguing for evolution impossible.

Funny you use that analogy, since when I debate evolution I can clearly refer to definite supporting pieces of evidence. Something I have not seen you do. By bringing up this analogy you are actually emphasising a very crucial difference – my defence of evolution does not rest on authority as your argument does.

Yet you want me, in a few posts, to summarize thousands of pages of scholarship in a way that would convince you. That is simply not possible.

I seriously don’t follow this line of thinking. When I debate evolution I wouldn’t attempt to summarise the thousands of research papers – but that doesn’t prevent me from laying out a few pieces of evidence.

I told you that the references by Josephus to Jesus are regarded by most experts (almost all with respect to the second) as genuine. You don't accept that.

From Josephus, the Bible, and History, page 430

The literature on Josephus’ passage about Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum (A XVIII, 63-64) is enormous. For the period 1937-1980 alone, in ‘Josephus and Modern Scholarship’ (Berlin 1984), pp. 680-684, 957-958, I have listed eighty-seven discussions, the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part.
The chief arguments given for authenticity are (1) that it is found in all the Greek manuscripts and in all the manuscripts of the Latin translation of Josephus; (2) that the language seems generally consistent with Josephus in this portion of his work; and (3) that Josephus refers elsewhere (A XX, 200), is a passage whose authenticity is generally accepted, to the “so-called” or “aforementioned” Christ. To be sure, Per Bilde, “Josefus’ beretning om Jesus” (“Josephus’ Text about Jesus”), DTT 44 (1981):99-135, contends that the reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX, 200, is intended merely to distinguish him from other persons names Jesus and does not presuppose a text about him; but we may reply that it would hardly be in character for Josephus to mention someone as Messiah without describing the implications of this word or giving an anecdote to illustrate it. To these arguments, we may add that, aside from this passage, and possibly those about John and James, there are no other passages in Josephus whose authenticity has been questioned; hence, the burden of proof rests upon anyone who argues for interpolation.

And this could go on and on until I have built from the ground up for you what scholarship has already determined over the course of a few centuries.

This may very well be true – but can you understand why I have reached my opinion, based upon my own reading of the NT?

Back to the example of evolution. I could present a non-believer with experiments in which evolution was actually observed. I could present explanations of genetic theory.

You could indeed – but I don’t see evidence that you have presented that is comparable to those evolutionary ones. I suspect this is comparing apples and oranges to begin with since scientific experiments can test predictive theories, something that differentiates science from the study of history.

But there are always crackpot writers and websites which will contradict these views based on basic or more complex errors (like the ones dogsgod uses) and unless I was willing to write a book detailing the issues involved, you could always just say "i am unconvinced."

To be fair I don’t read such websites, it isn’t my style. Might watch the odd video on YouTube but, to be honest, I’m pretty comfortable with what I hold to be true and actually spend more time reading contradictory works (like creationism for example). In this case, largely due to the nature of history research, there will always be a degree of uncertainty. In this case I’m probably around 40:60 that Jesus didn’t exist as a real person, and I hold this as the explanation that makes the most sense.
I have often wondered whether the story started from a single account that was passed on to become the gospels, but I have to admit this is pulled out of thin air.

I have presented you with an introduction to why scholars across the board accept the historical Jesus. You remain unconvinced (something I anticipated from the beginning, and don't much care about). Fine.

I learned a lot so I do appreciate it. Still trying to get my head around why you can classify the gospels as being of a particular genre (it seem a rather arbitrary designation tbh), but I do understand why being able to do likewise to other historical works would be of great benefit in determining proper interpretation.

Your research consists of reading the NT, and deciding it doesn't sound like history to you.

Pretty much.

 

[Oberon]

Funny you use that analogy, since when I debate evolution I can clearly refer to definite supporting pieces of evidence. Something I have not seen you do.

Two points here:

1) if you "clearly referred to defnint suppporting pieces of evidence people like you (who have no knowledge of the subject) would reject you arugments because the don't understand the issues involved well enough (like you). For example, you may point to an aspect of genetic reserach (the way I refer to the genre of the gospels) but those who (like you) are completely unfamiliar with what you are talking about will say "well that doesn't convince me" and possibly (like dogsgod) cite some website which contradicts what you said.

2). I have pointed to definite pieces of evidence. However, you lack the requisite knowledge to understand them (for example, you don't accept the differentiation between the gospel genre, ancient historical genres, and myth, because you know next to nothign about any of them. Likewise, a person who doesn't understand genetic research, evolutionary research, molecular biology, etc. would reject your "references" not "definite evidence." Just examine this forum. Their are plenty of people who (like you in this situation) are confronted with numerous points of evidence, but lack the background knowledge to understand the, and so reject them.

By bringing up this analogy you are actually emphasising a very crucial difference – my defence of evolution does not rest on authority as your argument does.

Actually, it does. How many scientific experiments related to evolutionary theory have you conducted? I am willing to bet none. You rely on scientific textbooks or similar sources which tell you (and I agree, of course) that evolution exists. They present very convincing arguments that only "faith" would prevent acceptance of. If you have actually researched the topic, you would learn why, and the more deeply you researched it the more you would be able to argue for it.

You haven't researched the historical Jesus.

When I debate evolution I wouldn’t attempt to summarise the thousands of research papers – but that doesn’t prevent me from laying out a few pieces of evidence.

And I have done so. However, like a person who accepts creationism as an article of faith, nothing short of an enormous volume (or several) would convince you. I layed out evidence, but it wasn't convincing. Have you taken a look at people on this forum who question evolution? Nothing convinces you.

From Josephus, the Bible, and History, page 430

Your quotation isn't exaclty accurate. I will address this in more depth later, but the consensus is that BOTH passages are Josephan, and even more so the James reference.


As I

This may very well be true – but can you understand why I have reached my opinion, based upon my own reading of the NT?

Of course. To modern eyes, the NT is unbelievable. It doesn't resemble history at all. That is why studying how ancient history was written (among many other things) is so important.

You could indeed – but I don’t see evidence that you have presented that is comparable to those evolutionary ones.

I have presented that evidence. But just like a creationist, you need me to rebuild scholarship from the ground up. Again, just look at evolution debates on this forum. Plenty of people refer to reseach and cite numerous specific points (like I have) but to the person who knows next to nothing on the subject and who has formed their opinion without doing any research, such summaries and references would not be convincing.
You could indeed – but I don’t see evidence that you have presented that is comparable to those evolutionary ones. I suspect this is comparing apples and oranges to begin with since scientific experiments can test predictive theories, something that differentiates science from the study of history.

To be fair I don’t read such websites

That was directed at dogsgod. You have based you opinion (as I understand from your statments) soley on reading the NT.
I have often wondered whether the story started from a single account that was passed on to become the gospels, but I have to admit this is pulled out of thin air.

 

[dogsgod]

It is true that Wells is more skeptical than most scholars (of course, he is also a professor of german studies). However, (unlike Price) after devastating critiques by actual experts in the field like J. Dunn Wells has backed off his "jesus is mythical" and acknowledges that he is historical.


And why do you suppose that an agnostic like Bart Ehrman who writes books on how christianity has distorted the message of Jesus, or Crossan who believes that Jesus' body was thrown to the dogs to be eaten, or Jewish scholars like Vermes, and so many others who have no religious reason for accepting Jesus' historicity, all do so? Why is it so universal among all the people that who have studied the matter the most disagree with you?



You are the genius who has learned from your websites, without doing any real research at all, that Jesus is mythical, and they are all people who accept "hog slop." You are the one who likes fallacies presented in a language you can't read. Does ad hominem mean anything to you?



You are the one who used acts as historical account in order to make your case that Paul doesn't refer to James as a brother of the lord. You treat the sources as historical when it suits you.

If this is how you comprehend what I stated then it becomes ever more crystal clear to me as to how you have come to conclude that the gospels are actually historical accounts of actual events. You want to believe I treat the sources as historical when it suits me, you want Wells to view Jesus as historical just as you do, you read what you want to read, you want there to be a Jesus in the worst possible way. How long have you struggled with this condition?

 

[themadhair]

1) if you "clearly referred to defnint suppporting pieces of evidence people like you (who have no knowledge of the subject) would reject you arugments because the don't understand the issues involved well enough (like you). For example, you may point to an aspect of genetic reserach (the way I refer to the genre of the gospels) but those who (like you) are completely unfamiliar with what you are talking about will say "well that doesn't convince me" and possibly (like dogsgod) cite some website which contradicts what you said.

Showing someone pictures of fossils showing an evolutionary progression, to use one example, are not comparable to anything you have posted.
There is also a massive difference here. Those fossils, in and of themselves, constitute evidence that doesn’t require external contextual backup or a referral to authority. The more you try to push this analogy the more it looks to me that it breaks.

you don't accept the differentiation between the gospel genre, ancient historical genres, and myth, because you know next to nothign about any of them

This is further emphasising the difference in the analogy. You and the scholars appear to have taken genre categorisation and applied it to the gospels without, IMO, actually establishing it fits that genre. With the fossils I referenced above, I can show the sequence with the fossils themselves. It still strikes me as asserting a genre and using that genre as evidence – without being able to convincingly demonstrate that genre.

Their are plenty of people who (like you in this situation) are confronted with numerous points of evidence, but lack the background knowledge to understand the, and so reject them.

Your problem is authoritative again. I can explain what a piece of evidence means and how it directly relates to the discussion at hand – at no point will my argument boil down to “scholars agree” in the way your discussion of evidence does. In science understanding comes from evidence whereas in Jesus historicity it appears to come from consensus.

Actually, it does. How many scientific experiments related to evolutionary theory have you conducted? I am willing to bet none. You rely on scientific textbooks or similar sources which tell you (and I agree, of course) that evolution exists. They present very convincing arguments that only "faith" would prevent acceptance of.

So explaining a set of fossils with associated pictures requires authority? Explaining biogeography and the nested hierarchy of traits requires authority? Explaining the layers of fossils being in fixed layers, something a walk to a quarry can demonstrate, requires authority? This analogy really isn’t holding.

And I have done so. However, like a person who accepts creationism as an article of faith, nothing short of an enormous volume (or several) would convince you. I layed out evidence, but it wasn't convincing. Have you taken a look at people on this forum who question evolution? Nothing convinces you.

There is a crucial difference that, in your zealotry to defend your scholarship, you may have missed. And it further shows the falsity of the analogy.
I am not making any claims that are in contradiction to your evidence, nor am I bastardising and/or lying about your evidence. I am not claiming that your conclusion is false, only that I see it a little different while fully accepting the plausibility of your conclusion. The only evidence we have for Jesus are the NT (and Josephus if my reference on that is mistaken – I typed that quote directly from the google copy of the book so I’m sure it is accurate), and the scenario that they stemmed from a common story is possible. I find this scenario more likely by about 40:60.

So, given the above, I reject strongly your analogy.

 

[dogsgod]

What other historical figures require a special education in order to be recognised as historical? Hercules, King Arthur? Bambi? Peter Pan? The tin man?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

What other historical figures require a special education in order to be recognised as historical? Hercules, King Arthur? Bambi? Peter Pan? The tin man?

Wow. I suppose there was no Siddhartha Guatama either.

From a strictly historical point of view, it is possible and indeed rational that historical persons, particular those who already speak in religious terms, could make such an impact within an ancient community or society that they could only thereafter be understood in divine-mythical-religious paradigms.

Just because Jesus' story is encased, from birth to Ascension, in the supernatural does not mean that there is not a discernible historical core. Perhaps we should stand side-by side the claims of the Gospel (which are sensible to their authors only if their historical core was believed by them) and those of Bambi, perhaps you could offer us up an ancient text that records the actions of Hercules as well, - and stories of Arthur, and we can look at them with a historical-critical eye.

 

[dogsgod]

Wow. I suppose there was no Siddhartha Guatama either.

From a strictly historical point of view, it is possible and indeed rational that historical persons, particular those who already speak in religious terms, could make such an impact within an ancient community or society that they could only thereafter be understood in divine-mythical-religious paradigms.

Just because Jesus' story is encased, from birth to Ascension, in the supernatural does not mean that there is not a discernible historical core. Perhaps we should stand side-by side the claims of the Gospel (which are sensible to their authors only if their historical core was believed by them) and those of Bambi, perhaps you could offer us up an ancient text that records the actions of Hercules as well, - and stories of Arthur, and we can look at them with a historical-critical eye.

No can do. We must rely on the experts, see posts by Oberon.

 

[Oberon]

You want to believe I treat the sources as historical when it suits me

I don't believe that. You do:

Let's assume for a moment that Acts is historical and accurate. It does not support your notion that Paul met with a brother of Jesus. If anything it supports Paul meeting with James, brother of John.

You "assume for a moment Acts is historical" in order to bolster your very pathetic argument that when Paul says "james, the brother of the lord" he doesn't actually mean brother. However, if we "assume for a moment" as you say, the question of James being the brother of Jesus (as far as your point is concerned) is irrelevent because acts presents Jesus as historical. You treat acts as historical when it is convenient for you.

you want Wells to view Jesus as historical just as you do

Again, I don't view that. He says it himself:

From Wells:
"Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved "such a ... complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels" (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

Jesus is historical, Christ is not.

you read what you want to read

This from the one who misrepresented his own sources (Wells, Crossan, Mack) to make his point?

No can do. We must rely on the experts, see posts by Oberon.

First, I gave a number of arguments for historicity, and second, relying on actual scholars rather than you when you have made error after error after error (many of which I has summarized in a previous post) demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge in this field is a good idea.

 

[Oberon]

Showing someone pictures of fossils showing an evolutionary progression, to use one example, are not comparable to anything you have posted.

They are when someone either knows as little of the subject as you do or is as full of bad information as dogsgod. There are plenty of sites which explain how fossils don't actually represent proof of evolution. I can respond by saying "we can't know how old the fossils are." You could respond by saying "well, carbon dating" and I can respond by an asking for a detailed explanation on carbon dating. You could give it to me, and I could say well, that is only a theory, they can't PROVE the fossils are that old and so on and so on.

There is also a massive difference here. Those fossils, in and of themselves, constitute evidence that doesn’t require external contextual backup or a referral to authority.

Not true. How old are these fossils? Can you prove they aren't from creatures who died 6000 years ago? Well, scientifically of course we both would argue you can. But have you performed these expirements, or are you relying on experts who have? And furthermore, there are plenty of people who aren't convinced that fossils represent that kind of proof (see the faulty type of arguments that might be displayed above).

The more you try to push this analogy the more it looks to me that it breaks.

That is because here you probably know something about the issue itself, whereas with the historical Jesus you don't know any of the relevant information.

Basically, people can take the same arguments that you have here. Any basic explanation which to those who know something about the field would be convincing is undone because of either a lack of knowledge or an appeal to spurious websites or some combination. Any evidence you marshal, I can ask whether you performed the experiments yourself, and even if you did, I can say that "carbon dating" can't prove age an so on, leaving you with the option to either build science from the ground up, or cite authorities, or just give up in frustration with someone who either is unwilling to either do research and won't accept any sort of evidence unless it is incredibly detailed and researched on every point.

Is there a difference between my example and the historical Jesus? Well, yes of course. Evolution is a theory of science, and many of the proofs are from experiments that may be replicated, whereas history cannot be "replicated" in experiments. However, to a person who either lacks all relevent knowledge (as you admit you do) or who is relying on awful websites (like dogsgod) the explanation of this evidence may always fail to convince.

This is further emphasising the difference in the analogy. You and the scholars appear to have taken genre categorisation and applied it to the gospels without, IMO, actually establishing it fits that genre.

Actually they have. Your statment is baseless because you say that "scholars appear to have done X" without ever reading anything they wrote.

Your problem is authoritative again. I can explain what a piece of evidence means and how it directly relates to the discussion at hand –

I have done that. But there are plenty of ways to reject all your evidence (as has been done time and time again on plenty or religious and christian forums). The arguments would appear ridiculous to you, because you know something of the topic. Simarily, your statement that you can't see the difference between the mythic genre and the gospels, or can't accept the gospels as ancient history, is likewise ridiculous to me, as I am familiar with the topics.

at no point will my argument boil down to “scholars agree” in the way your discussion of evidence does.

Actually, it will, unless you want to explain all of scientific inquiry related to the theory of evolution from the beginning (carbon dating, genetics, etc).

In science understanding comes from evidence whereas in Jesus historicity it appears to come from consensus.

Wrong. Scientific theories are accepted via consensus just like any field of scholarship. Furthermore, they build off of more scholarship. The consensus on the historicity of Jesus doesn't come out of nowhere but from enormous amounts of research (just like scientific theories). There is a difference, because history is not science, and can never attain the same level of certainty, but I could continue to point to every piece of evidence you marshal and make you explain how it shows anything (like the fossils) and you would (again) have to appeal both to the experiments and publications by experts and continue to detail the issue from the ground up.

So explaining a set of fossils with associated pictures requires authority?

Yes. Again, how do you know that the fossils aren't simply from creatures who all lived and died 6000 years ago? You would have to 1) appeal to experiments done by experts and 2) try to convince someone who has no background in science that your explanation of these theories is accurate. Of course, the theories backing carbon dating themselves would require reference to authority.

Explaining biogeography and the nested hierarchy of traits requires authority? Explaining the layers of fossils being in fixed layers, something a walk to a quarry can demonstrate, requires authority? This analogy really isn’t holding.

All of those would. See above.

I am not making any claims that are in contradiction to your evidence, nor am I bastardising and/or lying about your evidence.

Yes you are. You claim the "differentiation can't be made" despite the fact that it really can. And in order to show this, beyond what I have done, I would have to write a book which details all of ancient history and myth and compares it to the gospels, or I can refer you to works which do this.

The only evidence we have for Jesus are the NT (and Josephus if my reference on that is mistaken – I typed that quote directly from the google copy of the book so I’m sure it is accurate), and the scenario that they stemmed from a common story is possible. I find this scenario more likely by about 40:60.

The problem here is that you haven't actually read the book. Also, it would be interesting to know what what studies they cite. Because I know very well (and again, I will get to this later) that scholarly concensus is that parts of the larger reference and (even more so) all of the second are Josephan.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't believe that. You do:



You "assume for a moment Acts is historical" in order to bolster your very pathetic argument that when Paul says "james, the brother of the lord" he doesn't actually mean brother. However, if we "assume for a moment" as you say, the question of James being the brother of Jesus (as far as your point is concerned) is irrelevent because acts presents Jesus as historical. You treat acts as historical when it is convenient for you.

Let's assume for the moment that Acts is historical is not the same thing as treating Acts as if it's historical when it suits me. Is English a second language for you? You have difficulty with the nuances in meanings. "Let's assume for the moment that..." is a means by which those involved in a discussion can put aside any personal views of the material at hand in order to draw the same conclusions from what the material states. It's not a means of suiting any one in particular but rather to get everyone on the same page for the benefit of clarity. Secondly, this had nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the word brother. It had to do with the fact that there are more than one James in question and the controversy as to which James Paul was meeting with. In fact, it was based on the assumption that we were to take the meaning of the word brother to mean blood sibling.

Again, I don't view that. He says it himself:

From Wells:
"Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved "such a ... complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels" (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

Jesus is historical, Christ is not.

Where does Wells state that the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is not historical? Where does he say Jesus is historical? I'm reading what you just posted from a website (heaven forbid if I post from a website), and I see that it says that an unnamed personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.


Are yours and Well's historical figures the same person, or are you and Wells talking of different historical figures from different times and places?





.