quote:

---

a Prof. G.A. Wells,a Christmyther who Slater likes to quote),that I was bringing to the attention of Mr. Ideologue(Slater)that his main squeeze totally disagrees with him concerning the source of the NT documents.

---

quote:

---

The contention in this thread is just as wacky. The NT was written by Orthodox Jews so it can't be a collection of Hellenistic myths.

First, no matter who wrote the NT it is a collection of recycled Hellenistic myths from the Immaculate Conception to Saul on the Damascus road.
I have focused on Saul because not only can we clearly seen that it is a copy of a popular Dionysian myth, we can see that it was taken from a specific famous play written about that myth. The old double-whammy.

---

quote:

---

darwin alogos wrote:
Still hiding behind SMOKE SCREENS RD?

---

quote:

---

Bacchae to the Future
For convenience, we must begin by laying groundwork, by summarizing the story told by the Greek playwright Euripides, entitled The Bacchae. This play serves as a source of information on Dionysus/Bacchus for scholar and Christ-myther alike, and we will be referring to it often.

For convenience, we must begin by laying groundwork, by summarizing the story told by the Greek playwright Euripides, entitled The Bacchae. This play serves as a source of information on Dionysus/Bacchus for scholar and Christ-myther alike, and we will be referring to it often.
Interestingly, the parallel was seen by at least one later Christian writer, who wrote a play drawing on the Bacchae called Christus Patiens. The words of Christ to St Paul as related in Acts ('Why dost thou kick against the pricks?') are similar or identical to a phrase from the Bacchae, though this may conceivably be coincidence or indicate that the phrase had become proverbial (not unlikely - Pentheus would have been an excellent and prime example of a mortal who takes on a god like St Paul the persecutor). The notion that something like this means that Christianity was copied from the Dionysus cult, however, is fanciful, particularly when it involves a convinced Pharisee like Paul.

The play opens with a speech by Dionysus, who, disguised as a mortal priest of his own religion, complains about the fact that the city of Thebes, and its king, Pentheus, has refused to honor him. Therefore, he has caused the women of Thebes to go mad and run off like crazed Girl Scouts into the wilderness as a demonstration of his power -- and plans to do a few more demonstrations, should Pentheus come running after the women.

Well, as it happens, Pentheus does get fairly peeved, and sends out to have D arrested. After a brief exchange in which D teases the hot-headed king, Pentheus has D thrown in jail and starts planning to get the women back. D, however, draws a Get Out of Jail Free card that says "Earthquake"; but before Pentheus can deal with this problem, a herdsman arrives with stories of how dangerous the women are getting. D coyly takes control of Pentheus and convinces him to dress as a woman so he can sneak out and do some spying on the women in the wilderness -- this is all part of D's plan to humiliate and destroy Pentheus.

And destroy him he does -- Pentheus ends up dead, torn to bits by the women, with particular honors for the grisly deed going to his own mother, who carries his head in thinking it is the head of an animal; D closes out by pronouncing judgments on everyone. Needless to say, this is one story you don't read for light entertainment!

---

quote:

---

darwin alogos wrote:
You can't handel the TRUTH.

---

quote:

---

He is unable to counter the fact that the Saul on the road to Damascus fable is a retelling of one of the more dramatic scenes in this play so he calls it "fanciful" and hopes that it will go away, if he doesn't actually mention the scene.
Saul was a Pharisee and Pentheus wasn't is a claim that is as humorous as it is pathetic. Quick everyone look in another direction!!!

---

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.Slater you and RD are the "Kings of Smoke Screens".Do you know what a "proverbial phrase" is ?That's all Luke quoted("kicking against the pricks")in Acts26:14,not chapter 9 as you misquoted.By your same type of reasoning[sic] every time we see a historic reference to"its raining cats and dogs" it must be based on a1939 "B" Hollywood movie because "it was quoted there first".



Edited by - darwin alogos on 10/17/2002 08:05:58

quote:

---

It is proof positive that

---

quote:

---

Slater asks:Where does Wells say that the NT was written by ORTHODOX Jews?

---

quote:

---

Slater you and RD are the "Kings of Smoke Screens".Do you know what a "proverbial phrase"?
Are you so self-deluded that you think that other people will fall for your BS? This phrase was not used proverbially. It was used in Acts after a direct retelling of the scene from The Bacchae in the exact same place it was used in the play. It is proof positive that the conversion on the road to Damascus is a fiction. It is proof positive that the claims of historical accuracy for Luke and Acts are lies.

---

quote:

---

Luke,an educated Greek, he was writing within the historical traditions,established by Thucydides and may have been present at some the events he records....he shows a DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF ROMAN WORLD.His account of Paul's shipwreck on the way to Rome, for instance,is a VALUABLE PIECE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT....The doings of Paul and the early Christians are WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,composed probably in the 60'sAD,as a sequel to his gospel Luke. CHARLES FREEMAN, EGYPT,GREECE,AND ROME,OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,1996 (pps487-488 emph. mine)

---