|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2002 : 13:01:25 [Permalink]
|
Wow! One quote "puts Slater's fantasy to rest"! That some confidence you have in G.R. Watson!
quote:
brought by the Cilcian pirates suppressed by Pompey
A bit more detail about this:
quote:
According to the Greek historian Plutarch (46-125 A.D.), Mithras was first introduced into Italy by pirates from Cilicia (south-east Turkey) who initiated the Romans into the secrets of the religion. These pirates performed strange sacrifices on Mount Olympus and practiced Mithraic rituals, which according to Plutarch "exist to the present day and were first taught by them". However, there were many foreign cults in Italy at that time, and these early Mithraists did not attract much attention.
No date on this though, so I'm not sure of it's relevance to your point.
As to Mr. Watson's "second century" date:
quote:
The soldiers adopted the Mithraic faith for its emphasis on victory, strength, and security in the next world. Temples and shrines were dedicated to Mithras across the empire. In 67 B.C., the first congregation of Mithras-worshipping soldiers existed in Rome under the command of General Pompey.
and:
quote:
Mithraism quickly gained prominence and remained the most important pagan religion until the end of the fourth century, spreading Zoroastrian dualism throughout every province of the empire for three hundred years.
Sounds like it was real popular from at least 67 BCE through the end of the 4th Century CE. How is this inconsistent with anything said here?
Edit: Forgot to link the source of my quotes above: http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/Topics/Religion/Mithraism/David_Fingrut**.html
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/19/2002 14:23:12 |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 14:03:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nobody said that the similarities between the Bible and the cult of Mithras are because its writers wanted to appeal to the followers of Mithra.
Actually I said that, as did all the Zoroasterians. You might want to check out the old Religion files here at SFN. Click on Religion folder and change the time frame line to the past year, there's some pretty interesting stuff back there. Look for files with lots of pages in them.
quote:
"The second cult is that of Mithras. Although his worship reached the Roman world as early as the first century BC, brought by the Cilcian pirates suppressed by Pompey, it was not until THE SECOND CENTURY AD THAT MITHARISM REALLY BEGAN TO TAKE A FIRM HOLD IN THE WEST."(THE ROMAN SOLDIER,By G.R.WATSON. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, Ithaca,New York.p.131 emphasis mine).
Now the above quote coming from an unbiased milatry historian pretty much puts to rest Slater's fantasy with Jesus being a third century invention to placate the Romans solders by Eusiebius and Constatine, at least with me it does, how bout uuu?
I think that you can't add.
Pompey was most active in the 60's BCE with his conquest of the Levant. That's when he started introducing Persian Mercenaries into the Roman Legions and with them came Mithraism. By the Second Century CE Mithraism was the most popular religion in the Legions, and fairly popular amongst civilians too. You can still find Legion temples to Mithra from Poland to Scotland. You can even find one in the subbasement of the Vatican and another underneath the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
The earliest document that we have of Christianity dates from the Fourth Century CE-323CE to be exact. By my count that's three hundred and ninety years after Pompey introduced Mithraism to Rome.
In the Second Century CE the religion known as Christianity that was in Rome centered around Apollonius of Tyana, and was a Pythagoreanism influenced worship of the Verdic God, Krishna. These were the Christians who scratched the fish symbols (the constellation Pisces-which in those days was seen as a single fish. It marks where the March equinox was; the day Krishna was resurrected from the dead) in the catacombs. They were the same Christians who Claudius exonerated and Nero condemned. They never even heard of Jesus.
It's really ridiculous to try to claim that Mithraism post dates Jesus based Christianity when the first story in the NT has Mithric Priests (Magi) in it as heroes.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 02/19/2002 14:06:37 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 15:16:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually I said that, as did all the Zoroasterians. You might want to check out the old Religion files here at SFN. Click on Religion folder and change the time frame line to the past year, there's some pretty interesting stuff back there. Look for files with lots of pages in them.
I looked around a bit but this thread here appears to be the only one that fits the description. (or some other long thread really went of the subject)
I honestly did not think that Mithraism was all that popular until later.
quote:
It's really ridiculous to try to claim that Mithraism post dates Jesus based Christianity when the first story in the NT has Mithric Priests (Magi) in it as heroes.
They were? That sounds interesting do you have any mor info or URLs on that topic?
On the general topic of the similarities between Christianity and many Pagan cults:
I always thought, that when decided to make up the stories, that would later become the New Testament they looked around for things that would liven up the whole story.
They just took those parts that were common in all those other religions and used them in their own one.
The virgin birth was practically obligatory for every savior or demi-god at that time. Everyone had twelve followers. They added the usual sorts of miracles. Like feeding a lot of people or walking on water like that Buddha guy one of them had heared of. All the other cults had those fancy meals and they decided they would have one too. And so on.
Christianity is not really anymore invented then any of the other religions that shared those features. It was not their fault that their teachings would survive to a time, when not everybody new, that those legends were found in any of dozens of religions.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 15:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Try "Did Jesus Really Exist (Old Forum) which is on page 8 of the Religion folder. It has all the refereneces you want. plus an explaination of how, unlike most religions, Christianity was invented, who invented it, why, why and how.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 16:24:45 [Permalink]
|
And don't miss "Mithras and Jesus" page 4, and "History of the Gospels" page 7, and a bit of "Did Jesus Exist? Revisited..." on page 9.
(And check out "How Can He Play Sports in Those Sandals?" for a giggle. That still makes me laugh!  )
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2002 : 19:41:27 [Permalink]
|
Puh! This took some time to work through.
Thanks to Tokyodreamer for pointing me where to additional threads to look and @tomic for marking them up as active threads.
There appears to be a lot of stuff about this that I did not know of before. I will probably spend some more time reading to the varrious documents linked to in the threads. If I find the time I might even try and see if the local library has some of the books mentioned.
At least on the "How Can He Play Sports in Those Sandals?" I can make a comment right now.
Check out http://www.jesuschristsuperstore.net/
Isn't it amazing how close serious and parody can be when you are talking about people seriously beliving in rather strange stuff?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2002 : 06:40:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
At least on the "How Can He Play Sports in Those Sandals?" I can make a comment right now.
Check out http://www.jesuschristsuperstore.net/
Isn't it amazing how close serious and parody can be when you are talking about people seriously beliving in rather strange stuff?
That's absolutely hilarious! Thanks!
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2002 : 15:25:04 [Permalink]
|
 How is it you "Skeptics" strain at the gnat of an all powerful Creator revealing Himself through miracles as the Bible shows but have no problem swallowing the camel of all Slater's tall tales concerning the Jesus Mithra/dionyious connection?Does O Doc Slater have a "secret document"from some scribe around 300AD describing all these wonderful details of how Eusibieus had pulled off this Miraculous"cover up"? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2002 : 16:06:03 [Permalink]
|
I never said that I was sold on Slaters theory of the origin of christianity.
In my personal experience it is far safer to think of such things as having evolved on their own instead of having been created by design.
As it is he made some good arguments and it appears to be valid theory.
Had he sad that he gained this knowledge through channeling some long dead Roman, skepitcism would have been called for. However there is nothing supernatural to his claims. They can at least theoretically be falsified by the right evidence. I have no idea how such hypothetical evidence would have to look like, but you can trust that if such a thing would be discovered every good scientist would abondon this theory. They would try all kinds of other ways to explain the evidence first, but they would abondon a theory that has been falsified.
Miracles and stuff can't be falsified this way because they don't work on any rational or scientific basis.
It is obvious to verybody who wants to see that there are similarities between the description of the Life of Jesus in the NT and certain pagan lore. There are many theories trying to explain those similaities. They range from coincidence over admiting a certain pagan influences in the Bible to Slaters extreme theory that Christianity is completly made up.
Those theories have depending on who you ask a lot going for them. They are scientific theories not belives. If you say that the Bible is true because you believe it, that is not a scientific theory.
There alsthou is the problem of extrordinary claims demanding extraordinary proof. Slater has (in my opinion) no defintie proof for his theory just a lot of indicies hinting in his direction. But what he has going for him is that we know that such thing as he descibes happen. We have seen how new religions are formed througout history. To an unbiased observer (who does not have any relgious belives hanging on the issue) Slaters calim is not as such really all that extraordinary. If I would see people walking over water all the time I would not be as skeptic about the possibility of someone else having done so along time ago. (Not just Jesus but everybody else, too, of whom this is claimed)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2002 : 17:44:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How is it you "Skeptics" strain at the gnat of an all powerful Creator revealing Himself through miracles as the Bible shows but have no problem swallowing the camel of all Slater's tall tales concerning the Jesus Mithra/dionyious connection?
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2002 : 17:57:01 [Permalink]
|
In my personal experience it is far safer to think of such things as having evolved on their own instead of having been created by design
I agree that is the usual way of things. But state religions being designed to order is not unprecedented. For instance the worship of the God Serapis. When the Greeks conquered Egypt they created Serapis by combining the Egyptian and Greek Gods Osiris and Apis as a public relations ploy. Work very well too. The Romans were very familiar with the Greco/Egyptians Ptolemy's and how they conducted state craft.
Why I believe Constantine did the same thing is that there is no trace of Christianity before 323 CE. I know that sounds strange because Xians claim to have almost 300 years of history by that point. But there are no bibles, no churches, no letters of church fathers, nothing that dates before 325. After 325 there are plenty of things that claim to be copies of earlier manuscripts but no earlier manuscripts themselves. What makes this even stranger is that Christians are wild about saving relics. They make fabulous gold and jewel encrusted boxes to keep the toe bone of a saint in. Yet they kept nothing, not even a bible, from before 325. It's very hard to believe that they would do a thing like that.
We also know that Bishop Eusebius had been charged with "correcting" church history. This same Eusebius boasted in his writings that it was no sin to lie if it fostered a belief in God.
We also know that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was held in 325 and we still have the "minutes" of the entire proceedings. It seems to have been a contest of some sort as to decide just what Christianity was.
If it had existed for 300 years why didn't they already know what the story of Jesus was?
One group based it on Dionysianism, another Mithraism. One group based theirs on Egyptian Pagan Gnosticism while another went for Mahayana Buddhism. There were a couple of splinter groups whose Christianity resembled the worship of Attis.
Most had similar casts of characters in their stories but that was where the resembelence stopped.
It's amusing how Christians boast that all the books of their bible are such close matches, while most of them have never heard that the majority of books of the bible were destroyed because they didn't match at all.
Since this was Rome a fair number of these Bishops were poisoned to death (all the leaders of the Gnostics were "struck down by the Hand of God" following a state dinner). The Emperor had his wife and son murdered at the end of the Council. Nice people these Romans.
In the end, the survivors voted for a Christianity that exactly matched that which the Emperor, (who remained a Pagan his entire life) who was personally overseeing the council, wanted (and thereby remained alive).
So we have a Catholicism (ROMAN Catholicism-notice the name Roman always goes first, in case you had any doubts) that is mainly Mithraism with a healthy splash of Dionysus. And a back-story of Mary the leading Goddess of the Celts. Constantine had spent most of his adult life in Celtic Gaul and Britain.
For all the claims of Xianity existing from 32CE onward you can see it being cobbled together out of spare parts at Nicaea.
And this wasn't lost on the Mithrans-Persia was not on the friendliest terms with Rome. They were pissed for hundreds of years about this desecration of their religion.
That Christianity proved to be a useful tool for the Imperial Government can be seen by the fact that for the first time in history the Romans suspended Freedom of Religion and forced everyone to become a Christian. The Greeks never even thought of anything that nasty.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:26:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why I believe Constantine did the same thing is that there is no trace of Christianity before 323 CE. I know that sounds strange because Xians claim to have almost 300 years of history by that point. But there are no bibles, no churches, no letters of church fathers, nothing that dates before 325. After 325 there are plenty of things that claim to be copies of earlier manuscripts but no earlier manuscripts themselves. What makes this even stranger is that Christians are wild about saving relics. They make fabulous gold and jewel encrusted boxes to keep the toe bone of a saint in. Yet they kept nothing, not even a bible, from before 325. It's very hard to believe that they would do a thing like that.
We also know that Bishop Eusebius had been charged with "correcting" church history. This same Eusebius boasted in his writings that it was no sin to lie if it fostered a belief in God.
We also know that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was held in 325 and we still have the "minutes" of the entire proceedings. It seems to have been a contest of some sort as to decide just what Christianity was.
If it had existed for 300 years why didn't they already know what the story of Jesus was?
One group based it on Dionysianism, another Mithraism. One group based theirs on Egyptian Pagan Gnosticism while another went for Mahayana Buddhism. There were a couple of splinter groups whose Christianity resembled the worship of Attis.
Most had similar casts of characters in their stories but that was where the resembelence stopped.
It's amusing how Christians boast that all the books of their bible are such close matches, while most of them have never heard that the majority of books of the bible were destroyed because they didn't match at all.
Since this was Rome a fair number of these Bishops were poisoned to death (all the leaders of the Gnostics were "struck down by the Hand of God" following a state dinner). The Emperor had his wife and son murdered at the end of the Council. Nice people these Romans.
In the end, the survivors voted for a Christianity that exactly matched that which the Emperor, (who remained a Pagan his entire life) who was personally overseeing the council, wanted (and thereby remained alive
My screen won't reduce its size so it' very difficult to read your postings ect..but here goes a try.It seems we have at least two major points of dispute.First,is the origins and reliability of the NT.Secondly,what really happened at the Council Nicea.I propose a very simple solution to the problem.Let us agree to utilize the normal historical process for establishing ANY HISTORIC EVENTand apply Occam's razor to each of our conclusions and see which view stands the test? 
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:59:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My screen won't reduce its size so it' very difficult to read your postings ect..but here goes a try.It seems we have at least two major points of dispute.First,is the origins and reliability of the NT.Secondly,what really happened at the Council Nicea.I propose a very simple solution to the problem.Let us agree to utilize the normal historical process for establishing ANY HISTORIC EVENTand apply Occam's razor to each of our conclusions and see which view stands the test?
Oh, dear, may I go first?
Actually, it's an erroneous implication you make, Darwin, in suggesting that the 'normal historical process' has not been applied. It has, in fact, been pointed out that the NT falls far short in the areas of corroboration which, if I am correct, is the main point of historical verification. Simply speaking, the NT has no concurrent corroboration which (and this is the crucial part) is inexplicably inconsistent with the otherwise meticulous record-keeping habits of the contemporary romans and jews.
Anyhow, it could be a fun try, so I'll give it a go off the top of my head; I promise not to revise except for glaring spelling and grammatical errors:
First, we'll establish what is known:
1. The NT exists
2. The earliest extant version of the NT post-dates 300 CE
3. The extant version of the NT coincides with the Ecumenical Council of Niceae
4. The verifiable proliferation of christianity throughout the roman empire postdates the EC of N.
5. The events written of in the NT purport to have occurred roughly 5 BCE - 35 CE.
6. All major religious events, miracles, prayers, personages and speeches have specific antecedents in other cult religions, most notably Mithraism and the beliefs of Galacia.
7. Many significant, crucial, and pivotal political/social events described in the NT have no external corroboration; at least one major political figure is not positively identifiable.
8. The romans were known for their meticulous record-keeping and demonstrated as much by recording the names and activities of other personages who demonstrably existed at the same time as jesus and performed some of the same activities.
9. The crux of the NT is a series of miraculous occurrences, loosely defined as events inconsistent with nature and science as known today.
I might be able to list more, but I'm tired, so that will do.
From the above known list we are asked to conclude one of the following:
1. The NT is historically accurate and portrays the life of the son of god in the form of jesus christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead thereby saving mankind; the followers of christ eventually established the roman catholic church and subsequently all versions of christianity.
2. Roman Catholicism was a conscious construct of the roman emperor in a political maneuver to consolidate his power; this construct occurred at the EC of N and was a synthesis of Mithraism mostly and some other stuff, including the events of at least one historical person proven to have existed.
3. Christianity evolved as previous belief systems merged, collective legends solidified into the legends of the NT.
So if we ONLY apply the rule of parsimony, then I have to say I go with number 3. It is the simples explanation.
But remember, Ockham says only that 'entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, not that they should not be multiplied at all.' So that leads me to lean toward number 2, which takes into account the gaps in record-keeping and the known history of the EC of N.
Why? Easy. Let's look at the 'entities' each hypothesis introduces:
1. Your version regarding historical accuracy of the NT:
a. The romans' superb record-keeping failed them in regard to the most important person of the age and ONLY in regard to this person.
b. Ditto for the jews.
c. Ditto for all the historians and authors who failed to mention the miracles.
d. The near identical nature of the actions/speeches/prayers of jesus to Mithraism et al and to known historical figures such as Appollonius is all a mistake or coincidental so that in THEIR cases it didn't mean anything, but in JC's it did.
e. All the early documents of early christianity simply disappeared at the same time.
f. The laws of nature were set aside during that time and only during that time.
g. God himself struck down those bishops after the EC of N.
2. Slater's proposal for an intentional construction at the EC of N;
a. The emperor wanted to consolidate his power
b. The emperor was savvy enough to use religious frameworks already in place
c. The emperor had the rebellious bishops murdered.
3. The 'evolution of christianity' thesis:
a. Religions evolve to meet social needs
b. Early documentation of christianity disappeared until copies surfaced at the EC of N.
c. The roman emperor legitimately converted
d. For the first time ever, the emperor mandated a state religion
Like I said, 2 is winning. 3 is next.
One final thing: this whole issue of saying "How can you know that Julius Caesar--or any other historical figure--actually existed" strikes me as rather sophomoric and typical of early philosophy students. Similar to those who wrap their ropes around the question of "How can we know that we really exist."
You're smarter than that, Darwin. You write fairly well, and you show intelligence and perseverance. You can find real debates to buttress your case, I'm sure; don't resort to this stuff.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 14:01:32 [Permalink]
|
By applying Occam's Razor you mean pitting a plot by a Roman emperor against the word of god? Uhhhh, the Roman plot is far easier to swallow and the pieces are all there. The pieces are only there for the word of god argument after 325. That is well know and by biblical scholars.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 14:16:49 [Permalink]
|
To Tokyo, you need a course in logic and a philosophic dictionary. quote:
That's just plain silly.
Surely I don't need to explain the difference between a reasonable theory based on evidence, and blind faith?!
You're claiming that Slater is a liar. What is your reasoning for this?
(And the Bible doesn't "show" anything.)
Were you there when the NT was written by whoever...whenever?I doubt it.Then how is it you claim ANY information about it?One way or another you have to trust[ie 'faith'] your sources.Wether your Faith is "blind"is how reliable your source is and how "reasonable" your theory.AS far as calling My friend Lenord Nemoy oops I mean Slater "a liar" I don't agree.However, just in case something I said could be taken that way let me set the record straight i don't accuse Slater of lying(maybe taking one to tokes on that 1960's hash pipe he still has and staring into that crystal ball to long,but lying never).
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
