jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (03/29/84)
More comments from Larry Bickford: Jon White points out the many things that have been done in the name of Christianity over the last 2000 years. You may thank Constantine and his perversion of the faith. You should also note that anything which either is popular or has power will be used adversely by more than a few - the name of Christ is not unique in this case. As I have pointed out before, I don't think that modern Christians can so easily divorce themselves from the actions of their predecessors. It can certainly be claimed that some of those actions were immoral, but it is not so easy to prove that they were not acting out of a sincere Christian conviction. I would also like to have some *facts* to back up Jon's claim that Christianity is based on "a bunch of Hebrew myths." Well, this is a big subject that I'm not yet ready to unleash on the net, but I will mention a few things. First of all, it is probably not completely accurate to say that Christianity is based only on Hebrew myths; there are many creation and flood myths that are strikingly similar to those found in the Bible that come from cultures predating the Hebrews. A good deal of the Hebrew mythology is second hand. Also, the myth that is most important to Christians, the myth of Jesus, doesn't have an exclusive Hebrew source, as mentioned in the following passage: "Those who read only Hebrew mythology believe there was only one Christ, and Savior; they do not know that there were at least sixteen...One has only to read in full the story of Hercules to realize the pagan and mythic nature of the whole Christ story. He too was born of a virgin, Alcmene; he too had a god for a father, Zeus; he too was the `only begotten' of the father; he too was called `Saviour,' the Greek Soter, and `the good shepherd,' Neulos Emelos. And just as with Christ, he died, went to the lower world and then ascended to heaven from Mount Orca. He was also called the Prince of Peace...(Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, pp. 286-7)" The author, Lloyd M. Graham, goes on to cite other avatar myths that are suspiciously similar to (and predate) the Jesus myth. Here are the names of the avatars and their origins: Jesus--Nazareth Krishna--India Sakia--India Iva--Nepal Indra--Tibet Mithra--Persia Tammuz--Babylonia Criti--Chaldea Attis--Phrygia Baili--Orrissa Thules--Egypt Orontes--Egypt Odin--Scandinavia Hesus--the Druids Quetzalcoatl--Mexico Witoba of the--Telingonese Note that almost without exception, these mythological characters were born of a virgin (human) mother and fathered by a god. Each was considered to be a savior and was crucified on a cross. After dying, each joined their father in heaven. Jeff Sargent disputed my statement that there was no historical basis for Jesus by claiming that the Jewish historian, Josephus, mentioned Jesus. Graham has this to say about that: "The only direct reference to Jesus in Jewish history of the time is found in Josephus, born in Jerusalem, 37 A.D., but no serious student today, not even the theologian, believes that Josephus wrote it. (Ibid, p. 293)" (Note that Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus allegedly died.) Graham also comments on the lack of historical information on Jesus: "Had there actually lived a man who could raise the dead, heal the sick, and walk on water, history would have recorded it. Why then did it not? For lack of historians? Had this been the case, the believers would have at least a negative proof, but oddly enough the period was peculiarly distinguished in this respect. There were many historians just then and some of them the most illustrious of all time... (Ibid p. 290)" I plan to write more on this in the future, but in the meantime, can anyone give me any valid evidence that Jesus ever existed, such as an historical reference from a contemporary historian? Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/06/84)
Jon White, quoting Lloyd M. Graham, cites 15 stories which are said to be
similar to that of Jesus. C.S. Lewis had an interesting explanation of that:
In "Mere Christianity", Lewis suggested that one thing God has done to spread
His message is to give the race "good dreams", i.e. those stories scattered
all through the non-Christian religions about a god who dies and comes to life
again and, through all this, has somehow given new life to humans; that all
these stories are indeed hints of Christ. Lewis even alluded to yet another
such story, which my vague recollection tells me was common in medieval
Europe, that of the Fisher King (if anyone knows this story in any detail,
please relate it), in another book; in his "Space Trilogy" or "Ransom
Trilogy", the character originally named Ransom (to whom Christ at one point
says, "My name also is Ransom") changes his name to Fisher-King; a rather
obvious allusion. I would think that Lewis considered the Fisher King story
yet another "good dream".
White and Graham wonder why there isn't a lot of historical information on
Jesus. I would think that the major historians of the period would have
been based in Rome, or possibly in Athens or other Greek centers; no one
would have paid much attention to this dusty province hundreds of miles
from any Imperial culture. Not until the Christians began "turning the
world upside down" did Christianity attract much notice in the power centers
of the Empire, by which time Jesus was no longer bodily on the scene.
Which reminds me: Surely there is evidence from the 1st century A.D. to
show that the Christians existed and endured all sorts of persecution for
their faith? I would ask whether believers in any of the other pseudo-Christs
Jon listed have ever gone through anything similar *and stuck to their faith
despite everything*? If not, that would lend credence to the idea that Jesus
really lived; for who would risk his life for a myth?
Someone might say that the early Christians wrote the Gospels and perpetrated
a hoax for their own gain. Seeing that what they gained was persecution and
often death, how could this be? Why would they blow their lives on a hoax?
The most reasonable explanation of their willingness to endure what they did
was that Jesus really lived, died, rose again, and continued to live within
them, as He does in us. Perhaps that is why God permitted the persecutions--
precisely because the history of the Christians enduring them patiently and
never denying their faith would dramatically show the reality of their faith
and of the One in whom they had faith...especially since the Christians were
never entirely stamped out.
Circumstantial evidence is very strong; and there's plenty of circumstantial
evidence that Jesus did in fact walk the earth.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (04/06/84)
Jeff, I don't want to be too critical here, but please, before you make any comments regarding Christianity, ask yourself if the same comments would apply to other religions just as easily. If so, there's no sense putting them up. The fact that the same "compelling evidence" applies to several religions only implies that many, many people are being duped. This will eliminate many, many unconvincing arguments (Christianity changed my life, why would Christians suffer for their faith unless it was true, I accepted Christ and the next day my girlfriend and I were back together, etc.). It's a simple test to apply and it will save the skeptics in the group from having to reply over and over again to the same arguments. Darrell Plank
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/07/84)
Reply to Darrell Plank: > I don't want to be too critical here, but please, before you make any > comments regarding Christianity, ask yourself if the same comments would > apply to other religions just as easily. If so, there's no sense putting > them up. The fact that the same "compelling evidence" applies to several > religions only implies that many, many people are being duped. This will > eliminate many, many unconvincing arguments (Christianity changed my life, > why would Christians suffer for their faith unless it was true, I accepted > Christ and the next day my girlfriend and I were back together, etc.). > It's a simple test to apply and it will save the skeptics in the group > from having to reply over and over again to the same arguments. Why is there no sense posting something that's true? While I grant, for instance, that Christians are not the only ones who have suffered for their faith, I don't know of any other belief whose partisans were so thoroughly persecuted *when the faith was still brand-new* and which survived. The fact that there is strong evidence (one might call it compelling) for the efficacy of Christianity (as to other religions, I don't know), and yet many people don't believe it, indicates that those who DON'T believe are the ones being duped. I still don't understand why you consider "Christ changed my life" to be an unconvincing testimony; if someone's life was going nowhere but downhill before he accepted Christ, and Christ turned him around, that ought to be convincing. Which brings me to a general point: When you're about to post something, you might ask yourself whether all it consists of is persistent refusal to see the truth. It's a cliche, but "there are none so blind as they who WILL not see." Also, another general request: When you're about to post something, you might ask yourself whether all it is is a flame. Darrell's note was not what I'd call a flame, but some other postings have been. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.