Origins of Jesus Christ

[eccles]

Mens_sana, the reason that I provided the Dictionary.com definition is because it shows that the idea of legend is very similar to fable and myth and as I mentioned in my post to CZ, while I was originally going to reject the description of legend as incorrect, after reading more and thinking more about it, I think a better description is "inadequate".

Because of the large timeframe over which the Biblical events are described and were documented, there were huge shifts in how they were reported.

So I have two major objections to Eccles descriptions: 1) He is undervaluing the importance and greatness of the Bible, and 2) His "Egyptian Fable" hypothesis is complete nonsense and he has not provided any references to defend his position. The two references he has provided do not support his case. The first was an amateur webpage which I suspect is his own webpage. The second is a report by the Catholic Church which underscores the greatness of the first part of Genesis while recognizing some of it's limitations.

I wish to point out that the stement highlighted and underlined is completely untrue. The web page referred to is:
Biblical Origins In Ancient Egypt
Title "Biblical Origins in Ancient Egypt". It does not belonng to me. I do not have any web pages of my own. This web page belongs to a professional archaeologist connected with the University of Queensland in Australia, I think one of it's northern campuses. His first name is Calum and I was in touch with him via a Group "Beyond the Nile" which suffererd the fate of many Groups when MSN killed off the MSN Groups.

I strongly object to the treatment dealt out to me over this matter and I consider it a breach of the principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Expression you Americans claim to treasure.

As a result I have come to the conclusion that any further part played by me in this discussion is fruitless due to the persecusion I have suffered obviously because, as an Atheist I do not believe the Christian beliefs and faith. It is typical of the attitude in the United "Christian" States of America where 90% of Americans claim to "believe in God", the bible and the alleged teachings of a certain Jesus the Nazarene.

 

[Operacast]

I wish to point out that the stement highlighted and underlined is completely untrue. The web page referred to is:
Biblical Origins In Ancient Egypt
Title "Biblical Origins in Ancient Egypt". It does not belonng to me. I do not have any web pages of my own. This web page belongs to a professional archaeologist connected with the University of Queensland in Australia, I think one of it's northern campuses. His first name is Calum and I was in touch with him via a Group "Beyond the Nile" which suffererd the fate of many Groups when MSN killed off the MSN Groups.

I strongly object to the treatment dealt out to me over this matter and I consider it a breach of the principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Expression you Americans claim to treasure.

As a result I have come to the conclusion that any further part played by me in this discussion is fruitless due to the persecusion I have suffered obviously because, as an Atheist I do not believe the Christian beliefs and faith. It is typical of the attitude in the United "Christian" States of America where 90% of Americans claim to "believe in God", the bible and the alleged teachings of a certain Jesus the Nazarene.

This has nothing to do with persecution. All the atheists I've met in the regular off-line world, including my own brother and father, who was a history professor with a PHD and taught at an Ivy League college, have/had no problem with accepting where the evidence goes and accepting that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical rabbi. The only thing in question is whether or not there is something supernatural about him.

We're not trying to censor you. We're talking back at someone who provides no independent research of his own and starts right off -- go back and see -- with accusing others of not having an open mind.

I M O,

mythicism is partly hate speech directed against Christians -- and I'm not a traditional Christian myself -- and partly sheer crank cultism. I found it especially telling that some of the most exhaustive researchers I've found debunking the mythicist nonsense are themselves atheists. The fact that I've seen similarities between mythicism and creationism has also helped bring me to the conclusion that it's all a load of hooey when it's not downright lies. Nothing you've said here has made me change my opinion.

Operacast

 

[juantoo3]

FUNDAMENTALIST FRIEND: You shouldn't expect government to integrate the blacks and the whites, that's just asking for the Kingdom of God, and you'll only get that when Jesus returns.

ME (as an insufferable brat around 10 or so): But Jesus expected us to treat the least of us the same as the biggest of us.

FRIEND: But Jesus was God and he's perfect. You can't expect a human to be perfect.

ME: But humans evolve to be perfect. We live far more humanely today than we did 2000 years ago.

FRIEND: We didn't evolve. We were made in God's image and we are flawed. Jesus was sent for our flaws.

ME: But there is evolution. We did evolve. We're always evolving slowly.

FRIEND: There is no evolution. Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God because he was divine. What do your parents teach you?

ME: There is evolution, and Jesus was human. And since he was human, then we humans can integrate the blacks and whites and treat them equally.

FRIEND: Jesus wasn't just human, sonny, and that's why it's arrogant to expect humans to start the Kingdom of God. Blacks and whites have to be segregated here because the Lord has his reasons for having them segregated. We can't change that.

ME: If Jesus was human, then humans can integrate the blacks and whites.

FRIEND: That's arrogant talk, sonny. Humans are flawed. Your parents should teach you that.

I am from a protestant background, so I know much about your friend. I think we are talking about Jesus because that is what US protestants always talk about. ... That FRIEND of yours ten twenty or fifty years from now will have lived through the results of his protectionist point of view about Jesus, and he will probably start kicking his own butt for you if you will be patient. Right now he is the victim of protestant paranoia culture, which is a mixture of knowledge, ignorance, and fear. He is in a protectionist stance whenever he speaks with you, hence the circular conversation.

I wanted to touch on this briefly. In my understanding of both Christian and Humanist premises, I think it is a matter of opposing points of view, both of whom are talking past each other without comprehension of where the other is coming from...and worse, not caring to try to understand where the other is coming from.

The Humanist starts, in my understanding, from the premise that people are good by nature. Christianity starts from the premise (with caveats I don't wish to enter here) that people are not good by nature.

In my experience, I am inclined to think that *left to their own devices* a typical 2 or 3 year old human child has a greater tendency towards becoming a little Hitler than s/he does becoming a little Gandhi. Not an exact science, exceptions certainly exist, but by and large and without external ethical indoctrination I think people would have a tendency to revert to extremely selfish focus...to a point where ethics would be sacrificed.

I have made the argument before, and the standard atheist apology reverts to what amounts to latent religious indoctrination...which can't be helped, it is part and parcel of culture. Ethics is not a particularly logical conclusion, certainly not from a short-sighted focus as is typical of the "normalized" family unit. The way I see it, logic would circumvent ethics given the opportunity.

And latent religious indoctrination really cannot be dismissed...it is a part of our social evolution for *we know* over 50 thousand years, and likely a great deal longer.

 

[juantoo3]

But that really isn't the point I wish to address.

Last night I had some time to mull this over, and something occured to me. In my experience I think I am the only Christian travelling this route who is still comfortable with his Christianity. By far the most people who entertain this path of inquiry do so to surrender or refute their Christianity. There is a long standing tradition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to this path of inquiry.

I think it is about motivation. I have heard many an atheist, such as our new friend eccles, state that this was sufficient cause to surrender their Christianity and turn them to atheism. In my case, I am not here to destroy my Christianity, I am here to understand it.

That long standing tradition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems to persist across every scholar I can think of considering this subject...Pagels, Jacoby, Crossan, those mentioned by Operacast, and a list of others. But there is a question I have not heard any of these people ever ask, and I can't help but wonder why?

What on earth is a nice Jewish guy like Jesus doing in a superstitious wonderland fantasy playground like Paganism to begin with?

And why aren't these so-called heavy hitters of atheism asking this *one* fundamental question?

 

[juantoo3]

I strongly object to the treatment dealt out to me over this matter and I consider it a breach of the principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Expression you Americans claim to treasure.

As a result I have come to the conclusion that any further part played by me in this discussion is fruitless due to the persecusion I have suffered obviously because, as an Atheist I do not believe the Christian beliefs and faith. It is typical of the attitude in the United "Christian" States of America where 90% of Americans claim to "believe in God", the bible and the alleged teachings of a certain Jesus the Nazarene.

I am sorry you feel this way. I don't think Operacast is American, the site is British, and I as an American have not discouraged your point of view even if I disagree with it. I would further add that your breakdown of percentages of American religious faith inclinations is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous, and in light of your complaint here quite intellectually dishonest. Free speech? Indeed.

If you wish to pursue an atheist course to fulfill the psychological inclination to religion in your life, who am I to deny you that desire? Frankly, I could care less. So it seems to me that if anybody has an agenda of persecution here, methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[juantoo3]

...(have) no problem with accepting where the evidence goes and accepting that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical rabbi. The only thing in question is whether or not there is something supernatural about him.

Indeed. I know it is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, but it is like Zeus was excerpted from the classic mythos and Jesus was inserted in his place. It's considerably more complex than that, but I think this conveys the gist.

mythicism is partly hate speech directed against Christians -- and I'm not a traditional Christian myself -- and partly sheer crank cultism.

I'm not entirely sure I follow what you mean by "mythicist," could you perhaps give a plain definition?

I found it especially telling that some of the most exhaustive researchers I've found debunking the mythicist nonsense are themselves atheists. The fact that I've seen similarities between mythicism and creationism has also helped bring me to the conclusion that it's all a load of hooey when it's not downright lies.

If I am understanding you correctly, I think you are referring to what I have come to call "fundamental atheism." And I suspect this likely plays a role in why the telling question of what a Jewish Jesus is doing parading about inside a Pagan classical myth is never asked. I have my suspicions as to why, and all of them cast doubt on an atheist position *logically,* so I wonder if that may have something to do with it? But I would be interested in first hearing what you and others may have to say to the matter.

 

[mens_sana]

AVI: I reject the notion of divine giving of the Torah to the Israelites. I also reject the miracles that are described in the OT. But the wisdom, ethical and moral lessons, philosophy, psychology, and sociology are unmatched in history. How about that from a skeptical scientist / engineer ?

Mens_Sana: Well, skeptical scientist/engineers come in all stripes — but it's pretty decent for a "humanist." :>)

 

[mens_sana]

juantoo: What on earth is a nice Jewish guy like Jesus doing in a superstitious wonderland fantasy playground like Paganism to begin with?

Mens_Sana: He was born into it. That's what that part of the world was like at the time, not that this world today is altogether different.

 

[citizenzen]

CZ, calling Genesis a legend is too broad a brush and takes away from it's greatness. It is all the things you mention plus much more. There is a reason it is the most published and most read document in the history of mankind. Writing it off as a simple legend detracts too much from it's impact.

Avi, you and I have agreed on so many things in the past... but on this one, we'll have to disagree.

Michael Jackson's passing provides a nice illustration for my point. he may have moved millions of people, but his songs were just songs and he was just as singer. The impact that he had on people does not change that fact. It doesn't turn a song into the word of God. It does not turn a singer into the messiah.

Likewise, Genesis began as a fable, an allegory, a legend. The fact that millions of people have been inspired does not change the fact that it is just a fable, an allegory, a legend.

 

[citizenzen]

What on earth is a nice Jewish guy like Jesus doing in a superstitious wonderland fantasy playground like Paganism to begin with?

And why aren't these so-called heavy hitters of atheism asking this *one* fundamental question?

While I only spray singles to the opposite-field, (obscure baseball reference) this atheist frankly doesn't understand the question, could you rephrase or expand on it?

 

[juantoo3]

Mens_Sana: He was born into it. That's what that part of the world was like at the time, not that this world today is altogether different.

I'm not so sure that's quite accurate.

If it were, Jesus would have been born as some pseudo-hero in the pantheon to begin with. It really looks past the entire Jewish political revolutionary rabble rouser that got his butt executed part of the equation. Sure, Paganism was a real and viable part of the world he lived in. So was Judaism. And the inescapable part is that Jesus was Jewish, therefore the shift of the balance should be to the Jewish side of the equation...instead it is to the Pagan side, at least it is after Nicea. There is a vague period of almost 300 years where that inexplicable lop-sidedness isn't an historic given and is really pretty vague.

Besides, if this presumption is true, then the Romans executed their own hero-god. I don't think so, it would be political suicide. Notice the shift of blame onto the Jews for Jesus' execution? Pilate, the Roman prefect, is exonerated of any culpability. Yeah, like that's gonna happen in real life.

 

[juantoo3]

While I only spray singles to the opposite-field, (obscure baseball reference) this atheist frankly doesn't understand the question, could you rephrase or expand on it?

With all due respect, it's an obscure theist reference I wouldn't expect a pseudo-Buddhist to fully understand. I also question your desire to understand, but not your ability to do so.

Since you don't appear to be engaged in the denial of the historicity of a long dead rabbi in an effort to undermine Christianity, Judaism or monotheism in general, it really wouldn't be all that important to you anyway.

 

[juantoo3]

Likewise, Genesis began as a fable, an allegory, a legend. The fact that millions of people have been inspired does not change the fact that it is just a fable, an allegory, a legend.

Would you limit this assessment to just the Bible, or would this be essentially true of *all* sacred texts...including Buddhist texts?

 

[citizenzen]

With all due respect, it's an obscure theist reference I wouldn't expect a pseudo-Buddhist to fully understand.

Not even a Buddhist, but a pseudo-Buddhist. Why sir, you toy with my pseudo-emotions!

I also question your desire to understand, but not your ability to do so.

Then give it your best shot. You might catch me when I'm not looking and *BAM!* I'll be caught by surprise, forced to understand, despite my wilfull desire to remain in the dark.

Since you don't appear to be engaged in the denial of the historicity of a long dead rabbi in an effort to undermine Christianity, Judaism or monotheism in general, it really wouldn't be all that important to you anyway.

Let's see... Since I don't appear to be engaged in the denial of the historicity of a long dead rabbi in an effort to undermine...

Sorry J123, this sentence is too cryptic for me. Is this another "obscure theist reference" or just questionable syntax?

Would you limit this assessment to just the Bible, or would this be essentially true of *all* sacred texts...including Buddhist texts?

Being an American, surrounded primarily by Christians, I am far more familiar with the Bible than other sacred texts. As for Buddhist texts, could you be more specific? There is no Buddhist "Bible". But if you were to read Buddha's sutras, you'd see that he often used allegory to illustrate his ideas and help people understand his message. There's nothing wrong with allegory or legends as story telling devices. We just get into trouble when we mistake them for fact.

 

[Avi]

Would you limit this assessment to just the Bible, or would this be essentially true of *all* sacred texts...including Buddhist texts?

Wonderful question, Juan.

So CZ, Juan has hit on an important aspect of your question. Calling a holy book, which embodies the entire history of a religious group, a legend, fable, myth, takes away from the greatness of that book. It makes it sound like less than it really is.

Growing up in a Jewish tradition, I never heard anyone call the Torah a legend. So when I heard that word used, and in a derogatory sense, by Eccles, my gut reaction was to disagree. Thinking about it further, I would have to agree that there are legendary, mythical and fable-like aspects to the Bible. But isn't that a little like the old story of the blind man and the elephant (I think you know the story, let me know if you do not) ?

So, CZ, I see it as similar to many of the political correctness issues that you and I do agree on. Why would someone belittle, denigrate, deminish a classic text which has brought so much insight to the world the last 3,000 years ?

Finally, there is also an element of "it is not so much what he says, as how he says it". When I speak with most of the posters in this forum I get a sense of their interest and willingness to exchange ideas about issues. When a poster arrives with what looks like a predetermined agenda, as it appears might be the case with Eccles, there is not really much learning which is going to occur on either side.

 

[mens_sana]

juantoo: What on earth is a nice Jewish guy like Jesus doing in a superstitious wonderland fantasy playground like Paganism to begin with?

Mens_Sana: He was born into it. That's what that part of the world was like at the time, not that this world today is altogether different.

juantoo3: I'm not so sure that's quite accurate...

Mens_Sana: Try reading my reply with a minimalist eye. The nice Jewish guy was born into a superstitious Mediterranean world. If his followers weren't fully Hellenized, then the third person they preached to was, and that's when the "explanations" of his life started gaining a Pagan vocabulary.

 

[citizenzen]

So CZ, Juan has hit on an important aspect of your question. Calling a holy book, which embodies the entire history of a religious group, a legend, fable, myth, takes away from the greatness of that book. It makes it sound like less than it really is.

Avi, I believe our debate was focused on Genesis. But if you'd like to expand this to now include the entire Bible, I'm game.

So, CZ, I see it as similar to many of the political correctness issues that you and I do agree on. Why would someone belittle, denigrate, deminish a classic text which has brought so much insight to the world the last 3,000 years?

Perhaps you haven't heard my take on this matter. At the risk of repeating myself I will sum it up again...

I have no interest in the religion you practice in private, in your home, with a group or in a church. The only time I become involved in these issues are in a forum designed for the very purpose of exchanging ideas and debate or in the public arena of politics and secular civil rights.

While there are many different faiths being practiced in the United States, when it comes to the current debate of gay marriage and civil rights, it's the Bible that's being quoted as a reason to deny these rights.

In our schools there is a faction of Christians who are determined to treat Intelligent Design on a par with Evolution. They are not content to teach this concept in their homes and churches, but seek to include this faith-based "science" in secular public institutions.

These are just two examples where Christian Faith is being pushed into the public arena. Had Christianity remained in the churches, homes and hearts of those practicing it, I'd have nothing to say. But when it's used to determine our school curriculum and civil secular laws then it opens itself up to debate and scrutiny.

Therefore it becomes an issue whether the Bible is based upon history, fact and the divine word of God or legend, superstition and the fallible interpretation of human beings. Therefore Christians should not be surprised to find their holy books and institutions questioned.

When a poster arrives with what looks like a predetermined agenda, as it appears might be the case with Eccles, there is not really much learning which is going to occur on either side.

There isn't any member of IO who doesn't come to the forum with predetermined beliefs, and whether anybody learns anything in these threads is not for you or I to decide. The only thing we can do is put forth our most cogent argument and hope for the best. I never expect to sway anybody with my posts.

The forum is less an opportunity to change another person's mind then it is an opportunity to hone our own, to compel ourselves to contemplate the issues, to think about ways to formulate arcane concepts into words and to bravely put these ideas forth to be scrutinized by others. Any other results occur on their own, in their own time and not by our design or intention.

 

[juantoo3]

Mens_Sana: Try reading my reply with a minimalist eye. The nice Jewish guy was born into a superstitious Mediterranean world. If his followers weren't fully Hellenized, then the third person they preached to was, and that's when the "explanations" of his life started gaining a Pagan vocabulary.

OK, there is quite a bit of argument to that end surrounding Paul. I suppose to some degree there may be merit, but I still reserve a modicum of doubt, at least in the initial period between Jesus' execution and the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans. After that period, it seems Nero had it in for the Christians who were still a fringe sect of Judaism at that point. After Bar Kochba and the forced diaspora, I can see how Christianity may have gone "underground" and in that period gain the "Pagan vocabulary" as you put it. But Rome was wishy-washy in its persecution of Christians...there were periods in the first couple hundred years when being Christian was no more a political liability than being of any other religious persuasion. And then there were the 3 major and several minor/local persecutions during which it was a heavy liability to be Christian. "Fully Hellenized" I am thinking is a bit of a misnomer, certainly there was Greek influence across Palestine for a couple hundred years prior to Jesus, the OT Bible was even written in Greek as the Septuigent. So certainly there was Greek influence. But the Jews have throughout their history maintained a cultural distinction that set them apart even while they played nice in an effort to blend in. There have always been certain thresholds the Jews would never cross, culturally speaking. And Christians were Jews, at least until Constantine around 313AD. So there is this huge question of "degree of influence," and I really doubt the Pagan influence was greater than the Jewish influence prior to Constantine.

 

[juantoo3]

There's nothing wrong with allegory or legends as story telling devices. We just get into trouble when we mistake them for fact.

Ah! At last a point of agreement between us.

 

[juantoo3]

I believe our debate was focused on Genesis.

OK then, my mistake, I thought we were discussing the Origins of Jesus Christ. At least that's what the thread is titled, and that's what I understood the gist of the discussion to be while I was participating.