The worst designed myth in history

[Starboard Tack]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life. Atheists and liberal Christians find common ground in arguing that since these things don't happen, and since there were no eyewitness accounts of the events described, the Gospels themselves must have been written long after the events purportedly described. From the perspective of the atheist, the motivation for the authoring of these accounts has been asserted to be to build a new religion, with core historical details modified by later writers in such a way so as to promote the new religious philosophy.

For the purposes of debate, let's grant that this analysis of liberals and atheists is correct - what is described in the Gospels did not happen in the way they are presented, and per Paul's assertion, Christianity is falsified.

If these stories are fabrications and made up by later writers, the question for debate is whether these fabricators were the stupidest myth creators in history, or geniuses in coming up with an account so improbable in 1st century Jerusalem that it would be viewed as having to be true by later gullible and unsophisticated worshipers, since no one could ever just make up such an improbable story. If one were inventing a religion out of the cloth of Judaism, is it stupidity or Machiavellian sophistication that would be the rationale for including these core elements in the myth, which would be bizarre or offensive to Jews:

1. A Messiah physically born of a virgin.
2. A Messiah born into the lowest rung of Jewish society.
3. A Messiah who was completely passive in dealing with the oppressors of Jews.
4. A Messiah who consorted with criminals, prostitutes and other condemned or unclean people.
5. A Messiah who pollutes his followers with rituals involving blood and symbolic cannibalism.
6. A Messiah who doesn't help the Jews one iota during his life.
7. A Messiah who dies.
8. A Messiah who dies under the condemnation of God by being crucified.
9. A Messiah who is individually resurrected, when Jews had no concept of resurrection except in the context of a general resurrection at the end of times.
10. A Messiah whose act of resurrection is unwitnessed.
11. A Messiah whose resurrection is first noted by women withnesses, who can't testify to anything in Jewish society.
12. A Messiah who ministers to Gentiles.

Having granted that the Gospels are fabricated or simply metaphor, I'm inclined to think the fabricators were Machiavellian since they sure seem to have sucked in a lot of people awfully quickly, but am open to the argument that they were simply insensitive to what a poorly constructed myth they had created.

[catalyst]

I wasn't a fan of the bell bottom, yet for a period of time they were the rave.


Which is to say, I'm not sure if there is a strong relationship between how an idea is designed and its popularity.

People are strange.

Hmm.. You know my feelings on the bell-bottom, Dave, so I can relate.

Some like the concept of "conformity" and trying their hardest to "fit in"....
ironically though, even those claiming to flout conformity, end up in an assumed "non-conformist" set... (I am thinking EMO, PUNK...)... I doubt the original conformity flouter (or perhaps rebellion of the considered "norm") would have realised that their non-conformist "statement" would catch on! Frankly, I would doubt that was what he wanted as he WANTED to be completely different to anyone else. BUMMER!!!

As such, as to religion is much the same. If nothing more, the concept of christianity come from those flouting what was conformity, at least in the region it began. Other thoughts were present to the "standard" concepts of Judaism, so they were entwined in.... which lead to a relatively minor "rebellion" from the stated "law". Then allegedly, this "new improved" style god model ...(bible jesus) within a couple of sentences (supposedly) flouted the 600+ conformists "rules" that were in place... and whittled it down to a handful or so. (depending on the christian you talk to of course.. some will state that only TWO of the original "laws" MUST be followed...others claim there are "the 10")

As such.. does that make bible jesus the bell-bottoms, to the Torah's God's flannel pants? OT god is there somewhere in between... hmm.. perhaps he is the denim bootleg. (and some people have NEVER worn ANY of these styles, nor have ever wanted to)



Cat..xx

Strangely though, the Bible jesus model was NOT "different" to others before his alleged lifetime. His concept of the "golden rule" was yoinked from the "Silver rule" hundreds of years before... his "sermon on the mount" hoo-yaa was near WORD FOR WORD yoinked from the DSS.


Meh... it's early Boxing Day... I can waffle if I want.

[Artie]

As it relates to the Jesus myth, the Jews certainly didn't believe in the pagan gods, so the virgin birth to them would seem as absurd as it does to non-theists today. Which again makes for an odd element of the overall myth. Why not just have Jesus appear, fully grown and ready to change the world? Why give him brothers and sisters (and all that implies), yet insist that the spirit of God was responsible for the pregnancy? This just seems so ridiculous that it would disqualify anyone propounding it as sane. So my question remains, why pick these silly elements when you're making it up, since more sensible elements wouldn't expose you to ridicule and be an instant turn off to those you were proselytizing? Again, seems like they had to be morons or the smartest people ever.

I don't think there's an easy way to answer your question. We are not talking about people making something up at a specific point in time, we are talking about something that developed over a long period of time and is still developing. The best way to understand what happened is just to read a neutral history of Christianity.

[Starboard Tack]

As it relates to the Jesus myth, the Jews certainly didn't believe in the pagan gods, so the virgin birth to them would seem as absurd as it does to non-theists today. Which again makes for an odd element of the overall myth. Why not just have Jesus appear, fully grown and ready to change the world? Why give him brothers and sisters (and all that implies), yet insist that the spirit of God was responsible for the pregnancy? This just seems so ridiculous that it would disqualify anyone propounding it as sane. So my question remains, why pick these silly elements when you're making it up, since more sensible elements wouldn't expose you to ridicule and be an instant turn off to those you were proselytizing? Again, seems like they had to be morons or the smartest people ever.

I don't think there's an easy way to answer your question. We are not talking about people making something up at a specific point in time, we are talking about something that developed over a long period of time and is still developing. The best way to understand what happened is just to read a neutral history of Christianity.

But if the Christian myth developed over many years, isn't it even stranger that it contains so many preposterous elements? It seems like after having Jews repulsed by the idea of the consumption of symbolic blood and flesh, the next person adding to the myth would have opted for something more sensible and less like to prompt a gag reflex. Two thousand later, the Eucharist hardly makes more sense then it probably did then. By way of contrast, the Gospel of Peter, which was written around 150 AD, has a much more interesting description of the tomb scene. In the canonical Gospels, women, including a prostitute, are the first ones on the scene. Now in Peter, the crowd assembles, the stone rolls back and out strolls Jesus with a couple of angels and a talking cross. That seems more likely to sell to the Rubes than what is written in the Gospels.

I agree with you that Christianity took on unique and sometimes bizarre characteristics as it settled in as an established faith. What I am focusing on is the period of time before it was established, when belonging to it could get you killed and frequently did. During this time, according to many liberals and atheists, the Gospels were written, so I am still puzzled why they read as they do, since they contain so many elements that would be a real turn off to the intended audience, some of which, like an individual resurrection would be completely novel.

[Artie]

But if the Christian myth developed over many years, isn't it even stranger that it contains so many preposterous elements? It seems like after having Jews repulsed by the idea of the consumption of symbolic blood and flesh, the next person adding to the myth would have opted for something more sensible and less like to prompt a gag reflex. Two thousand later, the Eucharist hardly makes more sense then it probably did then. By way of contrast, the Gospel of Peter, which was written around 150 AD, has a much more interesting description of the tomb scene. In the canonical Gospels, women, including a prostitute, are the first ones on the scene. Now in Peter, the crowd assembles, the stone rolls back and out strolls Jesus with a couple of angels and a talking cross. That seems more likely to sell to the Rubes than what is written in the Gospels.

I agree with you that Christianity took on unique and sometimes bizarre characteristics as it settled in as an established faith. What I am focusing on is the period of time before it was established, when belonging to it could get you killed and frequently did. During this time, according to many liberals and atheists, the Gospels were written, so I am still puzzled why they read as they do, since they contain so many elements that would be a real turn off to the intended audience, some of which, like an individual resurrection would be completely novel.

Again I can't answer in a few sentences. To be able to understand the complete story one has to read the history of Christianity in detail. It seems that you are trying to say that if Christianity was made up it could have been made up in a much more sensible manner so as to attract more followers. But it wasn't made up out of thin air. It had to incorporate earlier religions and history and traditions and folklore and assimilate it in a way that could make any kind of sense and this took time and a lot of trial and error.

[JoeyKnothead]

I read that headline there and I thought for sure my cover of being handsome and debonair was fixin' to get blown slam out the water.

Myths ain't near as much designed as they are powerful. And whatever I meant by that, it doesn't mean folks are just trying to delude or that they're a bunch of lyin' so and sos.

I don't doubt those who present(ed) Jesus as all manner of fancy are just as sincere as they could ever be. I just contend they're wrong on the more fanciful parts.

[Flail]

Critics of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Christ's life assert that the stories of miracles and physical resurrection must be myths since miracles don't happen and "flying corpses" don't come back to life. Atheists and liberal Christians find common ground in arguing that since these things don't happen, and since there were no eyewitness accounts of the events described, the Gospels themselves must have been written long after the events purportedly described. From the perspective of the atheist, the motivation for the authoring of these accounts has been asserted to be to build a new religion, with core historical details modified by later writers in such a way so as to promote the new religious philosophy.

For the purposes of debate, let's grant that this analysis of liberals and atheists is correct - what is described in the Gospels did not happen in the way they are presented, and per Paul's assertion, Christianity is falsified.

If these stories are fabrications and made up by later writers, the question for debate is whether these fabricators were the stupidest myth creators in history, or geniuses in coming up with an account so improbable in 1st century Jerusalem that it would be viewed as having to be true by later gullible and unsophisticated worshipers, since no one could ever just make up such an improbable story. If one were inventing a religion out of the cloth of Judaism, is it stupidity or Machiavellian sophistication that would be the rationale for including these core elements in the myth, which would be bizarre or offensive to Jews:

1. A Messiah physically born of a virgin.
2. A Messiah born into the lowest rung of Jewish society.
3. A Messiah who was completely passive in dealing with the oppressors of Jews.
4. A Messiah who consorted with criminals, prostitutes and other condemned or unclean people.
5. A Messiah who pollutes his followers with rituals involving blood and symbolic cannibalism.
6. A Messiah who doesn't help the Jews one iota during his life.
7. A Messiah who dies.
8. A Messiah who dies under the condemnation of God by being crucified.
9. A Messiah who is individually resurrected, when Jews had no concept of resurrection except in the context of a general resurrection at the end of times.
10. A Messiah whose act of resurrection is unwitnessed.
11. A Messiah whose resurrection is first noted by women withnesses, who can't testify to anything in Jewish society.
12. A Messiah who ministers to Gentiles.

Having granted that the Gospels are fabricated or simply metaphor, I'm inclined to think the fabricators were Machiavellian since they sure seem to have sucked in a lot of people awfully quickly, but am open to the argument that they were simply insensitive to what a poorly constructed myth they had created.

Yours seems to be a pre-spun strawman 'Christian indoctrinated' view of Jesus as a 'Messiah' in this OP; I don't view Jesus this way at all, and as myth, parable and allegory, His teachings set a wonderful example for us to follow; notwithstanding the fact that much of Christianity misses the point or tries to read too much into a very simple approach to life and living for others.

If a strawman, which of the myth elements do you think are not part of the myth? Certainly myths can be wonderfully instructive, but this one, at least according to many, was constructed to create a religion. So the question remains. If that was its purpose, why choose such outlandish details to hang the myth on? As long as you're making it up, why not make it compelling to the audience? And if the myth has some other purpose than creating a religion, what is that purpose?

I don't have an answer given granting the premise that this is all a myth. That's why I am seeking an explanation, which atheists and liberal Christians must have, or why would they call the Gospel accounts myth and metaphor?

I guess I am not following your OP. Myth often develops as legend over time and is appended by all manner of superstitions which don't always fit the paradigm of a perfect hero. Imperfect and often illiterate peoples pass these legends via word of mouth until they grow in odd directions. As time goes on, some things get interpreted one way and then another until we get inconsistencies; it's all very hard to sort out at the point it becomes engrained in the mythos; which is what separates it from fact. Looking at it after the fact as we are, it is perhaps impossible to tell where things changed, where misinterpretations were made or things were added. The point being that it's a good story if you don't look too hard or too long and take it with a grain of salt for what good can be made out of it. I agree that there is not much to the myth that should compel anyone to worship.

[Starboard Tack]

I read that headline there and I thought for sure my cover of being handsome and debonair was fixin' to get blown slam out the water.

Myths ain't near as much designed as they are powerful. And whatever I meant by that, it doesn't mean folks are just trying to delude or that they're a bunch of lyin' so and sos.

I don't doubt those who present(ed) Jesus as all manner of fancy are just as sincere as they could ever be. I just contend they're wrong on the more fanciful parts.

But shouldn't the foundation elements of a myth that is to be powerful at least be plausible in the context of the people you expect to buy into the myth? If I want to start a myth that I am god and that my power is based on the fact of the world being flat, won't I run into a few obstacles, devotee-wise? That's what's so odd about the Jesus myth. Here are a series of made up stories (for the purposes of this debate) that make no sense to the audience, yet are widely adopted. Why? Did the fabricators of these myths find the secret formula for getting people to believe things that nothing in their worldview entertained as reasonable or understandable, like individual resurrection, symbolic blood and flesh consumption in memorium, and so on? Or were people just dumber then? So confusing.....

[Flail]

I read that headline there and I thought for sure my cover of being handsome and debonair was fixin' to get blown slam out the water.

Myths ain't near as much designed as they are powerful. And whatever I meant by that, it doesn't mean folks are just trying to delude or that they're a bunch of lyin' so and sos.

I don't doubt those who present(ed) Jesus as all manner of fancy are just as sincere as they could ever be. I just contend they're wrong on the more fanciful parts.

But shouldn't the foundation elements of a myth that is to be powerful at least be plausible in the context of the people you expect to buy into the myth? If I want to start a myth that I am god and that my power is based on the fact of the world being flat, won't I run into a few obstacles, devotee-wise? That's what's so odd about the Jesus myth. Here are a series of made up stories (for the purposes of this debate) that make no sense to the audience, yet are widely adopted. Why? Did the fabricators of these myths find the secret formula for getting people to believe things that nothing in their worldview entertained as reasonable or understandable, like individual resurrection, symbolic blood and flesh consumption in memorium, and so on? Or were people just dumber then? So confusing.....

It doesn't seem to me that the mythos was concocted so much as it evolved from a message passed between a few and then eventually to the many, over a long period of time, during which it changed and expanded in content. It looks to me like Jesus was preaching 'help your neighbor and enough with all the religious BS', but eventually that simple message morphed into a complicated, convoluted mythical mess that became Christianity, with so much ritual and worshipping that the needy neighbors get lost in the judgmental sermonizing.

[Autodidact]

Starboard Tack, as long as you believe the intent of the author was to start a religion, what difference does it make? I have no idea what the intent of the author was. What difference does it make whether Jesus was historical or mythical and why would anyone want to argue the matter? Christianity is what it is, so what is your point?

The point is to explain why, if the intent of the authors was to start a religion, they chose such outrageous claims to make, which would seem to be the least likely elements to adopt if you wanted to convince Jews that the Messiah had come. It obviously worked,

No, it didn't. If it had worked, the Jews would have all become Christians.

It did start a religion, due in part to its tried and true well-recognized myth elements. It did not convert Judaism to Christianity.

[Autodidact]

As it relates to the Jesus myth, the Jews certainly didn't believe in the pagan gods, so the virgin birth to them would seem as absurd as it does to non-theists today. Which again makes for an odd element of the overall myth. Why not just have Jesus appear, fully grown and ready to change the world? Why give him brothers and sisters (and all that implies), yet insist that the spirit of God was responsible for the pregnancy? This just seems so ridiculous that it would disqualify anyone propounding it as sane. So my question remains, why pick these silly elements when you're making it up, since more sensible elements wouldn't expose you to ridicule and be an instant turn off to those you were proselytizing? Again, seems like they had to be morons or the smartest people ever.

I don't think there's an easy way to answer your question. We are not talking about people making something up at a specific point in time, we are talking about something that developed over a long period of time and is still developing. The best way to understand what happened is just to read a neutral history of Christianity.

But if the Christian myth developed over many years, isn't it even stranger that it contains so many preposterous elements?

Not really, most myths do.

It seems like after having Jews repulsed by the idea of the consumption of symbolic blood and flesh, the next person adding to the myth would have opted for something more sensible and less like to prompt a gag reflex

. The concept of sacrifice was well-ingrained in ANE culture, and a good basis to bring people in.

Two thousand later, the Eucharist hardly makes more sense then it probably did then.

I have to agree with you there.

By way of contrast, the Gospel of Peter, which was written around 150 AD, has a much more interesting description of the tomb scene. In the canonical Gospels, women, including a prostitute, are the first ones on the scene. Now in Peter, the crowd assembles, the stone rolls back and out strolls Jesus with a couple of angels and a talking cross. That seems more likely to sell to the Rubes than what is written in the Gospels.

Why?

I agree with you that Christianity took on unique and sometimes bizarre characteristics as it settled in as an established faith. What I am focusing on is the period of time before it was established, when belonging to it could get you killed and frequently did.

Not nearly as much as being a Jew.

During this time, according to many liberals and atheists, the Gospels were written, so I am still puzzled why they read as they do, since they contain so many elements that would be a real turn off to the intended audience, some of which, like an individual resurrection would be completely novel.

Well, during that time very few people bought them. Most of the outlandish elements are in the popular "My God is a heckuva God" category, such as virgin birth, being descended from royalty and rising from the dead.