Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[Azakel]

I think he was joking (at least, I hope so).

Even if the good Father was joking I think it brings up a good point on how it seem a good number of people seem to define what a Religion, Cult, and Mythology is.

 

[Oberon]

I disagree with how easily Jesus's existance is accepted as fact. Obviously this is a discussion for another debate, but not everyone (Religious or Atheist) believes he was real.

It hasn't been easily accepted. However, after centuries of scholarship in this area, the fact that he existed (although not much else) is accepted by all experts in the various fields of biblical/NT studies.

In differentiating greek myth (and not myth as we use the term sometimes today) and the Jesus tradition, it is important to understand that the greeks themselves would have viewed their myths differently than the early christians believed/followed the Jesus tradition. The greeks had a store of received myth. They were stories which took place in a remote past, often to explain certain phenomena or aspects of life occuring in Greek society. The same myth might exist in multiple forms, with even basic components differing. In short, the Greeks themselves differentiated between their myths (which most of them nonetheless probably believed) and history (which could be almost as fantastical and "mythic" as the myths themselves). The Jesus tradition was not "received myth" but received tradition, and was recorded soon after it took place. Greek myth was not.

 

[darkendless]

It hasn't been easily accepted. However, after centuries of scholarship in this area, the fact that he existed (although not much else) is accepted by all experts in the various fields of biblical/NT studies.

That is hardly comprehensive lol. By that notion, Jesus most likely turned water into wine, Moses likely parted the Sea so the Jews could escape and Noah's Ark held one of every animal
There isn't much other than the bible to use as evidence. The bible can hardly be taken as historically accurate.

Sadly, a lot of European mythology was written down after the Christians came and subdued the natives, learn't their beliefs, and then converted the willing thus killing the defiant. So we only have what the Christians thought was good, the rest was left out.

 

[Oberon]

That is hardly comprehensive lol.

I've already gone over the debate about the historical Jesus in detail elsewhere (see threads 1, 2, and 3). Basically, ALL ancient history (from Herdotus to Pliny) contained mythic and ahistorical elements. ALL the work by ancient historians has to be critically read, as they NONE of them would be considered "history" the way we talk of historical works today. However, that doesn't mean they should all be rejected. The fact that the gospels contain mythic elements, that they differ from one another on various points, that some historical facts are recorded incorrectly (such as the census in Luke) makes the gospels no different from the works of any other ancient historian. Some ancient biographies were superior (compared to modern standards) to the gospels. Some were worse. Diogenes Laertius, for example, wrote biographies of people who lived centuries before his time (not decades, as with the gospels) and relied on rumor and myth for much of his work.

 

[darkendless]

I've already gone over the debate about the historical Jesus in detail elsewhere. Basically, ALL ancient history (from Herdotus to Pliny) contained mythic and ahistorical elements. ALL the work by ancient historians has to be critically read, as they NONE of them would be considered "history" the way we talk of historical works today. However, that doesn't mean they should all be rejected. The fact that the gospels contain mythic elements, that they differ from one another on various points, that some historical facts are recorded incorrectly (such as the census in Luke) makes the gospels no different from the works of any other ancient historian. Some ancient biographies were superior (compared to modern standards) to the gospels. Some were worse. Diogenes Laertius, for example, wrote biographies of people who lived centuries before his time (not decades, as with the gospels) and relied on rumor and myth for much of his work.

I'm going by the fact that not a lot of sources exist that corroborate with the bible.

I know what you're saying though, Plutarch wrote hundreds of years after most of his personalities, and he is one of the most famour authors in ancient times.

 

[Oberon]

I'm going by the fact that not a lot of sources exist that corroborate with the bible

Again, this is true of a great deal of historical figures/events. For Jesus, we have a number of independent sources (Paul, Epistle to the Hebrews, Josephus, Q, M, and L are the earliest). Based on analysis of the reliability of the transmission of the Jesus tradition (again, peruse the links provided above) it is not only almost certain that Jesus lived, but it is very likely we can reconstruct his teachings with a fair degree of accuracy.

 

[dogsgod]

Why is it the Greek mythology is considered a myth but Christianity is not? what makes a myth and what makes Christianity not a myth?

Christianity is considered a myth by many people. However, one of the very points of religion is to have followers accept their mythology as actual and real events. Belief itself can make people feel as if they belong. Belief serves many purposes for the religiously inclined.

 

[gnostic]

And what version of the greek myth of Dionysus are you referring to?

You probably only know the usual myth about Dionysus. There is same Dionysus, but with a different flavour, found in the Orphic mystery religion.

According to the Orphic religion, Dionysus was reincarnation of Zageus, son of Zeus and Persephone; and Zageus was reincarnation of Phanes. Phanes was the first god who came into existence from the Cosmic Egg.

It is a bit hard to explain, so I would suggest that you visit my website. I have two pages at Timeless Myths, which explained the Orphic myth and Orphic religion.

The bottom line is that the mythical bard, Orpheus, introduced a new religion that explain the dualistic natures of our soul. The evil part of our soul, is known as Titanic, while the good part is called Dionysian nature.

Each person is reincarnated twice, like Dionysus. After the 3rd death, we are judged by Persephone, and if we lived virtuous life in each lifetime, then she would award us places in Elysian Fields, our final life, which is eternal.

The origin of the Orphic mystery is not really known, but it gained in popularity during the Hellenistic period.

Not really. Osiris (in the versions of the myth were he dies) was chopped into little pieces and then put back together (except his penis).

True, but he then became god of the afterlife.

Osiris is the final judge, and decide whose soul (ba) go to the Egyptian version of heaven, or whose soul get eaten by half-crocodile, half-hippo demon, known as Ammut. Osiris ruled the netherworld, and all souls come to him, where they are judged.

Anubis weigh each soul (or heart) on a scale, against the Feather of Ma'at (Truth). If the feather is heavier, or the scale is in balance, then the spirit (ankh) is release from the soul (ba), which ascends to heaven. If the soul is heavier, then he is guilty Ammut get the swallow the heart and soul.

 

[varioustbags]

Greek stories were not myth, they were relgion. However no one believes so they are now 'myth'. In a few thousand years (i'm not hopeful), Abrahamic religions will be considered 'myths' as well. The definition only comes from teh number of people who believe it. It is a myth because it is old and no one follows it anymore. Christianity is still alive in kicking.

For example, let's look at witches. A LONG time ago witches were considered real, then we learned better and realised that the idea of witches was just a MYTH. Then all of a sudden in the last 20 or so years, they brought witches back!! (I know this isnt the same as the green warts etc, but im merely making a point as to changing definitions). Now we have wicker, being a witch is now a RELIGION.
Now Timberlake has brought sexy back, I'm already lubing up for the new faith!

 

[gnostic]

In a few thousand years (i'm not hopeful), Abrahamic religions will be considered 'myths' as well. The definition only comes from teh number of people who believe it. It is a myth because it is old and no one follows it anymore. Christianity is still alive in kicking.

In my book, I have already considered them (Abrahamic religions) to be myths, religion or no religion.

 

[varioustbags]

I still consider them myths. I am stating, as I believe the OP is, about the general publics accepted definition of them (in a school textbook for example).

 

[Oberon]

You probably only know the usual myth about Dionysus.

Not true. Actually, even to say that their are "usual" myths isn't really correct. Myths differed, even with the same god, from place to place. Greek religion was composed primarily of localized cults, and the received myths were altered not only via cultural and geographical movement, but also within any particular cult.

Each person is reincarnated twice, like Dionysus. After the 3rd death, we are judged by Persephone, and if we lived virtuous life in each lifetime, then she would award us places in Elysian Fields, our final life, which is eternal.

What is your source for this (and by source I do not mean a website with information, but a primary text from the classical era indicating that Dionysus died and was reincarnated twice. In the Orphic myths, it was Orpheus who was torn to pieces. Dionysus death was at the hands of Titans (he was eaten) but I am not sure where you are getting this "reincarnated twice" part of the myth.

In any case, none of these myths resemble the resurrection of Jesus, nor do the look like the gospels.

True, but he then became god of the afterlife.

And Jesus didn't. What's the similarity?

Greek stories were not myth, they were relgion

You aren't correct. The word "Myth" is greek (from mythos) and can mean anything from a word or command to a story. In its religious sense it referred to a number or stories passed down for generations about the gods. The greeks understood that these myths often contradicted one another, but that didn't really matter. The greek religion centered not around the myths themselves, but around cultic practices and sacrifices which were always localized. The center of greek religion was passifying the anger/wrath of the gods, and obtaining good fortune. Most cults contained no inherent philosophy, theology, or moral codes, as these usually existed quite seperately.

 

[logician]

I disagree with how easily Jesus's existance is accepted as fact. Obviously this is a discussion for another debate, but not everyone (Religious or Atheist) believes he was real.

Amen to this, the existence of the supposed Jesus is accepted as fact with absolutely NO hard evidence of it, only hearsay and forged evidence long after the supposed fact. "Jesus:" is no more "real" than many other man-gods of history, but since Christianity is a major religion, it is essentialy heresy to question his existence.

 

[Oberon]

Amen to this, the existence of the supposed Jesus is accepted as fact with absolutely NO hard evidence of it

Right. Didn't we go through this already, and your vast research into the subject consisted of a book by non-specialists (one with only a BA in psychology) and a few websites? What methodologies do you employ when parsing ancient historical texts to determine just what is and isn't history?

 

[themadhair]

What methodologies do you employ when parsing ancient historical texts to determine just what is and isn't history?

This may get some peoples goat, but I tend to think a text isn’t accurately describing events the moment those events violate what we know about the physical world.

 

[logician]

This may get some peoples goat, but I tend to think a text isn’t accurately describing events the moment those events violate what we know about the physical world.

Quite so, which is why the NT and any stories of man-gods that do great miracles by definition are myths.

 

[Oberon]

This may get some peoples goat, but I tend to think a text isn’t accurately describing events the moment those events violate what we know about the physical world.

Then you would have to cut out all or most of ancient historical texts. There is no problem, from a historical standpoint, with assuming that all descriptions of miraculous events are in some way inaccurate (perhaps Jesus had a placebo effect when healing, the virgin birth can certainly be said to be historically inaccurate, etc). The problem is rejecting an ENTIRE text from ancient history as ahistorical because parts of it are mythic. This is problematic because ancient historians did not use the same standards we do for determining historical accuracy, nor were they post-enlightenment thinkers who viewed events in a scientific and methodical way. Ancient historian from Herodotus onwards frequently included theology, myth, rumor, etc in their histories. To reject the entirety of ALL of their works is unnecessary, and historians do not do this. Rather, they use various tools to parse the texts, and attempt to determine what aspects are historical. The most basic methodology coheres with your statement above: miracles, by their very nature, cannot be said to be historical because history is about determining what MOST LIKELY happened. Miracles are by defininition extraordinarily unlikely. However, this doesn't mean a historical text should be rejected because it contains mythical elements. Rather, other techniques are used to determine whether it should be rejected (for example, if the genre is myth, or if it is removed hundreds of years from the events it describes, and there is no indication that older sources were used), and if not which parts may be considered historical

All of this has been done with the gospels, and their is universal agreement among experts that Jesus lived, preached, and died in first century Jerusalem.

 

[themadhair]

All of this has been done with the gospels, and their is universal agreement among experts that Jesus lived, preached, and died in first century Jerusalem.

Robert M. Price springs to mind, but the above doesn’t really follow from what you said. The bible describes real places, and likely also real events in some cases. But given that Jesus, in and of himself, is practically a mythical character I don’t see how you could conclude his existence because, to me, the ‘most likely’ scenario seems his non-existence (to use your reasoning).

 

[Oberon]

Robert M. Price springs to mind

Price is a systematic theologian. He is neither an expert in biblical studies, nor is he an ancient historian.

[/QUOTE]But given that Jesus, in and of himself, is practically a mythical character I don’t see how you could conclude his existence because, to me, the ‘most likely’ scenario seems his non-existence (to use your reasoning).[/quote]
You aren't using my reasoning. Because your scenerio would posit several highly unlikely scenerios

1. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and knew Jesus' disciples. He also received parts of the Jesus tradition. The "most likely" explanation is that Jesus had disciples, Paul knew them, and Jesus was therefore a historical person.

2. Josephus, writing not long after the events, mentions Jesus twice. There is a wide consensus that the longer reference contains a Josephan core, despite alterations, and an even wider consensus that the second reference is unaltered. Again, the best explanation is that Jesus lived and made enough of an impressiong among certain groups that not only they, but also Josephus, felt compelled to at least mention him.

3. Any explanation of Christainity has to explain its origins. The tradition itself clearly sees these origins as beginning with Jesus. Unlike with "mythic" cults, which locate the originator in a time long, long past, the members of the Jesus cult recognized their founder as dying only a few decades prior to our earliest sources (Q, Paul, and Mark). In fact, the first convert to the Jesus cult was likely converted only a few years after Jesus death. The most likely scenerio is again that Jesus was a historical person, who had followers, who transmitted teachings, and these teachings were remembered (along with certain events) and were both reinterpreted and reexamined in light of later beliefs concerning Jesus (i.e. the resurrection).

4. The gospels take pains to record history as ancient biographers did (especially Luke, the most self-consciously "historical" of the four). They are records of independent material transmitted orally, set into overall narratives. The oral tradition behind these events goes back to the earliest followers, and using comparisons with similar oral societies as well as internal clues, it is very likely that a large amount of the Jesus tradition, particularly his sayings, were transmitted fairly reliably. Again the best explanation of the gospels is that Jesus lived and had followers who remembered his teachings, and that after his death his teachings and actions were reinterpreted in light of the belief that he was resurrected.

 

[themadhair]

3. Any explanation of Christainity has to explain its origins. The tradition itself clearly sees these origins as beginning with Jesus. Unlike with "mythic" cults, which locate the originator in a time long, long past, the members of the Jesus cult recognized their founder as dying only a few decades prior to our earliest sources (Q, Paul, and Mark).

Given the nature of Jesus’s life as describe by those accounts I don’t see why it is reasonable to claim the most likely scenario is existence. Applying this to other groups would seem to lead to the existence of whatever mythical figure those groups’ beliefs started with.