Does anybody understand what a mythological motif is

Ooooh our Jesus is different, his cross has nothing to do with all those other crosses

His death and resurrection has nothing to do with all those others

His virgin birth has nothing to do with all those others

Nup, no connection whatsoever

Y'all are just crazy ass mythers with parallelomania

All them others are just primitive mythologies ours is the true faith

Sure sure, yeah right

Christians fight so hard to keep every tree Christian but can't see it's one big forest out there.


The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus criticized Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. He asks:

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.

DB Roy wrote:I never said Simon of Cyrene was the one crucified. I said the synoptic gospels, Mark and Matthew, in especial, seem to imply it and it is puzzling as to why they soft-peddle the crucifixion if Christians are so proud that their god is unique and died in a unique way. They should be more explicit as John is. In fact, John is more explicit because the synoptics forced him to be.

DB Roy wrote:While we're at it, let us not forget that while Joshua ben Pandira was stoned to death rather than crucified, his body was afterwards hung from a tree.

The problem with the crucifixion stories that the synoptic gospels don't explicitly say that Jesus was crucified:

Mark 15
[20] And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
[21] And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
[22] And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
[23] And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
[24] And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
[25] And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Notice it? The narrative doesn't actually say that Jesus was crucified but implies it was Simon. He is made to bear Jesus's cross and he is the last one mentioned by name. After that, the narrative says they brought "him" to Golgotha and gave "him" wine and crucified "him" but appear to be talking about Simon!

You try to build a lot on asking who the subject of the him who is crucified is, and suggest it's implied that it's Simon and the writers soft pedal the crucifixion of Jesus.

But as usual you ignore the context and overall picture to attempt this. So in the synoptics you have Jesus predicting his being betrayed and handed over to the Gentiles to be executed and rising the third day.

The subject of Mark's entire passion narrative of his trial,rejection by the people and Pilate's acquiescence to his crucifixion leading up to this, is Jesus. But you think the subject can suddenly change to a minor character and then resume again to Jesus as if Mark the writer hadn't noticed that he had (supposedly) changed the chief subject of his narrative.

In Mark you have the inscription of his accusation; The King of the Jews. The chief priests mocking him with the words;"Let the Christ,the king of Israel descend from the cross that we may believe in him."

And the words of the angel to the women; "You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified." So Mark is not explicit you say, but it's just your failure to look at the context and overall picture in the most basic way that could even make you think this.
Everyone is getting Jesus identity wrong including the Roman soldiers the chief priests etc and Mark is implying it was Simon who was crucified, on your reading.

DB Roy wrote:Learn to comprehend what you read. CLEARLY, you don't.

Take your own advice,

youkrst wrote: Ooooh our Jesus is different, his cross has nothing to do with all those other crosses

It would appear that the Romans were responsible for this relationship, having used crosses for more prosaic purposes for some time before the Christians alleged anything about it. I suppose Spartacus could have been mythical as well, but we do have a lot of detail about him, too.

youkrst wrote:His virgin birth has nothing to do with all those others

Mark, the supposed Great Euhemerist, says nothing of it. If it was part of a pre-existing myth, he got confused. What appears to have happened was that the Matthew community, in their passion for prophecies, adopted a mistaken translation in the Septuagint from an irrelevant Isaiah passage and ran with it.

As for resurrection, that certainly could have been pre-existing myth, but Paul was doing the historical thing on it well before Mark set pen to paper, and supposedly while there was no notion of juicy biographical details of incarnation to stir anyone's prosaic soul.

Mythical interpretation is looking more and more to me like it is itself mythical, starting with a supposed meaning and finding scraps of reality which appear to fit.

When the light is just right, you can see Loki grinning down from the moon at all this.

DB Roy wrote:As far as mythicism goes, I engage in it because it is fun and educational. It has absolutely nothing to do with why I am anti-Christian. I am anti-Christian because I don't believe in bullshit. And I don't need to appeal to science or other religions, I appeal only to common sense. Dead bodies don't come back to life, gods don't impregnate virgins because gods don't exist, angels don't foretell those births because angels don't exist and because such births don't happen, nobody ever fed 5000 people with a couple of loaves and a few fish, nobody ever walked on water, a star never guided anyone to anyone else's birthplace and demons don't exist and even if they did I highly doubt exorcism would be in the slightest bit an effective remedy for ridding oneself of them. No god-man walked on earth and none is ever going to return (even if he hadn't mistakenly told people of his day that it would happen in their lifetimes).

Do I believe religion does anybody good? Well...no, not really. It might be an effective crutch for a mental cripple but that's about it. And maybe food drives and soup kitchens do some good but you don't have to be religious to run them and many people aren't. Does it do anybody harm? Yes, it certainly does. And why do religious people so often fly off the handle and do crazy things? Because they believe crazy things! And if religions are supposed to bring people together, why do they hate one another? Because they are acquainted with one another.

Christianity isn't bullshit because it bears similarities--real or imagined--to other earlier religions. It's bullshit because it's bullshit.

It's good to know you find mythicism educational. But now you change tack to your real objections to what you consider to be all that is wrong with Christianity. You also launch into a general tirade against "religion." as being "crazy".

Now it may be that it's dawning on you that you haven't been doing too well with your mythicist and astrological 'theological' gobbledegook, so it's time for a change of subject. It's amusing then that your appeal is to "common sense."

And what is this common sense argument but a dogmatic assertion that your atheistic worldview is true because you say miracles don't happen. Why, because your worldview tells you they can't?

Christianity is false because you know there is no God to do anything, while nothing can conjure a universe.

Now I don't dispute that many crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity,though it reaches some blind eyes and deaf ears to repeat that these are done in direct contradiction and disobedience to the plain teachings of Christ.

We've been told what terrible things the emperor Constantine did and you know of course that all Christians have always been just like the Borgias, the Inquisitors and lets not forget those devout followers of Christ,the Ku Klux Klan.

Does religion do anybody any good you ask and confidently reply "No, not really." You grudgingly admit that soup kitchens provided by religious groups may do some good, but you don't really need religion to have them,you say.

Just to bring some badly needed balance here, I'm providing a link to good done just in the one area of medicine, by those motivated by their religious beliefs.
http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/cont ... cle&id=827

I guess the world would be a much better place if everyone was a militant anti-theist like you. But,whisper it,didn't those anti-theists Lenin,Mao,and Pol Pot among others make the world a better place for everyone?

Flann wrote:And what is this common sense argument but a dogmatic assertion that your atheistic worldview is true because you say miracles don't happen. Why, because your worldview tells you they can't?

You ask why, but refuse to engage with the answers given.

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
And what is this common sense argument but a dogmatic assertion that your atheistic worldview is true because you say miracles don't happen. Why, because your worldview tells you they can't?




You ask why, but refuse to engage with the answers given.

I don't refuse Interbane. This thread,with apologies to Gretta Vosper, turned into one on the origins of Christianity. You raise the objection that anyone can write anything and we can't really know what is historically reliable.

The argument for Christianity is cumulative and multifaceted.So here we have been investigating these things. It's not true that history is completely out of reach. It can easily be shown that the O.T.books like Isaiah and Daniel predate Christ.You won't find a single scholar to dispute this.
The mythicist denial of the historicity of Christ is out on the extreme fringes for good reasons so it's not actually reasonable to deny the cardinal facts of his existence and crucifixion historically by Pilate.

All these questions I've addressed on this thread.This includes the various responses to the accounts of his resurrection such as claims of hallucinations.
You have a stock answer when it comes to claims of miraculous healing and the accuracy of prophecy.
I think you can be hyper-sceptical on history as if it's all beyond recovery.

The psychological aspect of the willingness of such as Peter and Paul to give their lives for their testimony to the risen Christ is important.
Mythicists overindulge in extremes of conspiracy which are not realistically possible in the historic circumstances and with the incredibly wide and numerous parties needed to be complicit to it.

It's simply neither feasible or credible in this historic scenario.

So I can provide you with numerous examples of remarkable answers to prayer. The argument from prophecy is an important one to which the mythicists resort to an absurd extreme to avoid.This includes historic events before Christ also known and recorded by historians, such as the fall of Babylon.

Not all claims of miraculous healing can be dismissed as if there is no connection between the request to God for healing and the actual sudden healing.
So that's why I'm not going to your thread, as a lot of the foundational issues have been debated here and I'm not going over it all again.

so one day i was watching a vid of the story of krishna

and i come across this

The legend of Krishna is that he was born of a married woman, Devaki, but like Maya, Buddha’s mother, she was considered to have had a miraculous conception. King Kansa was warned in a vision that the son of Devaki would destroy him, and take his place, and the child had at once to be taken away out of reach of the monarch. The king had Devaki’s earlier children put to death (“murder of the innocents”), and Krishna had to be saved, as King Cyrus was saved from the King of the Medes and Moses from the King of Egypt.

what kind of dim-witted dullard would i have to be not to see the obvious mythological motif there.

oh that's right

theirs is mythology yours is history.

watch the vid and then tell me you dont see any parallels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEaa2khhyQU

the 8th, ring any bells.

Harry wrote:When the light is just right, you can see Loki grinning down from the moon at all this.

yes, and when the light is just right ie. very dim indeed, you can be arrogant enough to think Jesus isn't an amalgamation of common mythic motifs.

Flann wrote:The mythicist denial of the historicity of Christ is out on the extreme fringes

no it isn't

that's just you avoiding the obvious motifs by trying to characterise any problem people have with the historicity of Jesus as "extreme fringe mythicism"

Flann wrote:it's not actually reasonable to deny the cardinal facts of his existence

what cardinal facts?!?! (and don't think the irony of the word cardinal is lost on me)

Flann wrote:the willingness of such as Peter and Paul to give their lives for their testimony to the risen Christ

evidence? (from a non christian source)

i say non christian source because...

Jacob Burckhardt dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Ramsay MacMullen Dunham Professor of History and Classics cites Eusebius as an example “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence."[4] Italian historian Arnaldo Dante Momigliano wrote that for Eusebius "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda"

Flann wrote:Mythicists overindulge in extremes of conspiracy

never mind the mythicists, why dont you engage with the arguments directly ?!?!

Flann wrote:which are not realistically possible

oh but Jesus literally casting demons into pigs IS realistically possible?!?!

Flann wrote:So I can provide you with numerous examples of remarkable answers to prayer.

so can i, so what, confirmation bias is confirmation bias, yours is as good as mine, maybe better.

Flann wrote:The argument from prophecy is an important one to which the mythicists resort to an absurd extreme to avoid.

Flann the main offender resorting to an absurd extreme to avoid something is you, well you're definitely a contender at any rate.

Flann wrote:So that's why I'm not going to your thread, as a lot of the foundational issues have been debated here and I'm not going over it all again.

you need to go over it all again because once is never enough with arguments as faith based as yours.

Harry wrote:It would appear that the Romans were responsible for this relationship, having used crosses for more prosaic purposes for some time before the Christians alleged anything about it. I suppose Spartacus could have been mythical as well, but we do have a lot of detail about him, too.

Harry WTF?!?!?

Mark, the supposed Great Euhemerist, says nothing of it. If it was part of a pre-existing myth, he got confused.

again WTF?!?!?!

What appears to have happened was that the Matthew community, in their passion for prophecies, adopted a mistaken translation in the Septuagint from an irrelevant Isaiah passage and ran with it.

ok, that bit i get, it seems reasonable enough.

As for resurrection, that certainly could have been pre-existing myth

no Harry

As for resurrection, that certainly IS pre-existing myth.

but Paul was doing the historical thing on it well before Mark set pen to paper

so what?!?!

Mythical interpretation is looking more and more to me like it is itself mythical, starting with a supposed meaning and finding scraps of reality which appear to fit.

WTF is this BS Harry ?!?!?!

When the light is just right, you can see Loki grinning down from the moon at all this.

sure, and when the light is just right, ie. present, you can see that Jesus fits right in with every other mythology.

there is absolutely no reason to think of Him as any different in genre from Krishna or the Buddha etc etc etc

oh that's right

theirs is myth yours is real.