Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 5

message: Anyone know if this true? I think this is a Gnostic view and not, as far as I know, a 'Christian' one. If so I think this whole section needs to be deleted as you can't argue for a 'parallel' where there isn't one. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this not a parallel? It looks like a parallel to me. Horus is to Christ, as Anubis is to John the Baptist. --Skylights76 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Horus was anointed in the same way that a king was anointed, by Anubis, who served as an intercessor between the gods and man. There is no evidence that John the Baptist was seen as serving in the same capacity, so the comparison collapses there, I think. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... in parallel to Jesus becoming ''Christ'' by being baptised by John ..." - Gnostic, not Christian view? 

message: "It proposes that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels mythologically parallels the mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities, and that this would indicate that the figure of Jesus is an ahistorical construct of various forms of ancient mythology."
There's one major problem with this, I think - that the ancients (and modern scholars) believed that myths, even about deities such as the Norse gods or Hercules, were built up around quite historical people. Hell, the Norse Eddas outright say it (at least, the version I have), and put it in the context of foreign kings overly bragging about what they've done.
Justin Martyr used part of this thought when he compared Jesus to "what you believe about Jupiter and Hercules" - that it was a real person, and went on to clarify that the demons had imitated prophecies about Jesus in the creation of these legends or supermen.
I'll look for sources (the gakuseidon website mentioned it, but I don't know if it cited sources for that bit), but this is generally a book kind of thing (the internet is very unreliable for this kind of thing), and you guys seem to have much better access to book sources than I do. If any of you could get sources for or against this, that would be extremely helpful.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're talking about is euhemerism. Please note that his ideas were not universally accepted and do not represent mainstream approaches or ideas at the time. Phyesalis (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I'm looking for sources. Thank you for the link, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahystorical composite 

message: Grant's quote still remains in the article, but at least now only in a footnote. I will add one more explicit criticism of Grant to suggest he is not a good scholar on this issue, although obviously a great scholar on other issues. Grant knows that is an exaggeration to say no serious scholar has proposed the non-historicity of Jesus, but that doesn't stop Grant using a quote to say exactly this. We know Grant knows the quote is an exaggeration because he immediately retracts it by saying "at any rate very few". If he was a serious unbiased scholar (on this issuse) he would not use the quote he knows is wrong. His use of the quote clearly leaves the impression, despite Grant's covering himself, that Grant means no serious scholar (the false statement), rather than just a few serious scholars (the correct statement). E4mmacro (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have a secondary source for the criticisms of Grant, placing the criticism in the article is original research. It's easy enough to say that Grant quotes another scholar, and I have edited the article to say so. I don't agree at all that you've shown that Grant "is not a good scholar on this issue"; nor would I agree that he's a "great scholar on other issues." The virtue of Grant is that he is a popularizer, and someone to turn to for consensus opinion on a vast range of subjects in ancient history. What he says about the Christ myth is likely to be an excellent picture of the consensus opinion among classicists in 1977; and other evidence we have about the critical reception of Wells, Doherty, etc. tells us that it's likely that very little has changed in the interim. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know my original researchw as confined to the talk page when I was talking to the editors here. What I am saying to editors is: Why would you (the editors) choose to use Grant, when he does the things I mentioned? What don't you, the editors, use a decent source like van Voorst, or use the people Grant quotes. My preferred solution was to delete Grant, making the article better, in my opinion. Someone agreed so I went ahead. Now someone wants him in, so he is in again. BTW, I think the attribution of the second quote 'no serious scholars' to Dunkerley might be wrong. E4mmacro (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E4mmacro, I had you confused with a different editor who made some edits to the Grant quote. That was a stupid mistake on my part, and I'm sorry. I'd rather not delete the Grant reference, but I think it might be better to use Van Voorst in the lead, and have the Grant reference lower down (it's cited 4 times or so in the article anyway). I'll try to fix the mistaken attribution of the quote to Dunkerly. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you study the subject and are reasonably convinced by the arguments, you are no longer considered "serious" by definition: we are talking about an attitude of dismissal. The problem as I see it, is that there is no evidence that Grant has actually studied the subject in any depth. Some of his statements appear to show a basic ignorance of the mythicist case. It may be that he is simply engaging in populist rhetoric. Or perhaps he has studied the subject thoroughly. We just don't know. From what I've read, I would not consider him a reliable source for the purposes of refutation. I am fine with mentioning that he is one of many scholars who summarily dismiss the idea. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable as well, though I'm curious as to which statements ignore the mythicist case.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More hypercritical picking apart of Grant 

message: Here's an interesting article on the recent documentary, The Pagan Christ based on Tom Harpurs work. There are a couple interesting quotes and sources near the end that might come in handy. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Article 

message: Back in August I tried to put together a description of the theory.  Since it seems like the crowd changed a little.  I'd like to recommend trying to bring in some of the details from May version jbolden1517Talk 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me to be loaded with OR judgments, and is extremely confusingly worded. It also has at least one seeming ad-hominem in the lead (all atheists sentences - why does this need to be mentioned?). There may be some useful details in the article that we don't already have, but the lead, at least, is unusable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be details in the main body of the old version that have been lost but the lede does not conform to many policies and is poorly written.  Sophia 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at this old version an found the lead to nearly totally useless mainly because of its numerous factual inaccuracies.  As for OR is concerned the article in its current state has that the idea about Jesus being a "composite of more than one person" has been refuted.  But the references cited refute on the idea that Jesus was a total made up myth.  They make NO comment on the composite of more than one person.  As a resutl I have thrown in a citation need for this claim.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of the theory 

message: </noinclude><noinclude>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defence (B) (American: defense), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Javascript 

message: I have to say, this is a riot. Putting a link in the "external links" section to a torrent (already against rules) to a highly discredited quack is okay, but the professional opinions of respected biblical scholars are silly, made-up dismissals that should be deleted?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this refers to me. I gave my reasons for saying some particular arguments from respected scholars (as summarised by some wiki editor) were silly but I didn't delete them. I suspect the summary of the argument might be bad, and maybe someone could improve it. But I accept that reasons don't matter, only authority, so there is no need for anyone to consider the reasons I gave. I agree the respected scholars' silly arguments (or the silly summaries by a wiki editor) stay. What is a "torrent" in this context, BTW? E4mmacro (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A torrent is a BitTorrent file. Someone linked to a site where you could get a download one of one Acharya S's books; since that was facilitating copyright violation, I removed the link. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had thought you knew what the link was to when you reverted it. Sorry for the aggressive comment, then.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't have to be be reliable 

message: I removed this bit of text from the section on Josephus:
and one in particular is known to conflict with comments made by Origen in Book 1 Chapter 47 of Against Celsus.
This was puzzling in context. If it's worth having in the article, it needs to be expanded so that its meaning is clear to the reader. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's extremely obscure, but what I assume he is getting at is that Origen states that Josephus did not accept that Jesus was "the Christ"; therefore the statement "he was the Christ" in surviving manuscripts of the text "conflicts with comments made by Origen". It seems rather unnecessary, since no-one disputes that Josephus was not a Christian, and the text already points out  that this very fact is the reason why most scholars assume that the main passage referring to Jesus has been altered with at minimum the addition of comments "if it is lawful..." and "he was the Christ". Paul B (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or a major problem with Origen. A first edition of Antiquities and Wars of the Jews is needed to resolve this problem definitively. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There's nothing even faintly illogical about talking about passages in both the 18th and 20th books if they both refer to the same issue. Writers do it all the time. You do not explain what the supposed problem is in the "he ought to have said part". That's just Origen, as a Christian, explaining that the fall ogf Jerusalem was "really" caused by Jewish rejection of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the problem that nowhere does Josephus blame the fall of Jerusalem on the execution of James, and hardly anyone believes Josephus would say such a thing - doesn't he in fact blame the Zealots? So now we know that Origen had a dud copy of Josephus, which seems to show there were people, probably Christians, willing to rewrite Josephus for propoaganda. E4mmacro (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely Origen was simply extrapolating wildly from what Josephus says about James in order to support his Christian argument. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James in his Wars of the Jews, there he attributes the fall of Jerusalem as a consequence to someone else's death - the death of the person responsible for the death of James as mentioned in the Antiquities. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem with "he ought to have said part" is that different scholars read it differently.  Some have read it as Origen complaining that Josephsus devotes more space to James the Just than the Jesus while other have read it as Origen implying Josephus didn't talk about Jesus at all. The fact the Josephsus doesn't say the things about James the Just it should say should make one wonder just what has been tampered with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Further compounding things is the fact that the often quoted second passage when put back into context clearly does NOT talk about Jesus bar Joseph (Jesus, son of Joseph) but rather some guy named Jesus bar Damneus (Jesus, son of Damneus) who was made High Priest.  Since Jesus bar Joseph was NOT made a High Priest but instead crucified through the actions of the High priests either the "who was called Christ" (or so called Christ depending on the translation) was added or this proves that there were other Jesus "Christs" around in the 1st century.  In neither cases does it prove the existence of the Jesus of the Bible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josephus/Origen 

message: I'd like to know if the following contain any citations or quotes that can be used in this article:   
:1 - definitely not. It is a forum post by a kid who admits in the first that it is specifically to attack Christianity. He uses cherry-picking arguments, strawmen, and ad hominem.
:2 - seems to be the same.
:3 - even worse.
:4 - taking quotes out of context, and the worst kind of logic. Iraneaus is talking about why there being four gospels is a perfect - why God chose to have four gospels, not using that as a proof "why other gospels are bunk". Its written like poetry, not an accusation of heresy (yes, its in a book arguing against certain heresies, but it is not a specific argument). Its more like "God saw the light, and it was good." His argument basically amounts to "this guy says numbers are important, that must be his entire argument, everything he's ever said must be bunk."
Not only are they not presented as reliable sources, but I honestly wouldn't trust them with, well, anything.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay review

message: When linking to content on external sites, please be careful to verify that the site you link has the right to host the material presented.  Not all web sites are entirely scrupulous about this, and other sites assume that if something is available on the web then it's fair game to host a copy.  Where possible, we should cite the original (book, magazine, whatever).  Citations to treeware are perfectly acceptable.  Thanks,  Guy (Help!) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The jesuspuzzle is Doherty's own website. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The no problem, sorry for the confusion. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External sites 

message: Right now, we have more pro-myth links than con-myth ones. From what I understand of the Undue Bias guidelines, they're supposed to either be equal, or in some sort of proportioning due to how valid they are seen as by academia. Does anyone have any further explanation on this from the guideline pages?
Further in that vein, do the external links also have to be vetted for reliability? Because I'm sure links from both sides would be dropped if that were so, and I'm not sure if we should insitute that or not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the external links should be split up into pro- and anti- sections. As far as reliability, external links get a lot more leeway than sources for the article. But if something is pure crap, it shouldn't be listed. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Some elements of Jesus' life are similar to that of Buddha's. Such as going out into the wilderness and being tempted by Mara/Satan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that one element, that isn't actually a defining characteristic? There's only so many different things a savior figure can do, and you're bound to find a few common details here and there. The stories would have to be virtually identical for their to be reasonable concern of one being based on the other.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism 

message: Granted, I worded that poorly. What I was trying to say was that claiming there was a real historical person, at the turn of the millenium, who the figure in the New Testament was based on, doesn't allow for him to be a made up combination of several different stories. Sorry if it sounded like I was claiming that Biblical historians support Bible literalism.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly possible to claim that there was a historical Jesus and say that the figure in the NT is a composite of several myths, stories, figures, what have you. That would make the Gospel narratives a "mythically" inspired elaboration on the career of the actual Jesus, and as such there's no reason why the elaboration couldn't be inspired by other historical figures. I'm sure there's somebody who's claimed something like this. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then to what extent is it a historical Jesus?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: KrytenKoro has just discovered the key issue with the composite person version of the Jesus Myth and why claiming that version has been disproved using statements regarding non-historical is OR. Just as if you look hard enough you can find "historical" basis for King Arthur and Robin Hood you can likely find some historical basis for Jesus but in essence you are no longer talking about the people you started with.  With Jesus we are not sure how much (if any) of the events outside of what Paul relates supposedly happened or what outside what Paul states Jesus may have said.   This means there could have been a Jesus of Nazareth who was made to say things by other historical figures which would make the Biblical Jesus a composite character.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not made up to any degree"