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.

Agreed.

It wasn't born in a vacuum.

My favorite is example is:
John 1:1 which is dripping with greek philosophical jargon.
(Especially in the original)

You mean all those religions and beliefs were not correlated?

Some here would have us believe they know exactly how and what every single ancient person believed. One person here even said they knew how 1st century Jews thought....LOL. Which of course is amazing since they do not even know what 21st century Jews think...lol

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.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
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).


Weird, isn't it?

I only skimmed Carrier's response, but this kind of stuff stuck out glaringly.

As a Mormon I was told, by a pretty smart fella too although a Nibley type, that the Priesthood and the ordinances have always existed on Earth; and he would proceed to use the *exact same passage* from Plato's Republic Carrier uses to demonstrate "baptism for the dead". See! Libations and Amusements and Sacrifices can expiate and atone for the sins of the living and the dead, see! Boom! Cased closed, baptism for the dead has always existed...he would say, nimbly...

Of course, all the above was completely divorced from the conversational context of the text. Forgivable in my father in law, but not so much from one who has a PhD in Ancient History.

Raptor, a former devotee of Nibley, has it right: this Mythicist stuff smacks so glaringly of, well, Nibley.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> janeeliot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 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).
>
>
> Weird, isn't it?
>
> I only skimmed Carrier's response, but this kind
> of stuff stuck out glaringly.
>
> As a Mormon I was told, by a pretty smart fella
> too although a Nibley type, that the Priesthood
> and the ordinances have always existed on Earth;
> and he would proceed to use the *exact same
> passage* from Plato's Republic Carrier uses to
> demonstrate "baptism for the dead". See!
> Libations and Amusements and Sacrifices can
> expiate and atone for the sins of the living and
> the dead, see! Boom! Cased closed, baptism for
> the dead has always existed...he would say,
> nimbly...
>
> Of course, all the above was completely divorced
> from the conversational context of the text.
> Forgivable in my father in law, but not so much
> from one who has a PhD in Ancient History.
>
> Raptor, a former devotee of Nibley, has it right:
> this Mythicist stuff smacks so glaringly of, well,
> Nibley.

Thank you. And I like Carrier as a Nibley. It's working for me. I see the point.

Where they try to poke holes or point out the gaps in the "knowledge" base for evolution.

And then pretend that somehow that makes their stance the "correct one" by default.

Well, that's not Doherty's argument (to use one particular example).

In fact, all his work is based mostly on a close reading of the NT.

"Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so"

Nothing better then the Bible for proof of a real Jesus.

The best part is that is what they taught me in Sunday School as well.

Hmmmmmm.....

They teach you a lot of things in Sunday School that are true, just like the Bible.

Be proud of the source of knowledge.

"Nothing better then the Bible for proof of a real Jesus.

The best part is that is what they taught me in Sunday School as well.

They teach you a lot of things in Sunday School that are true, just like the Bible.

Be proud of the source of knowledge."

Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Nothing better then the Bible for proof of a real
> Jesus.
>
> The best part is that is what they taught me in
> Sunday School as well.
>
> They teach you a lot of things in Sunday School
> that are true, just like the Bible.
>
> Be proud of the source of knowledge."


Tis black and white thinking. And a little like saying, "Why not murder people? The Bible tells us not to, and we know the Bible is full of rot like telling us not cook on Sundays! I guess not murdering people is the same as that!"

Or not so much. Perhaps not everything in the Bible should be tarred with the same brush? I've encountered posters who claim there were no ancient Hebrew people, just like there were no Lamanites because -- ohnevermind. I don't have to finish that obvious thought, do I. Trace out the brilliant logic for yourself.

Then why not just use that moral standard to live life and not worry about the bible?

Because the bible also seems to indicate that incest, rape and a lot of other nasty things are OK as well.

My point being, the bible is a lousy source to look at for moral system. A person trying to use the bible needs to use their own moral standards to figure out what is morally good and what to reject.

Most Christians seem to ignore almost the whole of the first half.

As someone once said and I have repeated here, You can look trough a pile of @#$%& to find some corn, but if you really want corn, you should look elsewhere.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 06:34PM by MJ.

She was making an analogy for black and white thinking.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 06:49PM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 06:51PM by Raptor Jesus.

As in there are good things in the Bible and there are bad things in the Bible and, as with every thing else, we use our brains to determine which is which.

**snort**

Timothy

And you can find good things and bad things in a DUMP, that does not mean a dump is a good place to look for good things. Just because someone might find good things in the bible does not mean it is a good place to look for good things. There are much better places to look for good things without wasting nearly as much time sifting through the bad garbage,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 06:55PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then why not just use that moral standard to live
> life and not worry about the bible?
>
> Because the bible also seems to indicate that
> incest, rape and a lot of other nasty things are
> OK as well.


+ 1 more straw man. People who acknowledge there are good ideas in the Bible are actually saying you must have follow the Bible to have a good life. No they aren't. They are saying there are good as well as bad idea in the Bible. Do you guys have anything but the straw army? Bring it on!

With you? Why bother?

I love the comparison. LOL. Nibley=mythicists.

As I just told Raptor, Doherty doesn't invoke the parallel thing at all, as far as I know (if he has, let me know).

His method mostly has to do with a critical reading of the NT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 08:20PM by archytas.

Gosh, and here I was hoping to read janeeliot's brilliantly sarcastic essay on how the Greeks had nothing until they heard some Sumerian myths.

What a disappointment.

I'm with you buddy. Still waiting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 08:14PM by archytas.