Jesus story isn't original

[Breathe]

So? The gospels are just art, literary works of art.

Perhaps they are artistic, but to some extent the gospels are supposed to be based off of history as well as the life and ministry of Jesus. Whether or not one believes that they are, or whether they are or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying, though.

However, art is not the gospels, even though the gospels may be considered art. Nobody's faith is going to be destroyed if they find out a piece of art that is Jesus is identical to a Mithra statue, for example.

People base their life off of the teachings of the gospel that is attributed to Jesus. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who will base their life off a piece of art that is of Jesus.



Just sayin'.

 

[dogsgod]

Perhaps they are artistic, but to some extent the gospels are supposed to be based off of history as well as the life and ministry of Jesus. Whether or not one believes that they are, or whether they are or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying, though.

However, art is not the gospels, even though the gospels may be considered art. Nobody's faith is going to be destroyed if they find out a piece of art that is Jesus is identical to a Mithra statue, for example.

People base their life off of the teachings of the gospel that is attributed to Jesus. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who will base their life off a piece of art that is of Jesus.



Just sayin'.

Religion is art. That is what religion essentially is, and the gospels are literary works of art, they tell a story.

 

[dogsgod]

The question is whether or not the Christ myth is original.

 

[logician]

The various works by Freke and Gandy easily prove the Jesus story is not original, and is also a fabrication. Expect an attack of the messenger and not the message from the Jesus apologists.

 

[Politesse]

The various works by Freke and Gandy easily prove the Jesus story is not original, and is also a fabrication. Expect an attack of the messenger and not the message from the Jesus apologists.

Asking for evidence is attacking the messenger?

 

[dogsgod]

Asking for evidence is attacking the messenger?

Believers on these boards have been known to dismiss Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy out of hand.



An excerpt from a book review on
THE JESUS MYSTERIES
by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
HarperCollins, London 1999


This fundamental reading of the nature of Christianity (which my own research has presented, if not as heavily or exclusively emphasized) is virtually undeniable in the face of all the comparative data and careful interpretation which Freke and Gandy marshal throughout the book. They have managed to pull together widely scattered support from all sorts of writings of the time, even within the 'orthodox' Christian stream, such as those of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, two 'Literalist' Christians with strong gnostic leanings. Nor have I ever seen the recorded fragments of Celsus so effectively used. And as suggested earlier, the authors draw compellingly on the writings of the gnostics (most of them unearthed at Nag Hammadi) to make their case that Christianity began as yet another way of offering the fundamental truths about human nature and its destiny which it shared with the Greek mysteries and Platonic/Orphic philosophy. They also suggest that the Gospels were written, at a certain stage of development in this 'new' religion, as a way of allegorizing those truths in the story of a godman on earth in an historical setting.http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvTJM.htm

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Believers on these boards have been known to dismiss Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy out of hand.

That's because it's garbage. And "believers" aren't the only ones who think so.

 

[dogsgod]

That's because it's garbage. And "believers" aren't the only ones who think so.

So says you.

 

[dogsgod]

There are scholars I don't entirely agree with but I read their arguments and in many cases I do learn something from them, and understanding their arguments helps me to clarify my own position should it be different, but to dismiss people's work out of hand and make derogatory remarks about their works appears to me as if one hopes to boost their own position up by putting others down. It appears some people can't stand on the merits of their own argument, or if they even have one.

 

[fallingblood]

There are scholars I don't entirely agree with but I read their arguments and in many cases I do learn something from them, and understanding their arguments helps me to clarify my own position should it be different, but to dismiss people's work out of hand and make derogatory remarks about their works appears to me as if one hopes to boost their own position up by putting others down. It appears some people can't stand on the merits of their own argument, or if they even have one.

Have you not done the same thing? You accept them because they state what you already believe.

You also dismiss a lot of work out hand because it doesn't agree with you. You make belittling comments about many positions, as they are different than yours. I don't think you have any ground to stand here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So says you.

:biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It appears some people can't stand on the merits of their own argument, or if they even have one.

Yes... the Jesus Mysteries is an excellent example of such incompetence.

I've never heard of any Greco-Roman historian, biblical scholar, or otherwise expert in ancient religion endorse or use the Jesus Mysteries. I don't even think that it received a review by journals.

I suspect that anyone who knows anything about the topic would read it and toss it aside, as it is utterly useless.

 

[fallingblood]

The various works by Freke and Gandy easily prove the Jesus story is not original, and is also a fabrication. Expect an attack of the messenger and not the message from the Jesus apologists.

This is why there is no reason to take them serious:
The Jesus Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 Which is related, more specially on the Zietgeist movie, but same general material.

The Jesus Mysteries - SkepticWikiA thorough review.

God Who Wasn't There: an Analysis, Part 4

Biblical books and the historical Jesus

When it comes down to it, the book is not worth anyone's time. It, to put it shortly, is worthless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is why there is no reason to take them serious:
The Jesus Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it comes down to it, the book is not worth anyone's time. It, to put it shortly, is worthless.

See what I mean??

 

[Requia]

I've never heard of any Greco-Roman historian, biblical scholar, or otherwise expert in ancient religion endorse or use the Jesus Mysteries. I don't even think that it received a review by journals.

I suspect that anyone who knows anything about the topic would read it and toss it aside, as it is utterly useless.

I have not read the book, and don't really seek to defend it, but I do want to understand this argument. In the fields I've studied, the same criticism would apply to almost any book meant for the general public. A brief History of Time for example, is of no use to a physicist (or even a physics student).

Is your field somehow different?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have not read the book, and don't really seek to defend it, but I do want to understand this argument. In the fields I've studied, the same criticism would apply to almost any book meant for the general public. A brief History of Time for example, is of no use to a physicist (or even a physics student).

Is your field somehow different?

Point taken, but if someone pretending to speak authoritative on physics, it would be the responsibility of real physicists to speak out, particularly if the person was lying in their name.

 

[Requia]

They have no academic background? Interesting. And I agree, failing to go after Freud with a vengence did untold damage to Psychology, its not a mistake that should be repeated. However without explaining *why* they are wrong, its little more than an appeal to authority.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They have no academic background? Interesting. And I agree, failing to go after Freud with a vengence did untold damage to Psychology, its not a mistake that should be repeated. However without explaining *why* they are wrong, its little more than an appeal to authority.

I didn't say that. Their lack of academic training in the areas in which they write is the root of many of their mistakes.

 

[dogsgod]

They have no academic background? Interesting. And I agree, failing to go after Freud with a vengence did untold damage to Psychology, its not a mistake that should be repeated. However without explaining *why* they are wrong, its little more than an appeal to authority.

I haven't read the book either and so I'm not defending it. The book review I linked to a few posts back offered criticism where it was weak or downright omitted information that should have been presented but praised it in other areas. That sounds like just about any book on the subject, so to simply dismiss the entire works because of a dislike of anything that suggests Jesus is not really historical is childish.

 

[dogsgod]

Have you not done the same thing? You accept them because they state what you already believe.

You also dismiss a lot of work out hand because it doesn't agree with you. You make belittling comments about many positions, as they are different than yours. I don't think you have any ground to stand here.

I've made belittling comments towards belittling comments, but I've never dismissed a scholar no matter how much I doubt their conclusions, it's not my MO.