Is Bill Maher serious?

[_Trevor]

Applies to his fans as well.

Whew! Dodged that bullet.

[_Scottie]

Kevin, that was as entertaining and spectacular meltdown as I've ever seen!

New strategy for apologetics...when you lose an argument, defer to the age of the poster and and tell them to go eat some Trix. That'll get em AND boost your credibility!!

Bravo!

[Mod note: Could we all try and watch the swearing in the Terrestrial forum, please? This thread was VERY time consuming for me to clean up.]

[_GoodK]

Applies to his fans as well.

Whew! Dodged that bullet.

I long for the days when you could be a fan of someone without being tattooed with their political agenda.

I think Bill Maher is hilarious. I don't think I'd agree with most of his politics.

[_Trevor]

I long for the days when you could be a fan of someone without being tattooed with their political agenda.

I think Bill Maher is hilarious. I don't think I'd agree with most of his politics.

I hear ya, GoodK. I think Bill Maher can be hilarious, but I wouldn't call myself a "fan." That is a term that I reserve for things I am truly fanatical about, like common sense, which is certainly in short supply.

Sigh. No offense that I do not agree with you about the Horus thing, and, when I say write of common sense, I am not aiming that at you.

[_GoodK]

Sigh. No offense that I do not agree with you about the Horus thing, and, when I say write of common sense, I am not aiming that at you.

No offense taken, of course.

I don't think that the stories are "exactly" the same, and I don't think Bill Maher actually believes that either.

I am curious to hear your opinion on the parallels between the Horus and Jesus stories and why they exist.

[_Trevor]

I am curious to hear your opinion on the parallels between the Horus and Jesus stories and why they exist.

Here is my super-simple version of an explanation. Super-simple because I don't have time to do the subject justice.

Contrary to Biblical representation, Israel's religion was thoroughly intertwined with the religions in its environment. As you are aware, there were many widespread mythological themes that crossed the boundaries of particular cultures. Walter Burkert has effectively argued, for example, that Greece borrowed and reshaped Near Eastern myth quite liberally. In the East after Alexander the Great, kings and other famous persons were represented in highly mythological terms because it was the order of the day to place them on a level with the heroes and gods. Under Philo's (of Alexandria, Egypt) pen, even Moses comes off looking more like a Hellenistic (god-)king than he did in the Pentateuch. Why? Because this was the way great men of the day were idealized. It was little different with Augustus Caesar.

My personal opinion is that the Gospels were written to appeal to those who were used to this mode of portrayal of the famous. Consequently, their authors strive to make Jesus more impressive than other god-men, and at the same time do their best to interweave his story with Old Testament prophecy. By the time the Gospels are written down, Jesus is effectively a mythico-historical figure. Most reasonable scholars these days do not try to separate the Hellenistic (Greekish) from the Jewish at this time. Judaism was Greekish in a way that would have allowed some people to idealize their leader in the way the Gospels idealize Jesus.

This is not to say that Jesus is exactly like Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Hercules, or Horus. I am saying that he is idealized in terms that fit his world. It was a world in which Hellenism had facilitated the wide circulation, mixing, and refashioning of myths from many different cultures in the East. It was a world in which Persian Mithraism could be refashioned and picked up by the Roman Army. It was a world in which the king of Pontus could represent himself as Dionysus, Alexander the Great, Cyrus, and a Persian messiah, all at the same time. It was a world in which the Sibylline Oracles, which were at once Jewish and Greek could incorporate pieces of Egyptian prophecy and circulate in Roman circles.

Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels is the product of similar trends in representation, but this does not necessarily mean that he did not exist, nor that all of the claims about him are false. As a package, however, I think they are highly mythological in nature. Where to draw the line between reality and fiction is difficult to know. Is it possible that this person did not exist? Yes. I find it unlikely, but it is an interesting hypothesis to bat around anyway. A better question might be, why does it matter? Given what we know, I think it most unlikely that Jesus was as he is represented existed for the reasons I have outlined here and others.

[_antishock8]

Dart,

Would you please enumerate what it is exactly you want disproven, or rebutted? I'm having trouble zeroing in on what it is, exactly, that perturbs you so much about BM. I'll try, as the self-proclaimed American Atheist spokesperson, to answer your bullet list of complaints.







(*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I am curious to hear your opinion on the parallels between the Horus and Jesus stories and why they exist.

Here is my super-simple version of an explanation. Super-simple because I don't have time to do the subject justice.

Contrary to Biblical representation, Israel's religion was thoroughly intertwined with the religions in its environment. As you are aware, there were many widespread mythological themes that crossed the boundaries of particular cultures. Walter Burkert has effectively argued, for example, that Greece borrowed and reshaped Near Eastern myth quite liberally. In the East after Alexander the Great, kings and other famous persons were represented in highly mythological terms because it was the order of the day to place them on a level with the heroes and gods. Under Philo's (of Alexandria, Egypt) pen, even Moses comes off looking more like a Hellenistic (god-)king than he did in the Pentateuch. Why? Because this was the way great men of the day were idealized. It was little different with Augustus Caesar.

My personal opinion is that the Gospels were written to appeal to those who were used to this mode of portrayal of the famous. Consequently, their authors strive to make Jesus more impressive than other god-men, and at the same time do their best to interweave his story with Old Testament prophecy. By the time the Gospels are written down, Jesus is effectively a mythico-historical figure. Most reasonable scholars these days do not try to separate the Hellenistic (Greekish) from the Jewish at this time. Judaism was Greekish in a way that would have allowed some people to idealize their leader in the way the Gospels idealize Jesus.

This is not to say that Jesus is exactly like Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Hercules, or Horus. I am saying that he is idealized in terms that fit his world. It was a world in which Hellenism had facilitated the wide circulation, mixing, and refashioning of myths from many different cultures in the East. It was a world in which Persian Mithraism could be refashioned and picked up by the Roman Army. It was a world in which the king of Pontus could represent himself as Dionysus, Alexander the Great, Cyrus, and a Persian messiah, all at the same time. It was a world in which the Sibylline Oracles, which were at once Jewish and Greek could incorporate pieces of Egyptian prophecy and circulate in Roman circles.

Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels is the product of similar trends in representation, but this does not necessarily mean that he did not exist, nor that all of the claims about him are false. As a package, however, I think they are highly mythological in nature. Where to draw the line between reality and fiction is difficult to know. Is it possible that this person did not exist? Yes. I find it unlikely, but it is an interesting hypothesis to bat around anyway. A better question might be, why does it matter? Given what we know, I think it most unlikely that Jesus was as he is represented existed for the reasons I have outlined here and others.

better check http://newsbusters.org/ in my opinion

[_Trevor]

better check http://newsbusters.org/ in my opinion

I guess so, because most Christians wouldn't take this at all seriously.

[_GoodK]

I am curious to hear your opinion on the parallels between the Horus and Jesus stories and why they exist.

Here is my super-simple version of an explanation. Super-simple because I don't have time to do the subject justice.

Contrary to Biblical representation, Israel's religion was thoroughly intertwined with the religions in its environment. As you are aware, there were many widespread mythological themes that crossed the boundaries of particular cultures. Walter Burkert has effectively argued, for example, that Greece borrowed and reshaped Near Eastern myth quite liberally. In the East after Alexander the Great, kings and other famous persons were represented in highly mythological terms because it was the order of the day to place them on a level with the heroes and gods. Under Philo's (of Alexandria, Egypt) pen, even Moses comes off looking more like a Hellenistic (god-)king than he did in the Pentateuch. Why? Because this was the way great men of the day were idealized. It was little different with Augustus Caesar.

My personal opinion is that the Gospels were written to appeal to those who were used to this mode of portrayal of the famous. Consequently, their authors strive to make Jesus more impressive than other god-men, and at the same time do their best to interweave his story with Old Testament prophecy. By the time the Gospels are written down, Jesus is effectively a mythico-historical figure. Most reasonable scholars these days do not try to separate the Hellenistic (Greekish) from the Jewish at this time. Judaism was Greekish in a way that would have allowed some people to idealize their leader in the way the Gospels idealize Jesus.

This is not to say that Jesus is exactly like Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Hercules, or Horus. I am saying that he is idealized in terms that fit his world. It was a world in which Hellenism had facilitated the wide circulation, mixing, and refashioning of myths from many different cultures in the East. It was a world in which Persian Mithraism could be refashioned and picked up by the Roman Army. It was a world in which the king of Pontus could represent himself as Dionysus, Alexander the Great, Cyrus, and a Persian messiah, all at the same time. It was a world in which the Sibylline Oracles, which were at once Jewish and Greek could incorporate pieces of Egyptian prophecy and circulate in Roman circles.

Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels is the product of similar trends in representation, but this does not necessarily mean that he did not exist, nor that all of the claims about him are false. As a package, however, I think they are highly mythological in nature. Where to draw the line between reality and fiction is difficult to know. Is it possible that this person did not exist? Yes. I find it unlikely, but it is an interesting hypothesis to bat around anyway. A better question might be, why does it matter? Given what we know, I think it most unlikely that Jesus was as he is represented existed for the reasons I have outlined here and others.

Thank you, Trevor.

That makes sense.

So, you don't think Horus was specifically in mind when Christian tradition was being formed?