• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Jesus Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
AmbiguousGuy said:
Well, yes, but not from an historical standpoint.



I just disagree. By the time the Jesus bas-relief was made, Jesus was already a God like unto the God Augustus. And any possibly historicity was long lost anyway. I mean, they had no man upon whom to model the relief.
Click to expand...

That's how it is with all of the early Christian art. When they painted Jonah, for example, they basically changed the name above the picture of a myth with a dragon and a sunbathing guy (that's a crude description, but I forget the myth).

The early Christians weren't artists and they weren't particularly creative (but neither was anyone else). They simply took common images and reinterpreted them through Christian myth, just like people before them (Pompey, for example, took statues of rich girls and goddesses and re-labeled them after Greek poetessess and philosophers) did the same thing. It has nothing to do with historicity -- at all. Just because Pompey did not want to re-create statues patterned after Greek poetess doesn't mean that the historicity was lost.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
That's how it is with all of the early Christian art. When they painted Jonah, for example, they basically changed the name above the picture of a myth with a dragon and a sunbathing guy (that's a crude description, but I forget the myth).

The early Christians weren't artists and they weren't particularly creative (but neither was anyone else). They simply took common images and reinterpreted them through Christian myth, just like people before them (Pompey, for example, took statues of rich girls and goddesses and re-labeled them after Greek poetessess and philosophers) did the same thing. It has nothing to do with historicity -- at all. Just because Pompey did not want to re-create statues patterned after Greek poetess doesn't mean that the historicity was lost.
Click to expand...

All of that seems reasonable, although I'm not sure I really understand your last sentence.

Anyway, I think that a statue of Nero might've had something to do with historicity, just as a face mask of Napoleon, but I agree that much art was divorced from actual historical truth.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
AmbiguousGuy said:
All of that seems reasonable, although I'm not sure I really understand your last sentence.

Anyway, I think that a statue of Nero might've had something to do with historicity, just as a face mask of Napoleon, but I agree that much art was divorced from actual historical truth.
Click to expand...

It means that just because Pompey renamed Greek statues that he captured in war doesn't mean that the historicity of the persons newly identified in the statues is diminished in any way. He took historical figures and represented them with non-historical representations.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there aren't some "Augustus" statues that were once Greek or Roman gods.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
AmbiguousGuy said:
I was just doing some fun reading about Caligula and came upon the claim that he replaced many statue heads around Rome with his own (stone) head.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was common. And then the next guy knocked his head off and put his on. So on and so forth.

EDIT: What's really funny to me is replacing a head or renaming a statue after yourself, and using it to mark your grave. No shame back then, lol.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
steppe dweller said:
Well, you must've seen all the posts about whether Jesus was a Nazarene, whether he was a hellenised Greek, his "real" name, (yeshua,Jesus,Yeshu)etc., so yes, it is amusing how much controversy surrounds even these seemingly, basic aspects of Jesus's life.
Click to expand...
What is amusing is the silly resistance of folks to accept the historicity of Jesus.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jayhawker Soule said:
What is amusing is the silly resistance of folks to accept the historicity of Jesus.
Click to expand...
In 2000 years, when all electronic records are gone, we'll all sit back and laugh when we consider how many people remember where your house was and the consistency of your bowel movements.:facepalm:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
sojourner said:
In 2000 years, when all electronic records are gone, we'll all sit back and laugh when we consider how many people remember where your house was and the consistency of your bowel movements.:facepalm:
Click to expand...

People will be wondering why there's statues of me all over the place.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
steppe dweller said:
lol avoidance of the questions. For the length of this thread it's a continual issue

1.Nazarene or not?
2.First written real name.
3.Did Pontias Pilate actually write about Jesus?

The answers to these questions will do for now. Never mind his "actual" existence or not, let's just assume he did.
Click to expand...
They're avoided because they're meaningless and a waste of bandwidth.:sleep:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top