Causation

Marv
Marv's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Causation

Hello everyone! Im new (first post) and I wonder if anyone can help me out on something. I do alot of debating on the subject of the histrocity of the Jesus myth,and although it is easy to point out that the myth is a composite of other myths,and based on fraudulent historical writings,I run into causation problems the closer I get to the orgin of the myths. It seems unlikely that this Jesus myth is purely a work of imagination,and that somewhere,there was somebody,doing something that the myth was based upon.My question then is;Was there a historical figure from whom the myth was built upon,or was it strictly fictional? Is there any evidence that would support either conclusion?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.

(edit - moved to appropriate forum)


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Marv.  Sorry for the

Hi Marv.  Sorry for the late welcome (I'm a bit behind in reading posts).  However, the welcome is no less sincere.

As for your question, in The God Who Wasn't There, Dr. Alan Dundes gives some great examples of mythical gods (like Dionysis) that have very similar stories to Jesus. 

It is seems that the story of Jesus is very probably one more myth in a long line of similar stories. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
The character of Jesus is a

The character of Jesus is a myth, but the myth does represent something. Specifically, it represents a 'spiritual' (i.e. emotional belief) transformation from angst to bliss, through the idea of 'being forgiven'. This *actual* transformation occurs in actual people, and that's how the religion is alive today.

Everything else is just icing on the cake. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Ahura Mazda
Ahura Mazda's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Marv wrote: Hello

Marv wrote:

Hello everyone! Im new (first post) and I wonder if anyone can help me out on something. I do alot of debating on the subject of the histrocity of the Jesus myth,and although it is easy to point out that the myth is a composite of other myths,and based on fraudulent historical writings,I run into causation problems the closer I get to the orgin of the myths. It seems unlikely that this Jesus myth is purely a work of imagination,and that somewhere,there was somebody,doing something that the myth was based upon.

That's the view of the overwhelming majority of professional scholars in relevant fields who have studied the evidence regarding the origins of Christianity - that there was an historical preacher called Yeshua bar Yosef who was the origin of the later mytholgised stories.  The idea that he never existed at all is a fringe theory which is only subscribed to by amateurs like Earl Doherty.  It has zero respectability in the world of real scholars who work within the system of academic peer reviewed research.  And we're talking scholars who are atheists, agnostics and Jews here; not just fundie apologists.

Quote:
My question then is;Was there a historical figure from whom the myth was built upon,or was it strictly fictional? Is there any evidence that would support either conclusion?

 The most obvious and logical "causation" was that there definitely was an historical figure as the origin of the later stories.  The fact that those stories include elements that were actually rather awkward for the early Christians is one clear indicator of this. 

 For example, all the gospel accounts say that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, despite the fact that the Messiah was meant to come from Bethlehem.  The writers of Luke and Matthew tie themselves in contradictory knots trying to explain how a guy who everyone knew was a Galilean from Nazareth could have actually be born in Bethlehem (and trip each other up in the process).  If Jesus never existed, why would someone invent a Messiah from Nazareth and then have to go to the trouble of explaining away his Galiean origins?  Why not just invent a Messiah from Bethlehem in the first Place, since Nazareth had zero significance in any messianic prophecies and no other significance at all?

The obvious answer is that they said he was from Nazareth because he wasn't a fiction and because he was from there.  This was awkward for people trying to sell him as the Messiah, but it was an historical detail that they simply couldn't leave out or gloss over.  Thus the stories about his family coming from Bethlehem originally (Matthew) or travelling to Bethlehem just before he was born (Luke).

Your post also hits one of the major flaws in this kooky "Jesus Myth" idea squarely on the head - if Jesus never existed, who invented him, when, where and why?  "Jesus Mythers" are never able to come up with answers to this key question that aren't indulgent exercises in implausible fantasy.

Susan wrote:

As for your question, in The God Who Wasn't There, Dr. Alan Dundes gives some great examples of mythical gods (like Dionysis) that have very similar stories to Jesus. 

"Very similar" is stretching things quite a bit.  If you actually look carefully at those gods and their stories, there are actually very few parallels at all and even the ones that exist aren't terribly close.  This line of "reasoning" was first proposed by Kersey Graves' now thoroughly debunked and discredited piece of Nineteenth Century pseudo history.  Flemming's movie even has a list of the names of these supposed parallel gods that includes names that Graves' either made up or totally bungled.  Flemming now says he's going to release a new edition of the DVD that removes these errors, but the fact that he's using crappy Nineteenth Century crackpots for his "research" at all speaks volumes about the low quality of his rather feeble film.

The "Wise Old Atheist" says: They decided to invent a god and came up with one who looked like a peasant preacher from Galilee?! Were they on crack?