Ulan wrote:andrewcriddle wrote:The Akkadian account of Ishtar and Tammuz may well have been familiar at the time of Jesus but it is less useful for mythicist purposes.
Okay, thanks for the info. This leaves Tammuz' death and resurrection,
But the premiss of death and resurrection as in a person resurrected in the flesh, is it even a "christian" one?
OVID, Metamorphoses book 9
Now, while the Gods conversed, the mortal part of Hercules was burnt by Mulciber; but yet an outline of a spirit-form remained. Unlike the well-known mortal shape derived by nature of his mother, he kept traces only of his father, Jove. And as a serpent, when it is revived from its old age, casts off the faded skin, and fresh with vigor glitters in new scales, so, when the hero had put off all dross, his own celestial, wonderful appeared, majestic and of godlike dignity. And him, the glorious father of the Gods in the great chariot drawn by four swift steeds, took up above the wide-encircling clouds, and set him there amid the glittering stars.
What I mean is descriptions of the miraculous seems to be interpreted as unique accurate factual descriptions in some cases, and as incomprehensible metaphors in other cases.
Take Eusebius as example. In his work Praeparatio Evangelica which I recently set my eyes on. Actually surprisingly interesting and recommended, from my point of view that is. ( Many thanks to Roger Pearse for the intellectual gifts I have received
)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index ... _Gospel%29
But passing from these points, you will by the like method confute all the rest of their grand physical theory, and with good reason rebuke the shamelessness of those, say, who declared that the sun was Apollo himself, and again Heracles, and at another time Dionysus, and again in like manner Asclepius.
For how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once? And how could he be changed again into Heracles, since Heracles has been acknowledged by them to be the son of a mortal woman Alcmena? And how could the sun go mad and slay his own sons, seeing that this also has been ascribed to Heracles?
Here Eusebius argues the physical improbabilities of Greek beliefs. Take note of the father and the son being one and the same, a concept or idea promoted by shamelessness of those who hold such beliefs.
When it comes to Ehrman and his assumption of stories regarding Jesus being unique. And similarities are some kind of recent idea, which he almost argue should be ridiculed by default. I kind of sense a somewhat dishonest approach. I have read a couple of books by Ehrman ( Listended to audiobooks to be correct. ), and acknowledge him as scholar/academic with vast knowledge. What I find difficult to accept is how the early church fathers and their repeated comparison of their God and beliefs, as similar or little different from other present at the time. This the church fathers argue in order to prove the legitimacy of their beliefs are equal to other beliefs.
Defense turns to offense when influence and power shift. So when legitimacy is no longer questioned, the arguments of their beliefs as unique and without any comparison develops.
When the son of man, son of god, and the miracles related to his birth is discussed. I experience the claim of not being literally identical as imagined proof of differences beyond any comparison. Again to use example I vaguely remember from Ehrman, as it discussed historicity of texts and discrepancies as tool used in examination of texts. Discrepancy, discrepancy... sounds like Ehrman at least. Well, he gave a hypothetical example of discrepancies in texts to show what gave reason for further examination. Loosely it went something like if one gospel says some people met two angels at tomb of Jesus, and another mentions one angel, you have a discrepancy giving reason to question the text. I remember this because I reacted to the obvious reason to question texts did not come by discrepancies between number of angels in texts, but the presence of angels at all.
I am actually not criticizing Ehrman. But point out that neither Ehrman, Carrier nor those regarded as superior scholars in their field should be trusted to write the truth. Authority gives no truth to argument. One should always examine and evaluate arguments on the grounds of the arguments themselves. Ehrman says this or Carrier says that, are by themselves no support for any claim or argument. Relating it to "someone" said no dying and rising gods is known prior to the gospels, I can only respond with suggestion of actually examining if what "someone" said is correct. That is, if conclusion is the product of research and not the other way around.
