Myths follow a basic pattern. The story of Jesus follows that pattern.
Period.
We cannot conclude the story of Jesus is a myth merely because it follows the pattern, nor can we rule out that possibility.
That we don't know the identities of the people who invented the earliest stories does not mean they were not developed by people. All without exception were.
So whatever is behind religion was not created by any person or group?
I think I need to be clear here. Whatever is behind religion was most certainly created by man. Whether you can boil it down to a single person is debatable, and you almost certainly cannot identify that person. But it was certainly people who came up with the gods.
I've often said that if people did not come up with gods, then the same gods, actually existing, would have had the power to make themselves known to multiple groups of people. Europeans would have landed in the New World and told the natives here about Jesus, and the natives would have said, Jesus? We know him. Son of God, raised by a carpenter. We know all about Jesus. Crucified, right? Yeah. You mean you've been to Israel? WOW! What's that like?
No two independent societies have ever concocted the same God with the same name and the same set of rules and worship requirements/preferences.
But archetypes? Archetypes are elements that good stories have in common. People don't "come up with them in the explicit sense. They come up with stories.
And yes: Christianity cannot simultaneously refer to the resurrection as the most historically significant event of all time and say there would be inadequate evidence for it unless you accepted it as a precondition for seeing the "spiritually attained" evidence. That is inconsistent with the alleged arguments of the earliest Christians and only comes now when people recognize how inadequate the actual evidence is. The contradictory, mutually exclusive and clearly fictional accounts of non-witnesses written a generation or two after the alleged events took place and citing "evidence" (such as the empty tomb) that no one could possible check decades later is not adequate evidence.
What kind of evidence would be valuable: eyewitnesses. We have none. We have fourth and fifth hand accounts of people whose very existence is questionable (why did Mary Magdalene disappear? What happened to Jesus' mother? Where was Arimathea, and why was Joseph the only one in history from there? Where did most of the 12 go?)
Records? We have none. The records we DO have contradict the gospel accounts. Jews didn't hold trials on the day of Passover (as implied in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Pilate never had a tradition of releasing a condemned prisoner on Passover. Pilate would sooner put down a mob than succumb to its demands to execute someone for heresy. And if the Jews convinced him Jesus was an insurrectionist, he would not have needed any further convincing to execute him. There was no Arimathea. Crucified men were not given private tombs. There was no earthquake. There was no darkness covering the land. Graves didn't open up and release their dead.
The funny thing is, any one of those things is more likely than a dead man getting up three days later. But we know they did not happen. Yet we're too believe the resurrection, the least plausible element of the story, is history.
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc.
I asked to see how you (or others here) might actually think of it or answer, not merely to hear or read of something elsewhere.
However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.) Certainly doesn't flatter or say much for the intelligence of a supposed member of the Athenian judicial council, but what does that matter, eh?
I've often said that if people did not come up with gods, then the same gods, actually existing, would have had the power to make themselves known to multiple groups of people.
Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.
What about all the members of the council who called B.S.?
You can't cite him as a model of intelligence and ignore all the other intelligent people who said no! That's just dishonest.
So you have a member of the Athenian judicial council who believed Paul, and how many member of the council did not buy it? How many said this is nonsense? Why does one person's acceptance outweigh everyone else's judgment that this was bunk?
The funny thing is, any one of those things is more likely than a dead man getting up three days later.
So is the parting of the Red Sea (and most any other of the signs, miracles, and wonders written in the scriptures.) Though it's a parable, it seems there's an inherent truth written in Luke 16:29-31.
Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.
No, that is a false assertion.
If there were multiple gods with multiple intents and purposes, it does not follow logically that each one would reveal himself to one and only one culture.
If Yahweh existed, quite frankly, it makes no sense that no other culture anywhere on earth heard of him except for those that developed in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Satan is planting stories of false gods all over the place to confuse things: Yahweh would still have the ability to reveal himself to a culture that had no prior contact with Israel.
What you're doing is taking what I said and coming up with a tangential reason there would be other gods without addressing the central point of my comment, which is that no two cultures have independently developed the same God. It doesn't matter if 5,000 cultures develop 5,000 different gods. The bizarre thing is that no two came up with the same one. A god who EXISTS could have done that easily.
What about all the members of the council who called B.S.?
You can't cite him as a model of intelligence and ignore all the other intelligent people who said no! That's just dishonest.
So you have a member of the Athenian judicial council who believed Paul, and how many member of the council did not buy it? How many said this is nonsense? Why does one person's acceptance outweigh everyone else's judgment that this was bunk?
The intent was not to single him out as "a model of intelligence," but rather, to show that there's evidently something other than mere intelligence - or a lack of it - involved.
So is the parting of the Red Sea (and most any other of the signs, miracles, and wonders written in the scriptures.) Though it's a parable, it seems there's an inherent truth written in Luke 16:29-31.
The parting of the Red Sea... never... happened. That is a fictional account. Do you really want to go there?
The Egyptians kept terrific records. Losing their entire slave population of more than a million people and having your army drown in one fell swoop would have been recorded. It never happened.
LUKE is the account you are trying to prove. You cannot cite it as evidence of its own accuracy.
The intent was not to single him out as "a model of intelligence," but rather, to show that there's evidently something other than mere intelligence - or a lack of it - involved.
Right. There was something other than intelligence at work there. We actually agree on that. Except you JUST SAID...
Quote
Certainlydoesn'tflatteror say muchfor the intelligence of a supposed member of the Athenian judicial council, but what does that matter, eh?
You seriously need to make up your mind if you're defending his intelligence or not.
So to be clear: it doesn't take intelligence to be faithful, nor does it take intelligence to disbelieve. You can be intelligent and hold either position. Who said otherwise?
If there were multiple gods with multiple intents and purposes, it does not follow logically that each one would reveal himself to one and only one culture.
If Yahweh existed, quite frankly, it makes no sense that no other culture anywhere on earth heard of him except for those that developed in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Satan is planting stories of false gods all over the place to confuse things: Yahweh would still have the ability to reveal himself to a culture that had no prior contact with Israel.
What you're doing is taking what I said and coming up with a tangential reason there would be other gods without addressing the central point of my comment, which is that no two cultures have independently developed the same God. It doesn't matter if 5,000 cultures develop 5,000 different gods. The bizarre thing is that no two came up with the same one. A god who EXISTS could have done that easily.
Ah, but if there's "many gods", it seems straight forward and easy enough to think there would be unique differences (and forms of worship) for various locations and cultures around the world. And, as the story goes (before Noah), it didn't work out so well when God was (more or less) accessible to all the world. So, when it started going south again (insert: the tower of Babel, etc.), God apparently decided to try something different in calling out Abraham, and in separating Israel from all other nations.
Right. There was something other than intelligence at work there. We actually agree on that. Except you JUST SAID...
You seriously need to make up your mind if you're defending his intelligence or not.
So to be clear: it doesn't take intelligence to be faithful, nor does it take intelligence to disbelieve. You can be intelligent and hold either position. Who said otherwise?
So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid? I guess not.
However, you must have overlooked part of my previous post.
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Bolshevik
So whatever is behind religion was not created by any person or group?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not what anyone said.
Myths follow a basic pattern. The story of Jesus follows that pattern.
Period.
We cannot conclude the story of Jesus is a myth merely because it follows the pattern, nor can we rule out that possibility.
That we don't know the identities of the people who invented the earliest stories does not mean they were not developed by people. All without exception were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Jesus story is older than Jesus. Or at least the pattern.
It appears to be independent of any person or group of storytellers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, I think that is the crux of what Campbell was saying, though he went on to expound on the reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think I need to be clear here. Whatever is behind religion was most certainly created by man. Whether you can boil it down to a single person is debatable, and you almost certainly cannot identify that person. But it was certainly people who came up with the gods.
I've often said that if people did not come up with gods, then the same gods, actually existing, would have had the power to make themselves known to multiple groups of people. Europeans would have landed in the New World and told the natives here about Jesus, and the natives would have said, Jesus? We know him. Son of God, raised by a carpenter. We know all about Jesus. Crucified, right? Yeah. You mean you've been to Israel? WOW! What's that like?
No two independent societies have ever concocted the same God with the same name and the same set of rules and worship requirements/preferences.
But archetypes? Archetypes are elements that good stories have in common. People don't "come up with them in the explicit sense. They come up with stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not sure I find that argument clear. No things, such as religions, are not exactly the same. No two people are, let alone groups of people.
Independent societies do come up with gods. As with they do governments of some sort. And probably a lot of other things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
of course independent societies have come up with gods. My point is that no two independent societies have ever come up with the same God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
For clarity,
Are you arguing imagination alone creates gods?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
yes.
Gods do not exist independently of the societies that create them.
If you would like to argue that point, start a new thread. It is off topic on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're argument was there should be more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
*Your.
And yes: Christianity cannot simultaneously refer to the resurrection as the most historically significant event of all time and say there would be inadequate evidence for it unless you accepted it as a precondition for seeing the "spiritually attained" evidence. That is inconsistent with the alleged arguments of the earliest Christians and only comes now when people recognize how inadequate the actual evidence is. The contradictory, mutually exclusive and clearly fictional accounts of non-witnesses written a generation or two after the alleged events took place and citing "evidence" (such as the empty tomb) that no one could possible check decades later is not adequate evidence.
What kind of evidence would be valuable: eyewitnesses. We have none. We have fourth and fifth hand accounts of people whose very existence is questionable (why did Mary Magdalene disappear? What happened to Jesus' mother? Where was Arimathea, and why was Joseph the only one in history from there? Where did most of the 12 go?)
Records? We have none. The records we DO have contradict the gospel accounts. Jews didn't hold trials on the day of Passover (as implied in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Pilate never had a tradition of releasing a condemned prisoner on Passover. Pilate would sooner put down a mob than succumb to its demands to execute someone for heresy. And if the Jews convinced him Jesus was an insurrectionist, he would not have needed any further convincing to execute him. There was no Arimathea. Crucified men were not given private tombs. There was no earthquake. There was no darkness covering the land. Graves didn't open up and release their dead.
The funny thing is, any one of those things is more likely than a dead man getting up three days later. But we know they did not happen. Yet we're too believe the resurrection, the least plausible element of the story, is history.
Bunk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It sounds like an argument against fundamentalism, not Christianity as a whole. Fundies need physical and historical evidence.
Although "spiritually attained" sounds Wayfer. Which I understand as an abusive twist on social understandings distilled down to "because I said so".
An interesting note you make on the writers conjuring evidence. It sounds like fundamentalism or forms of it is just as old as its Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's an argument against the historicity of the resurrection.
Anyone who suggests it actually happened in history is interested in the evidence for it.
For the birth of Christianity, all that is required is that people believed it. That is not in dispute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I asked to see how you (or others here) might actually think of it or answer, not merely to hear or read of something elsewhere.
However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.) Certainly doesn't flatter or say much for the intelligence of a supposed member of the Athenian judicial council, but what does that matter, eh?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What about all the members of the council who called B.S.?
You can't cite him as a model of intelligence and ignore all the other intelligent people who said no! That's just dishonest.
So you have a member of the Athenian judicial council who believed Paul, and how many member of the council did not buy it? How many said this is nonsense? Why does one person's acceptance outweigh everyone else's judgment that this was bunk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So is the parting of the Red Sea (and most any other of the signs, miracles, and wonders written in the scriptures.) Though it's a parable, it seems there's an inherent truth written in Luke 16:29-31.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, that is a false assertion.
If there were multiple gods with multiple intents and purposes, it does not follow logically that each one would reveal himself to one and only one culture.
If Yahweh existed, quite frankly, it makes no sense that no other culture anywhere on earth heard of him except for those that developed in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Satan is planting stories of false gods all over the place to confuse things: Yahweh would still have the ability to reveal himself to a culture that had no prior contact with Israel.
What you're doing is taking what I said and coming up with a tangential reason there would be other gods without addressing the central point of my comment, which is that no two cultures have independently developed the same God. It doesn't matter if 5,000 cultures develop 5,000 different gods. The bizarre thing is that no two came up with the same one. A god who EXISTS could have done that easily.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The intent was not to single him out as "a model of intelligence," but rather, to show that there's evidently something other than mere intelligence - or a lack of it - involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The parting of the Red Sea... never... happened. That is a fictional account. Do you really want to go there?
The Egyptians kept terrific records. Losing their entire slave population of more than a million people and having your army drown in one fell swoop would have been recorded. It never happened.
LUKE is the account you are trying to prove. You cannot cite it as evidence of its own accuracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Right. There was something other than intelligence at work there. We actually agree on that. Except you JUST SAID...
You seriously need to make up your mind if you're defending his intelligence or not.
So to be clear: it doesn't take intelligence to be faithful, nor does it take intelligence to disbelieve. You can be intelligent and hold either position. Who said otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Ah, but if there's "many gods", it seems straight forward and easy enough to think there would be unique differences (and forms of worship) for various locations and cultures around the world. And, as the story goes (before Noah), it didn't work out so well when God was (more or less) accessible to all the world. So, when it started going south again (insert: the tower of Babel, etc.), God apparently decided to try something different in calling out Abraham, and in separating Israel from all other nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid? I guess not.
However, you must have overlooked part of my previous post.
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.