• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Christ Myth Theory

@Swammerdami I'll point out that my argument is essentially a Mythicist argument of "Amalgamism", and it's "almost exactly" your argument.

I don't think anyone claims that folks named Jesus didn't live, say shit, and get tall tales spun about them, it's just expected that few of these tales are accurate or even contemporary or at all about folks named Jesus.

There is strong evidence, >10%, that some of the myths are about John the Baptist, and other myths are about distinctly different Jesuses or even different "Messiah" cults that fizzled and cleaved to Chrestus instead.

It's not like when Jesus (or whoever) dies, all that belief and fervor dies with him. They spent their whole young adult lives building up that faith and belief and while that's enough for SOME to wake up, I expect that many religious people, rather than finding atheism when their religion falls apart, will merely find new cults.
 
As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.
Per what some in this thread have claimed you forgot to add a line that says "Therefore Jesus mythicists hate Jews and love Hitler and the Nazis."
steve_bank acknowledges "the Jewish prophet we call Jesus." This is something that mythicists refuse to do. This refusal leads to seeking the origin of Christianity outside Judaism. And it is for this reason that mythicism is inherently anti-Jewish.
Baloney. And my claiming Bigfoot is a myth is anti-native american of the northwest I suppose. That's not even silly.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for anyone in the Jewish homeland?
In the Markan story, . . .Jesus . . .
. . . in Mark 10:1 is a reference to the Decapolis and other Gentile regions such that Jesus—enroute to Jerusalem—is teaching both Jews and Gentiles per the same literary East/West axis presented previously for the Sea of Galilee ministry.
. . .
...a young man–notice–not an angel–tells them:
“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)
And there the Gospel simply ends!

I'm a simple layman asking simple questions. Was "Chrestus"'s given name Yeshu? It is a yes/no question. I see many references to "Jesus" in your response. Should I assume the answer is Yes?

That the Markan narrative — written a full century after Paul's ministry in some mythicists' view — has minimal mention of any Resurrection supports historicity. I've explained this claim before; if it still isn't obvious, I give up.

All we have for evidence is texts that have survived through the filter of the centuries-long Christian-biased, historicist-biased copying machine and recovered documents that date back to decades or centuries after Jesus is claimed to have been executed. So all arguments in favor of historicity are always going to attract skepticism. If only we could find graffiti left over from the followers of Jesus that was created during his alleged period of existence. We have such evidence for Pontius Pilate, but not Jesus, his alleged witnesses, or his execution at the hands of Jewish or Roman authorities. Crucifixion was a terrible punishment that was reserved to make a point for serious crimes, not necessarily minor religious cult movements, so, if he did exist, he must have done something to merit such extraordinary cruelty. Are there records of other minor cult leaders that were crucified? Did he lead an armed revolt against Roman rule like Spartacus did?

Crucifixion was primarily used against insurrectionists, but apparently these were plentiful in Judaea, resentful of Roman rule. Google agrees with my readings, e.g.
In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus.

So what did Jesus do to get himself crucified like the ones in the rebellion that Varus had crucified? As I said, crucifixion was usually done to make a point--to terrorize violent rebels, for example. If Jesus was such a minor figure--a vagabond preacher with a small following--what merited that extreme form of punishment?

YOU claimed that crucifixion was rare. Do you acknowledge that this claim was false? If thousands were crucified, why would a single one merit special attention? As for the alleged reason, have YOU read the Gospels? :cool:
John 19:19 said:
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Claiming to be King in land belonging to Caesar is almost the definition of insurrection.

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect? Obviously there should be far more evidence for the Governor than for one of dozens or hundreds of vagabond preachers. (There was a colorful preacher outside my college campus but I can't remember his name. If I could, I doubt if Google has heard of him.)

There does seem to be agreement — tell me if I'm wrong — that there were "Chrestians" somehow affiliated with Paul in Rome circa 60 AD, yet the evidence for them is quite meager.


Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for a Jew in the Jewish homeland? Was his given name Yeshu(a)? The names "Jesus the Anointed" and "Jesus the Good" are near-homonyms (in Greek), easily conflated; yet the mythicists make this distinction an important part of their case?

I don't see the rest of what you posted as serious evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. I don't think that it is even as important to most mythicists as you seem to think it is.
:confused2: The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.

I have repeatedly asked for a detailed explanation — in mythicists' view — of the "James brother of the Lord" mentions by Paul and Josephus, and of the Chrestians/Christians in Nero's Rome. If anyone can come up with a scenario that strikes me as plausible, I will revise my estimate of historicity's probability.

Do you want to try, Copernicus? I am looking for BREVITY and clarity. I am NOT asking for argumentation etc.; I just want simple plausible answers to simple questions.

So far, ONLY Jarhyn has come through with a specific mythicist model. AFAICT, his "mythicist" scenario is almost EXACTLY the same as my "historicity" scenario. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed to think James was Chrestos' brother. He hasn't specifically said that Chrestos' given name was Jesus, though both Paul and Josephus seem to think so.


ETA: And to repeat myself for the 11th time, I do NOT think Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. I simply think that the odds favor that the 1st-century Christian cults worshiped a Galilean named Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Period. Was this heavily mythologized? Probably. But with MANY crucifixees to choose from (or beheadees like John the Baptist) why bother to invent a fictitious one?
But why? Because it is a religious question obviously. Historicity in the Jesus case is actually a question of loyalty, not historicity. Otherwise we should be asking the same question of every similar tale, even those without miraculous claims, such as I did with Old Man and the Sea. Why should anyone feel compelled to prove a negative about a fantastic tale with miraculous claims if not only because of traditional interests? It was not so long ago that those questioning biblical creationism in a magic garden and trinity were similarly disparaged.
 
I'm a simple layman asking simple questions. Was "Chrestus"'s given name Yeshu? It is a yes/no question. I see many references to "Jesus" in your response. Should I assume the answer is Yes?
We do know that such references were recorded with the e until about the fourth century and then changed to i as a matter of christian propriety. So it's difficult to answer your question. Perhaps there is no answer to your question because the question is not important.
 
As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect?
  • Zip, Zero, Zilch for the Minimal Historicity Jesus—who was an insignificant, unnoticed failure. And we should also expect Zip, Zero, Zilch for the hundreds of other characters, who contributed their exploits, that were crafted into the undying truth of the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels!

The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.
  • Occam's Razor supports the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels, NOT the Minimal Historicity Jesus you are fixated on!
Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?
Richard Carrier[5]
People believe in gods. More people believe in gods than believe in Jesus. Does this mean that these gods are real too? Is that what makes something real, popularity of belief?
 
As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.
Per what some in this thread have claimed you forgot to add a line that says "Therefore Jesus mythicists hate Jews and love Hitler and the Nazis."
steve_bank acknowledges "the Jewish prophet we call Jesus." This is something that mythicists refuse to do. This refusal leads to seeking the origin of Christianity outside Judaism. And it is for this reason that mythicism is inherently anti-Jewish.
Baloney. And my claiming Bigfoot is a myth is anti-native american of the northwest I suppose. That's not even silly.
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
 
IF there are valid myth models, THEN there is at least ONE valid myth model.
  • Let us examine Carrier's approach to the topic.
Godfrey, Neil (16 November 2014). "Ten Elements of Christian Origin". Vridar.
First, he defines the points that will identify a historical Jesus and those that will be signs of a mythical one.

Second, he set out 48 elements that make up all the background information that needs to be considered when examining the evidence for Jesus.

Third, only then does he address the range of evidence itself and the ability of the alternative hypotheses to account for it.
The HISTORICAL 48 elements in Carrier's book: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)
Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66) Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise. (b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature. (c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah. (b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist. (c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)

Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Element 6. The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)

Element 7. (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age. (b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)

Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages. (b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)

Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

Element 10. Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion. Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christians belioeved they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism. Element 13: Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly one in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning (see Element 14)

Element 14: Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolised a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.

Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices). Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth. Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures. Element 18: Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled by his death (and thereby replacing) the two greatest Jewish religious sacrifices - Yom Kippur and Passover.

Element 19: The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus.

Element 20: The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles bu required them to convert to Judaism.

Element 21: Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels throughout the 1st century.

Element 22: We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE (or possibly even as late as 110 CE), and the leadership of the Christian church had been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period.

Background to Christianity - The Context

Element 23: The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 CE bringing the center of the holy land under direct control of the Roman government, ending sovereignity over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

Element 24: (a) Owing to their vastly greater resources ( in minerals, money and manpower) and superior technical ability (in the training, equipping and supplying of their armies) the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy.

Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.

Element 26: For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24): the reason God withheld their fulfilment (and instead allowed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g. Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7).

Element 27: (a) The temple at Jerusalem most the central focus of most Jewish messianic hope (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26), and as long as the Romans remained in power, the would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple. Accordingly (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and it's personnel.

Element 28: A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum to the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.

Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them. Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies. Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea. Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings. Element 33: In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also (obviously) influenced by several Jewish sects (see, in general, Elements 1-5), and can be understood only in this context too.

Element 34: Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers (see Chapter3, Section 1), with the first layer of 'heaven' often called the 'firmament' (being the foundation holding up all the others) and consisting of all the air beneath the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere travelled by the moon).

Element 35: Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless.

Element 36: Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sub-lunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need no descend and mingle with corruption.

Element 37: The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits (pneuma or psychai) and demons (daimones, or daimonia), throughout the whole space, who controlled the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.

Element 38: (a) In this same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.

Element 39: (a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.

Element 40: [T]he Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such as way. Element 41: The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture (1 Enoch). Element 42: There is a parallel tradition of a perfect and eternal celestial High Priest named Melchizidek, which means in Hebrew 'Righteous King'. We have already seen that a celestial Jesus was already called Righteous and King by some pre-Christian Jews.

Element 43: (a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.

Element 44: In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true. Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenom in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.

Element 46: Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well; and one of these hero-types was widely revered among pagans: the pre-Christian narratives of the life and death of Socrates and Aesop.

Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus conforms, is the apotheosis, or 'ascension to godhood' tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus.

Element 48: Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine king', what I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type.
  • So our number one is:
...man [who] inspired major cult(s). [That] Even atheists like myself can be curious why.
and
  • Occam's Razor supports the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels...
  • For number two, I concur with Carrier'c 48 elements that make up all the background information that needs to be considered when examining the evidence for Jesus.
@Swammerdami , do you concur with these 48 elements?
 
[snipped part that I did NOT read]
@Swammerdam, do you concur with these 48 elements?

Let me be VERY clear. I have asked that your next post consist of only eight words, each "Yes" or "No."
I have explained this in EXCRUCIATING detail.
Until you comply, I will not read your posts. I did not read the one I just quoted (except for the last sentence).
I will not read your next post if it is also non-compliant.

If you find this unclear — or rude — then Whatever, Man! Declare yourself victor or whatever floats your boat.
 
As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.
Per what some in this thread have claimed you forgot to add a line that says "Therefore Jesus mythicists hate Jews and love Hitler and the Nazis."
There are historical ethnic, religious, and economic reasons why Christians suppressed Jews in Europe. A lot of it I believe was economics and of course power. The RCC suppressed any competing ideologies including Christian sects.

The bible thumping Neo Nazis are an extreme aberrant offshoot.

Hitler initially rejected religion as part of National Specialism, but realized he could use religion. In Mein Kemph he invokes the Jews killed Christ narrative. From a comparative politics class, Christianity was in decline in Germany. Some Christian leaders jumped on the Nazi return to traditional ways platform as a way back to ifluence. Hitler at least initially was a brilliant manipulative politician albeit a dark one.

It is a lessor told story. When Hitler was in power there was Christian opposition and some of them ended up in the death camps.

As much as I am critical of relgion 'Christians love Nais' IMO is uncalled for.
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What you are saying in effect then is that the New Testament is not authentic Jewish literature but some kind of non-Jewish fiction. This bespeaks a willful ignorance of the nature of Jewish literature, and is therefore, yes, anti-Jewish.
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What you are saying in effect then is that the New Testament is not authentic Jewish literature but some kind of non-Jewish fiction. This bespeaks a willful ignorance of the nature of Jewish literature, and is therefore, yes, anti-Jewish.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you projecting? Jesus in the gospel tales was Jewish. I learned that in grade school. If a fantastic tale about a native american chief named Ghost Dancer had been penned in 1870 how would I suddenly become anti-native american?
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What you are saying in effect then is that the New Testament is not authentic Jewish literature but some kind of non-Jewish fiction. This bespeaks a willful ignorance of the nature of Jewish literature, and is therefore, yes, anti-Jewish.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you projecting? Jesus in the gospel tales was Jewish. I learned that in grade school.
That is an important admission and I thank you for it. Now, how about the New Testament? Is it Jewish literature?
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Not exactly. He's saying that, if a Native American made a tale about Ghost Dancer and some white-ass honkey 500 years later pointed out that Ghost Dancer is actually an amalgam, that THAT is anti-native-american.

It is still not anti-native to point that out though, unless its anti-native to be interested in real history over myths...

In which case I am entirely agnostic to that particular thing that is certainly inappropriately considered "anti-native".
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What you are saying in effect then is that the New Testament is not authentic Jewish literature but some kind of non-Jewish fiction. This bespeaks a willful ignorance of the nature of Jewish literature, and is therefore, yes, anti-Jewish.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you projecting? Jesus in the gospel tales was Jewish. I learned that in grade school.
That is an important admission and I thank you for it. Now, how about the New Testament? Is it Jewish literature?
I didn't even know the question existed before you asked it. Am I that late into the whole discussion of anti-semitism? I'll have to let the question rattle around a bit.
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What you are saying in effect then is that the New Testament is not authentic Jewish literature but some kind of non-Jewish fiction. This bespeaks a willful ignorance of the nature of Jewish literature, and is therefore, yes, anti-Jewish.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you projecting? Jesus in the gospel tales was Jewish. I learned that in grade school. If a fantastic tale about a native american chief named Ghost Dancer had been penned in 1870 how would I suddenly become anti-native american?
If you took it a step further, and said that Wovoka never existed and that Jack Wilson was a fraud who tried to attach himself to the myth after the fact? Defending your position with arguments that seemed aethetically logical to the uninformed public but sound rather like conspiracy theory to professional historians? Then yes, you'd be taking an anti-Native stance. Even if you genuinely believed you were being unbiased and perfectly reasonable.
 
Not exactly. He's saying that, if a Native American made a tale about Ghost Dancer and some white-ass honkey 500 years later pointed out that Ghost Dancer is actually an amalgam, that THAT is anti-native-american.
And to use common parlance that person would be full of shit.
 
If you took it a step further, and said that Wovoka never existed and that Jack Wilson was a fraud who tried to attach himself to the myth after the fact? Defending your position with arguments that seemed logical to the public but like conspiracy theory to professional historians? Then yes, you'd be taking an anti-Native stance. Even if you genuinely believed you were being unbiased.
And of course if I claimed that Santiago was a fictional character in Old Man and the Sea it is because I am anti-Cuban or maybe hate something else.
 
If you took it a step further, and said that Wovoka never existed and that Jack Wilson was a fraud who tried to attach himself to the myth after the fact? Defending your position with arguments that seemed logical to the public but like conspiracy theory to professional historians? Then yes, you'd be taking an anti-Native stance. Even if you genuinely believed you were being unbiased.
And of course if I claimed that Santiago was a fictional character in Old Man and the Sea it is because I am anti-Cuban or maybe hate something else.
You don't have to be "an anti-Cuban person" or "hateful" to make an argument that is, in its effect on the world, anti-Cuban. I've done so myself. I may think I'm being 100% rational and fair in my critiques of the Castro regime, but that doesn't change the fact that I have many times said things that could easily be defined as anti-Cuban as a result, such as supporting my nation's embargo of the country in the past and accepting less than critically the propagandistic portrayal of the Cuban revolution that I was taught in school. I didn't think I was being "hateful", nor do I think that was my motivation, but the end result is still a pattern of voting behavior and public discourse that shuts Cuba partially out of Caribbean trade and hurts the average Cuban on an almost daily basis. We're still at war with them, and yes, dueling constructions of "history" are weapons in that war, maybe even the primary weapons of that war at this present moment.
 
If someone said that Crazy Horse is a myth, that he is not even a Sioux myth, but some kind of white settler myth, I would say, yeah, that's pretty fucking racist.
Except, of course, that no one is saying that. If, however, I took Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Bigfoot (Spotted Elk), Pontiac, and dozens more (never mind their native names) and wove a fantastic tale about one great chief named Ghost Dancer I would have fiction. But by your rubric I would be anti-native american.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Not exactly. He's saying that, if a Native American made a tale about Ghost Dancer and some white-ass honkey 500 years later pointed out that Ghost Dancer is actually an amalgam, that THAT is anti-native-american.

It is still not anti-native to point that out though, unless its anti-native to be interested in real history over myths...

In which case I am entirely agnostic to that particular thing that is certainly inappropriately considered "anti-native".
You have stated that you have no interest in Judaism, so your opinions on what is possible within Jewish literature and culture can have no weight.
 
Back
Top Bottom