Posted by:
janeeliot
(
)
Date: May 01, 2012 03:31PM
xyz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posted by: janeeliot ( )
> Date: May 01, 2012 01:12AM
> Re: One thing that everyone here seems to fail to
> take into consideration is the
>
> So. What's your point? Doesn't everyone know that?
> The Hebrew weren't original. Or -- rather -- more
> accurately -- everyone was original. The Greek
> used Sumerian myths and images, but made them
> their own. The imagery of the New Testament is
> found elsewhere, but is quite distinctly New
> Testament. No one would seriously confuse Jesus
> and Osiris with his falcon head. No one who wasn't
> goofing up or goofing off. That is all great art.
> It is found elsewhere, and yet it is original.
> Shakespeare retold stories. Again -- so what? And
> what does any of that have to do with the historic
> Jesus? Not. One. Damned. Thing.
>
>
> First, I am not talking about mythos originations.
> I am talking about younger cultures borrowing from
> more established older forms.
>
> Second, borrowing and mixing took place as the
> result of clearly definable patterns of cultural
> exchange. Not randomness, as you seem convinced is
> the case.
>
> Third, Hebrew culture was the youngest and the
> Hebrew religion of the O.T. was possibly one of
> the most mutable in the region, therefore they had
> - and took - the luxury of picking and choosing
> what their religious specifics would be, across a
> very long period of time. A casual reading of your
> posts betrays you may want to study up on that. A
> lot more.
>
> "The Greek used Sumerian myths and images..."
> By what avenue and according to what time line did
> those reach Greece? At what points of interjection
> did they influence the most?
>
> "The imagery of the New Testament is found
> elsewhere, but is quite distinctly New Testament."
>
> New Testament philosophy and iconography is
> strongly grounded in Hellenistic forms due to the
> 350-year-rule of the Ptolemies in that region.
> Earliest Christianity may be said to be a
> synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism mostly thanks
> to the influence of Paul, but it did not find
> unity, clarity, or focus for the first 300 years
> of Christian belief. That was all manufactured
> much later than the period under discussion
> (lifetime of "Historical Jesus").
>
> "And what does any of that have to do with the
> historic Jesus?"
> A lot. Everything, in fact, since one can not
> separate the individual from the context.
Hmm. I didn't know I thought culture exchanges were random. Thanks for enlightening me as to what I think. It's amazing. You know my thoughts better than I do! The power of the priesthood perhaps? From now on when I need to know what I really think or feel I can consult you -- or a Mormon bishop. Don't they too specialize at reading others' hearts and minds?
I think Hebrew culture was affected by surrounding cultures. I happen to know the great Jacob and Esau story of the Old Testament is a retelling (and a pretty good at that) of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I know some scholars prefer one version, some the other. I guess I need to study up on knowing that already because I like -- you know -- know it already. I never said otherwise. I think the New Testament is distinctive. As is the music of the Rolling Stones -- which doesn't mean it wasn't created as part of an international musical explosion and isn't influenced by the Beatles, American rhythm and blues, the emergence of American rock and the British response, such as the Liverpool sound. Yet one knows a Stones' song when one hears it. I am not saying anything about New Testament that is arguable, so take a deep breath and Make. Your. Self. Stop. If you want to argue that New Testament isn't distinctive -- oh go there -- so we can all laugh at you for being a fool. I certainly don't mean it stands alone without strong influences or traceable predecessors. Give. Me. A. Break. I mean, I always know Billie Holiday's voice -- even though she didn't invent a damned thing. And you had better know it too, if you want a shred of credibility.
As for what it has to do with historic Jesus, the answer is still nothing. Doesn't your argument boil down to there was no John Lennon because the Beatles weren't wholly original? Ahhhh-- weird, man. We can learn a great deal about what influenced the writers of the New Testament, but none of it leads to any conclusion but they wrote just like all other writers, influenced by the stories and images of their time. That sheds no light on whether they were writing of a real person. And when making comparisons, it is as important to acknowledge the differences as the similarity, something Carrier fails at -- spectacularly. Anyone who just says -- Oh look Jesus and Osiris -- a perfect match! Needs their eyes -- or brains -- examined. There are some vague similarities. There are more glaring differences (that bird head, for one).
Gosh! Do you have time on your hands to create and knock down straw men! Or maybe “straw men” isn’t really the phrase. Isn’t more like fencing with ghosts? You imagine all this positions for me and project them on to me, but they have nothing to do with the price of rice in China, and certainly nothing to do with me. They are your ghosts. You should own them. The big one in the corner is the one who keeps whispering to you that if you concede a historic Jesus, that is the same as believing in the divine Jesus and believing every word of the Bible. Have at him if you like. But don’t try to put me between you. I’m an atheist who has as much respect for the work of scholars on this issue as I do for their work on the DNA of Native Americans.
You know, hanging out here has made me wonder if a "calling" is all that bad. It can be more constructive than this.