Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Larechar]

Hilite 1) Not Really

Hilite 2) I'm guessing you haven't heard of Mithra, or the numerous pre-Christian Solar Cults which all have their Saviours being born of a virgin, then dying and resurrecting, and all being associated with imagery including the Lion and the Lamb.

GB

Comment 1] Definitely true.

Comment 2] Hey I think I've heard of that. I thought it was quite hilarious. The host of that movie, "Religulous," mentioned that, right?

Anywho, I sincerely believe that aliens were responsible for the Christ saga, and that they had devised the plan millennia before, as can be shown by the Mithra saga. I believe a Universal Creator [God] exists and permeates everything, but that aliens are not it, and hence the Bible is based on ETs.

 

[six7s]

Hilite 2) I'm guessing you haven't heard of Mithra, or the numerous pre-Christian Solar Cults which all have their Saviours being born of a virgin, then dying and resurrecting, and all being associated with imagery including the Lion and the Lamb.

GB

Hi GB,

I'm guessing you haven't heard that many (most?) of the so-called facts supposedly supporting a correlation between the Jesus Myth and the Mithras Myth are, themselves mythical

Once upon a recent time, I too was in the same boat

But, thanks to some rather knowledgeable (and patient!) contributors to this very thread, I'm a tiny bit less hignorant now

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Jesus/Horus comparisons (split from: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writ)

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Hi GB,

I'm guessing you haven't heard that many (most?) of the so-called facts supposedly supporting a correlation between the Jesus Myth and the Mithras Myth are, themselves mythical

Once upon a recent time, I too was in the same boat

But, thanks to some rather knowledgeable (and patient!) contributors to this very thread, I'm a tiny bit less hignorant now

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Jesus/Horus comparisons (split from: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writ)

You really should use this......or this......to indicate sarcasm.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Comment 1] Definitely true.

Comment 2] Hey I think I've heard of that. I thought it was quite hilarious. The host of that movie, "Religulous," mentioned that, right?

Anywho, I sincerely believe that aliens were responsible for the Christ saga, and that they had devised the plan millennia before, as can be shown by the Mithra saga. I believe a Universal Creator [God] exists and permeates everything, but that aliens are not it, and hence the Bible is based on ETs.

I think I remember a Neo-Theosophist on this very thread suggested as much a few months back.

GB

 

[six7s]

Anywho, I sincerely believe that aliens were responsible for the Christ saga

On threads like this, WHAT you believe is far less relevant than WHY

So...

Why do you "believe that aliens were responsible for the Christ saga"?

 

[six7s]

You really should use this......or this......to indicate sarcasm.

GB

Yeah... I know...

What I don't know is why you chose to post what is a non-sequitur

I guess you assume I was being sarcastic

I wasn't

I merely assumed you'd like to know that you were perpetuating woo

 

[pakeha]

I'm guessing this thread will have "gone places" in the 496 previous pages... but hey, I'm going to reply to the very first post.
Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. The writers probably did believe what they were writing down, and for that reason it cannot be considered "mythical" on the level of Greek or Egyptian myths. Instead you have to treat our sources for Jesus as historical sources, accepting some points and disregarding others.
This is actually pretty easy to do. Was Jesus born of a virgin? No. 2 books written decades after his death isn't enough to warrant a belief that scientific rules temporarily didn't apply. Did Jesus know John the Baptist? Yes. 4 books written decades after his death is enough to warrant a belief that one Jew kinda knew another Jew.

I'm really looking forward to Bart Ehrman's upcoming book on this actually. Dunno if anyone else is?

These is a strange asserions.

Doc's argument is actually a pretty strong one. The writers probably did believe what they were writing down, and for that reason it cannot be considered "mythical" on the level of Greek or Egyptian myths. Instead you have to treat our sources for Jesus as historical sources, accepting some points and disregarding others.

Tell us why you think neither Greek nor Egyptian myths have any basis in historical fact. I'm under the impression that their origins are a mix of elements, but I 'm willing to learn more.
Why are we to accept the NT as an historical source?

And as for the hilited quotation, could you give some reasons for thinking so?
A new point of view is always welcome here.

 

[Larechar]

I think I remember a Neo-Theosophist on this very thread suggested as much a few months back.

GB

Wow, what a trooper! I'm always confused about when the term, "Neo," is proper, because based on dictionary.com it just means, "new," as I thought it did. But where's the boundary for, "Theosophist," being new or old?

On threads like this, WHAT you believe is far less relevant than WHY

So...

Why do you "believe that aliens were responsible for the Christ saga"?

I assumed the tongue-face would be an obvious sarcasm tell

In case you're curious, you can find the source of the theory here.

In the light of the situation, however, my statement should be no less believable than the, "God," of the Bible, yes?
It's just as good as any other theory about semi-hypothetical wooful antiskepticism, so that's the one I perpetuate; regardless of whether I actually believe it or not!

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Wow, what a trooper! I'm always confused about when the term, "Neo," is proper, because based on dictionary.com it just means, "new," as I thought it did. But where's the boundary for, "Theosophist," being new or old?



I assumed the tongue-face would be an obvious sarcasm tell

In case you're curious, you can find the source of the theory here.

In the light of the situation, however, my statement should be no less believable than the, "God," of the Bible, yes?
It's just as good as any other theory about semi-hypothetical wooful antiskepticism, so that's the one I perpetuate; regardless of whether I actually believe it or not!

In fact, I did assume you were being sarcastic. Which is why I compared what you and I obviously saw as sarcasm to a nutcase promoting Neo (New if you will) Theosophy a few months ago on this thread.

The significance of me attributing the term Neo to modern Theosophists is to distinguish them from the original Theosophists, much like we use the term Neo-Nazis to distinguish them from the original Nazis. "Neo" has some bearing on the Theosophist ideology's evolution also.

GB

 

[Larechar]

In fact, I did assume you were being sarcastic. Which is why I compared what you and I obviously saw as sarcasm to a nutcase promoting Neo (New if you will) Theosophy a few months ago on this thread.

The significance of me attributing the term Neo to modern Theosophists is to distinguish them from the original Theosophists, much like we use the term Neo-Nazis to distinguish them from the original Nazis. "Neo" has some bearing on the Theosophist ideology's evolution also.

GB

Only the top part was meant for you; I assumed you assumed I was being sarcastic.

Ah, well I suppose a bit more research would have told me that there were, "original," Theosophists.

 

[dropzone]

DOC: Answering your OP, there ain't none.

Today I have taken it upon myself to simplify my life, and that of some others. DOC? You are delusional. Seek out a preacher who is less crazy than you.

 

[dropzone]

Ah, well I suppose a bit more research would have told me that there were, "original," Theosophists.

The Theosophists have a bookstore, and the US headquarters, around the corner from where my wife worked. Madame Blavatsky and Bulwer-Lytton would puke little carrots to see how their writings were perverted by the Nazis.

 

[Larechar]

The Theosophists have a bookstore, and the US headquarters, around the corner from where my wife worked. Madame Blavatsky and Bulwer-Lytton would puke little carrots to see how their writings were perverted by the Nazis.

Wow! That's oddly more insane than I thought they would be.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Yeah... I know...

What I don't know is why you chose to post what is a non-sequitur

I guess you assume I was being sarcastic

I wasn't

I merely assumed you'd like to know that you were perpetuating woo

My apologies.

I did assume you were being sarcastic, as I assumed Larechar was being sarcastic.

Before I dig myself a deeper hole, I will review some of the material posted in the links you provided. It is quite possible my sources may be out of date.

In any case, I currently think it is more likely that there was a lot of shared mythology and imagery in the cults/religions (is there really a difference) of the time period roughly the first century through the fourth century CE; rather than being pre-Christian.

The following excerpt is what I thought to be fairly current scholarship, which pretty much squares with my own current views on the subject.

http://www.religionfacts.com/grecoroman/sects/mithraism.htm

Relationship with Christianity

Mithraism is frequently said to have been a great rival to early Christianity, especially in popular books written by non-specialists. According to most academic sources, however, the archaeological evidence does not support this claim.

Although it was widespread in terms of geography, Mithraism never had great numbers. (Christianity was not terribly large or influential in this period, either.) A few hundred temples of Mithras have been discovered across the Roman empire, but they are all very small. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion:

Even if all were in service contemporaneously they would accommodate no more than 1 percent of the population - scarcely the great rival to Christianity that inflated views of the cult have sometimes made it.1
Whether or not they were rivals, it is certainly possible that these two contemporary communities had some influence on each other. In at least one area, it is clear that Christianity adopted an aspect of Mithraism - the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, a tradition that began in the 4th century. A Christian writer admitted this in 320 AD, explaining:

We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.2
December 25 was also the birthday of the more popular Roman god known as the "Unconquered Sun" (with whom Constantine identified himself before his conversion to Christianity), who was closely associated with Mithras.

In considering claims for Mithraism's influence on Christianity, it is important to remember that Mithraism was a very secretive, initiatory cult whose beliefs, practices and imagery were not known to the outside world. So it would not have been as easy for Christianity to borrow ideas from it as one might assume.

It is also worth noting that two faiths developing in the same area of the world at the same time are likely to have similar ideas and practices, regardless of their level of interaction. Ritual communal meals and the theme of sacrifice for salvation, for instance, were common not only to Mithraism and Christianity but much of the ancient world.

My reference to "pre-Christian," thus appears to be a conflation on my part, of Classical Period Religio-mythology with much earlier, more Animist forms of "Paganism." This, in my haste to simplify my post, was a mistake.

Thanks for providing some links for me to review.

GB

 

[phelix]

Wow. And to think it annoys me when people say atheists are dogmatic...
Firstly, to GrandMasterFox:
"The smart thing a liar would do is use the most effective version."
This is a very strange conspiracy theory for supposed skeptics to adopt. That, without any clear motive, a group of people decided to construct the most complicated and convincing historical lie ever, and succeeded to the extent that no significant biblical scholar thinks that it was a lie.
"In other words, cherry pick. Sorry, it doesn't go that way"
Yes it does. It absolutely does. Our sources for many people at the time are written by their followers, and it is the job of historians to identify what probably happened and what probably didn't happen. This is how we know Pythagoras was born in Samos, while dismissing the claims that he could time travel. For many people of the time there are histories with fantastical accounts, and a historian does not dismiss the entirety of a source because a few of the details are wrong. He analyses it and finds what's probably right and what probably isn't.
"Going by your logic, gone with the wind must be a true story"
No, because gone with the wind is written as a fictional story. The writing style is that of fiction. If you choose a book that's written in fake biography style, then it might be harder in 2000 years to identify that it is a fake, but there are still ways. There is no respected scholar who seriously believes that the gospel writers were intending to write fiction. I mean, Richard Carrier doesn't even believe that...

Gandalf's beard:
"I'm guessing you haven't heard of mithras, or any of the pre-christian cults who have a saviour born of a virgin etc etc..."
Of course I have. It's a pretty common bit of atheist rubbish. The Mithras legends and other similar ones resemble Christianity very very faintly. You actually have one scholar on your side for this though: Robert Price. Of course, he can't get a teaching job at any accredited university, but it's still more people on your side than the last guy had. The bottom line is that there are lots of people said to be born of a virgin. There are lots of people said to have performed miracles. Did they? no. Does this mean they didn't exist? nope. The evidence for that needs to be evaluated independently of whatever lore has emerged about a character.

Pakeha:
I don't understand why my use of mainstream historical criteria are seen as strange assertions, but anyway...
Greek and Egyptian myths are indeed a mixture of elements of fiction and fact, but massively more fiction, and pretty much anything with a God involved didn't happen. Later on in history you start getting more and more factual accounts. With Mohammed, the stuff detailed that is horrendous, he probably did. The stuff detailed that are positive but not amazing, he probably did. The stuff detailed that is amazing, are doubtful. And the stuff detailed that involve God did not happen.
Doc's argument for the historical nature of the gospel is totally fine, but hardly ground-breaking. The methods he uses are also used to identify whether individual passages in a gospel are historically accurate or not. Have a look over things like the Criterion of embarrassment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

 

[kedo1981]

It’s pretty obvious, that the people in that part of the ancient world believed in most of the same things that Christianity claims to have invented.
The god/man messiah
Who is the path to resurrection
The good and faithful going to a good after life, the bad being punished
It’s possible it’s a innate part of the pattern recognition of the human brain.
I think it could be a “wet softwear” program in our brains that pushes us to survive, a trick our ego plays on us, telling us, in some form of whispered feedback loop
“you have a powerful friend, just hang on and he will help you”

 

[Akhenaten]

Wow. And to think it annoys me when people say atheists are dogmatic...

I had no trouble whatsoever following your post up to this point.

 

[phelix]

Whyso? Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism was happy to use the idea of dogmatic atheism in this blog post: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10632
And he quotes someone equally ok with the term commenting on this very subject.

I personally am rather uncomfortable with it. Certainly, there is never an appeal to higher authority, which most dogma would rely upon, but when atheists dismiss the historical pursuit in favour of attacking Christianity as much as possible, it can be difficult to avoid the feeling that you are confronting dogmatism.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Wow. And to think it annoys me when people say atheists are dogmatic...

Yes, it annoys me too. but the other thing that annoys me is when people don't use the handy little quote tags so your tirade can be viewed separately from the posts you are responding to.

It's also aggravating that you don't delineate your paragraphs properly with the standard format of web posts.

Firstly, to GrandMasterFox:
"The smart thing a liar would do is use the most effective version."
This is a very strange conspiracy theory for supposed skeptics to adopt. That, without any clear motive, a group of people decided to construct the most complicated and convincing historical lie ever, and succeeded to the extent that no significant biblical scholar thinks that it was a lie.
"In other words, cherry pick. Sorry, it doesn't go that way"
Yes it does. It absolutely does. Our sources for many people at the time are written by their followers, and it is the job of historians to identify what probably happened and what probably didn't happen. This is how we know Pythagoras was born in Samos, while dismissing the claims that he could time travel. For many people of the time there are histories with fantastical accounts, and a historian does not dismiss the entirety of a source because a few of the details are wrong. He analyses it and finds what's probably right and what probably isn't.
"Going by your logic, gone with the wind must be a true story"
No, because gone with the wind is written as a fictional story. The writing style is that of fiction. If you choose a book that's written in fake biography style, then it might be harder in 2000 years to identify that it is a fake, but there are still ways. There is no respected scholar who seriously believes that the gospel writers were intending to write fiction. I mean, Richard Carrier doesn't even believe that...

See what I mean? It's bloody hard to see where GMF's quotes end and your rants begin. I'll let GMF sort that out.

Gandalf's beard:
"I'm guessing you haven't heard of mithras, or any of the pre-christian cults who have a saviour born of a virgin etc etc..."
Of course I have. It's a pretty common bit of atheist rubbish. The Mithras legends and other similar ones resemble Christianity very very faintly. You actually have one scholar on your side for this though: Robert Price. Of course, he can't get a teaching job at any accredited university, but it's still more people on your side than the last guy had. The bottom line is that there are lots of people said to be born of a virgin. There are lots of people said to have performed miracles. Did they? no. Does this mean they didn't exist? nope. The evidence for that needs to be evaluated independently of whatever lore has emerged about a character.

It's remarkable that you managed to miss my follow-up post in which I clarify my position and admit to making an error, especially as it is right above yours. But I suppose it's more convenient for you just to target the post in which I made the error, because that post lends credence to your bogus charges.

My apologies.

I did assume you were being sarcastic, as I assumed Larechar was being sarcastic.

Before I dig myself a deeper hole, I will review some of the material posted in the links you provided. It is quite possible my sources may be out of date.

In any case, I currently think it is more likely that there was a lot of shared mythology and imagery in the cults/religions (is there really a difference) of the time period roughly the first century through the fourth century CE; rather than being pre-Christian.

The following excerpt is what I thought to be fairly current scholarship, which pretty much squares with my own current views on the subject.

http://www.religionfacts.com/grecoro.../mithraism.htm

Relationship with Christianity

Mithraism is frequently said to have been a great rival to early Christianity, especially in popular books written by non-specialists. According to most academic sources, however, the archaeological evidence does not support this claim.

Although it was widespread in terms of geography, Mithraism never had great numbers. (Christianity was not terribly large or influential in this period, either.) A few hundred temples of Mithras have been discovered across the Roman empire, but they are all very small. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion:

Even if all were in service contemporaneously they would accommodate no more than 1 percent of the population - scarcely the great rival to Christianity that inflated views of the cult have sometimes made it.1
Whether or not they were rivals, it is certainly possible that these two contemporary communities had some influence on each other. In at least one area, it is clear that Christianity adopted an aspect of Mithraism - the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, a tradition that began in the 4th century. A Christian writer admitted this in 320 AD, explaining:

We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.2
December 25 was also the birthday of the more popular Roman god known as the "Unconquered Sun" (with whom Constantine identified himself before his conversion to Christianity), who was closely associated with Mithras.

In considering claims for Mithraism's influence on Christianity, it is important to remember that Mithraism was a very secretive, initiatory cult whose beliefs, practices and imagery were not known to the outside world. So it would not have been as easy for Christianity to borrow ideas from it as one might assume.

It is also worth noting that two faiths developing in the same area of the world at the same time are likely to have similar ideas and practices, regardless of their level of interaction. Ritual communal meals and the theme of sacrifice for salvation, for instance, were common not only to Mithraism and Christianity but much of the ancient world.

My reference to "pre-Christian," thus appears to be a conflation on my part, of Classical Period Religio-mythology with much earlier, more Animist forms of "Paganism." This, in my haste to simplify my post, was a mistake.

Thanks for providing some links for me to review.

GB

Pakeha:
I don't understand why my use of mainstream historical criteria are seen as strange assertions, but anyway...
Greek and Egyptian myths are indeed a mixture of elements of fiction and fact, but massively more fiction, and pretty much anything with a God involved didn't happen. Later on in history you start getting more and more factual accounts. With Mohammed, the stuff detailed that is horrendous, he probably did. The stuff detailed that are positive but not amazing, he probably did. The stuff detailed that is amazing, are doubtful. And the stuff detailed that involve God did not happen.
Doc's argument for the historical nature of the gospel is totally fine, but hardly ground-breaking. The methods he uses are also used to identify whether individual passages in a gospel are historically accurate or not. Have a look over things like the Criterion of embarrassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Pakeha is certainly competent enough to support his own argument. But the highlighted section of your post is patently ridiculous. The Criterion of Embarrassment is not evidence, it is speculation.

It's great that you're an Atheist, but you'll have to do better than you have done to demonstrate your credibility. But that's okay, because this forum is good training ground to hone your arguments.

GB

 

[joobz]

I don't understand why my use of mainstream historical criteria are seen as strange assertions, but anyway...
Greek and Egyptian myths are indeed a mixture of elements of fiction and fact, but massively more fiction, and pretty much anything with a God involved didn't happen. Later on in history you start getting more and more factual accounts. With Mohammed, the stuff detailed that is horrendous, he probably did. The stuff detailed that are positive but not amazing, he probably did. The stuff detailed that is amazing, are doubtful. And the stuff detailed that involve God did not happen.
Doc's argument for the historical nature of the gospel is totally fine, but hardly ground-breaking. The methods he uses are also used to identify whether individual passages in a gospel are historically accurate or not. Have a look over things like the Criterion of embarrassment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

I haven't doubted that the gospels contain true elements. The problem in this thread is that DOC is attempting to us this fact as evidence for the magical elements to be true also, which is simply false logic.

As to the embarrassment criterion, it is an extremely weak position. 1. We are not even certain the authors were the apostles in the story. As such, embarrassment doesn't apply. 2. There are too many examples of authors including embarrassing examples about themselves into works of fiction to think this lends any veracity to the statements being written. It makes compelling fiction to do so. It also is a classic method of preaching. It sets up report with your audience as you present youself like them, equally imperfect sinners.