|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2002 : 10:05:53 [Permalink]
|
This Christian-thinktank is a piece of work. It should be called a "Christian-think" tank in the Orwellian sense.
It does for Mythology what ICR does for Evolution. It takes the work of actual researchers and twists it to fit their preconceptions.
It starts off by claiming that Walter Burkert in his Ancient Mystery Cults discredited Sir J. G. Frazer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Burkert draws heavily from Frazer (and has great admiration for him) and uses him as a foundation to build on. Burkert would be really pissed if he saw this site.
I guess this "think tank" is betting that it's readers haven't read any of the books they are claiming as their references. Nor do they seem to have read them themselves as they claim that the god Tammuz comes from a different region each time they mention him. They don't even compare the end of their article where they say
"1. None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else, in
their place (substitution). The notion of the Son of God fully dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.
2. Only Jesus died purposefully for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)." [cited in Nash]
3. Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries. [The closest is the self-castration of Attis, but this is generally attributed to his insanity, not to a free-and-clear choice.]"
with the beginning of their article where they claim these gods have nothing in common at all.
And the song and dance they do to try to make church fathers Origen , Jerome and Justin Martyr not notice that the "pagan" gods had already done the exact things they said Jesus did would be worthy of Fred and Ginger if it weren't so pathetic.
Then they try to make it seem that "Julian the Apostate (emperor 360-363 AD) specifically implemented some 'imitations'"of Christianity and lead you to believe he wanted them to copy Christian doctrines. In the real world Julian--who was raised as a Xian and hated them-- wanted to implement the political power structure the Xians used on the diverse Hellenistic to unite them so they wouldn't fall victim to Christian barbarism. He failed.
Of course there's one thing that they never bring up about Adoins.
For some strange reason they say Aphrodite mourns him and they leave out the part where she brings him to life again after he has been dead for three days. Stranger still is they use the name Aphrodite, because the Romans didn't call her Aphrodite. She was called Venus. But this aspect of Venus had another name.
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS DA.
The name of the goddess who brought her son back to life was EASTER.
EASTER, can you hear that? Her name was EASTER.
The feast day of the rebirth of Adonis was called EASTER.
Christians, in what must be the most arrogant act in the history of the world, kept the name of the goddess when they stole her holiday.
And this Christian septic-tank claims that Easter has nothing to do with Easter.
DA the web is filled with actual articles on mythology and comparative mythology. Surely you come across their URLs when you are looking for your Apologetic sites. Don't you ever read any of them? Do you confine everything you read to Christian propaganda?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 10:21:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic wrote:
One thing remains true, no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century regardless of what Christians scraped their faith off of.
Can you point to any scholarship that dates the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) to the 4th century or later or, alternatively, challenges its authenticity?
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 11:03:49 [Permalink]
|
Slater anyone who spends time reading these webpages can see how you always avoid the obvious,create smoke screens,and write as though God himself gave you and you only the TRUE SCOOP as to how christianty began over 1900 years ago(i.e.Pliny's letter to Trajan is about krishna.Give me a break,or better yet why don't you run that by your fellow history teachers). [b]By the way, this is not a problem with us somehow only having "slight amounts of data"--we have TONS and TONS of information today about this issue. But it is this abundance of data about these ancient figures that leads us away from Frazer & Co's mis-interpretation of that data.
Unfortunately, too much popular 'skeptical' literature on the subject still uses this category and concept as 'credible', but the scholarly worlds--both Christian-oriented and non-Christian in orientation-- has essentially 'moved away' from this...[BTW, this is not a matter of the work just not being cited today because it is already 'established'(!), as the quotes above specifically demonstrate. It has been "discredited" not 'accepted as being indisputable fact'.]
I want to give an extended quote here from The Encyclopedia of Religion [Macmillian: 1987; article is by Jonathan Z. Smith, Professor at University of Chicago, and general editor of the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion]. The entry under "Dying and Rising Gods" starts this way (emphasis mine):
"The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.
"Definition. As applied in the scholarly literature, 'dying and rising gods' is a generic appellation for a group of male deities found in agrarian Mediterranean societies who serve as the focus of myths and rituals that allegedly narrate and annually represent their death and resurrection.
" Beyond this sufficient criterion, dying and rising deities were often held by scholars to have a number of cultic associations, sometimes thought to form a "pattern." They were young male figures of fertility; the drama of their lives was often associated with mother or virgin goddesses; in some areas, they were related to the institution of sacred kingship, often expressed through rituals of sacred marriage; there were dramatic reenactments of their life, death, and putative resurrection, often accompanied by a ritual identification of either the society or given individuals with their fate.
[/bThe category of dying and rising gods, as well as the pattern of its mythic and ritual associations, received its earliest full formulation in the influential work of James G. Frazer The Golden Bough, especially in its two central volumes, The Dying God and Adonis, Attis, Osiris. Frazer offered two interpretations, one euhemerist, the other naturist. In the former, which focused on the figure of the dying god, it was held that a (sacred) king would be slain when his fertility waned. This practice, it was suggested, would be later mythologized, giving rise to a dying god. The naturist explanation, which covered the full cycle of dying and rising, held the deities to be personifications of the seasonal cycle of vegetation. The two interpretations were linked by the notion that death followed upon a loss of fertility, with a period of sterility being followed by one of rejuvenation, either in the transfer of the kingship to a successor or by the rebirth or resurrection of the deity.
"There are empirical problems with the euhemerist theory. The evidence for sacral regicide is limited and ambiguous; where it appears to occur, there are no instances of a dying god figure. The naturist explanation is flawed at the level of theory. Modern scholarship has largely rejected, for good reasons, an interpretation of deities as projections of natural phenomena.
"Nevertheless, the figure of the d |
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 11:25:14 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately the Rylands Papyrus has only ever been dated by Paleography, hardly a definitive estimation.
Looking at the text contained on the Papyrus, I would personnaly hold some doubt that it actually is the passage it's proponents claim to be. In the link that Reasonable supplies I notice that the author highlights the greek, but not the english translation to show what part of the text is actually contained on the papyrus for those of us who don't aren't up on our dead languages. The bolded sections below represent the text that alledgedly comes from the Gospel of John.
Recto: It is not lawful for us to put to death
No one; that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled;
Which he spoke signifying by what death
He was about to die. Entered therefore into the
Praetorium again Pilate and called
Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of
The Jews"
Now, I certainly don't claim to have answered reasonable's question. I have provided no scholarship or challenges from qualified critics, merely my own observation and opinion.
It would be wonderful if the Rylands Papyrus were submitted to radiometric testing, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 11:42:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you point to any scholarship that dates the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) to the 4th century or later or, alternatively, challenges its authenticity?
This crumb of Papyrus which is about the size of your thumb was dated using a method called paleographology.
How this is done by looking at the style of writing and comparing it to other samples-written by other scribs-in other places- that have known dates. Then a guess is made as to it's date.
The only way to actually check is this guess is even close would be to sacrifice a small section. By the tiny size and value of this fragment, no one in their right mind would do that.
Paleographically "testing" pieces has the inherent limitation of only being able to tell you the oldest possible date not the actual date.
Take the Book of Kells-albeit a much newer work. The main body of the text was wirtten by three different hands. They were probably in the same studio as they used the same brownish gall-ink. "Hand C" used majuscule forms and some conceits like superscribed letters which was a very modern, cutting edge, style at the time. "Hand A" didn't. He (?) used a style that was hundreds of years older-probably to lend dignity to the "holy" book. We date the Book of Kells using "C".
However if we only had a tiny piece of "A" we would-mistakenly- date Kells as hundreds of years older than it actually is.
All the pieces that are large enough to use carbon dating on are all from later than 325 CE.
All the "earlier" pieces are only paleographically dated and carry the oldest possible date as that makes them more valuable to their collectors.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 11:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater writes:
This crumb of Papyrus which is about the size of your thumb was dated using a method called paleographology. How this is done by looking at the style of writing and comparing it to other samples-written by other scribs-in other places- that have known dates. Then a guess is made as to it's date.
Can you point to any scholarship that dates the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) to the 4th century or later or, alternatively, challenges its authenticity?
|
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:21:47 [Permalink]
|
Fucking Christ darwin, I'm gonna send you a bill for a new scroll wheel for my mouse. Would you please stop making these endless and pointless edits to your posts. I'm following the discussion between slater and reasonable. It may be a new concept, but despite their relative brevity they have things that are relevent, intelligent and interesting to say.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:30:42 [Permalink]
|
Slater anyone who spends time reading these webpages can see how you always avoid the obvious,create smoke screens,and write as though God himself gave you and you only the TRUE SCOOP as to how christianty began
Isn't it strange that you accuse me of getting my readily available information from god when, in fact, you are the one who is claiming that very thing.
By the way-to attach someone else's writing to your own without giving credit is unethical. You've been called on that before, it's a very bad habit. And to do that while in the middle of a discussion where you claim that Xians didn't do that is too funny for words.
Now Christian sceptic-tank and Jon Smith. Sure Smith of U of Chicago wrote books refuting Frazer, so what? They didn't go over very well. Here's a review of one of them (Drudgery Divine. On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity.) by Robert M. Price of The Institute for Higher Critical Studies
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/jzsmith.html
Price seems to own a baloney detector 'cause he can spot an argument that is full of holes when he sees one.
Now, from a practical standpoint, we SHOULD BE able to end the matter here. Since most of the alleged pre-Christian "Christs" are held up as dying-and-rising deities, this SINGLE criticism of modern scholarship ALONE would destroy the 'material borrowing' or CopyCat hypothesis totally.
"Borrowing" !!!???? You intend to give them back.
The hypothesis is stealing/ lying/ and murdering.
Jon Smith isn't even a contender. His single criticism hasn't "destroyed" a single thing.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 12:43:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you point to any scholarship that dates the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) to the 4th century or later or, alternatively, challenges its authenticity?
I've given you the scholarship on how paleographology is done. Feel free to find out on your own if I was as descriptive as I should have been.
If you have faith that that is an accurate method then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.
Perhaps you might suggest an independent method to check the accuracy against.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:01:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you point to any scholarship that dates the Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) to the 4th century or later or, alternatively, challenges its authenticity?
Considering how it was dated only an idiot would accept that date as fact. I would say common sense commands that everyone challenge the accepted date because it is accepted for really no good reason at all.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:38:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DVF wrote:
Unfortunately the Rylands Papyrus has only ever been dated by Paleography, hardly a definitive estimation.
I completely agree, and would never suggest that the ca 140 CE date assigned to P52 is any more than an informed estimate. But, I asked no one to pledge allegiance to such an estimate - only to find any reputable scholarship that might support a 4th century claim. Noting the limitations of paleography is a far cry from showing that there exists "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century".
And the problem goes beyond one of paleographic accuracy. What are we to make of the purported works of Paul, Luke, Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tacitus, Papias, Polycarp, Marcion, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Tatian, Origen, etc.? Are all these to be viewed as clever 4th century fabrications?
I suggest that "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century" is an article of faith, not fact, and an unnecessary one at that.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:41:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would say common sense commands that everyone challenge the accepted date because it is accepted for really no good reason at all.
It really wouldn't be so bad if they said "the earliest it could have been written was such and such a date." And frankly the paleographers probably do just that. But by the time the piece is presented to the public that has changed to "it WAS written on such and such a date."
I don't know if this is some "short-hand" because the collectors feel it's common knowledge or if they are being somewhat less than honest.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 13:56:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What are we to make of the purported works of Paul, Luke, Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tacitus, Papias, Polycarp, Marcion, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Tatian, Origen, etc.? Are all these to be viewed as clever 4th century fabrications?
I suggest that "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century" is an article of faith, not fact, and an unnecessary one at that.
The article of faith is that these come from earlier dates. We have nothing except "copies" of their works that date from after 325 CE and come from the offices of Bishop Eusebius who was put in charge of such things by his good friend (and some suggest relative) Emperor Constantine. All the originals were thrown away for some reason.
Maybe that's why they call it Mother Church because it threw out your copy of Spiderman #1 
Was there relly somebody with the unlikely Austin Powers-ish name of Justin Martyr or was he fictional? We have no way of knowing.
And that as I've repeated again and again is the limitation I set myself that lead to my theory. Assume nothing.
Look at the cock and bull story they are feeding us about Jesus and his miracles. Should we assume they are comitted to facts after they swear to that one? Or should we go with only the facts that we know and not the ones we are asked to assume?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 14:06:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Noting the limitations of paleography is a far cry from showing that there exists "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century".
Nor do I mean to offer this observation as asserting such. I claim no expertise and follow this topic from interest. From what has been presented and from what I have learned in the little research I have taken the time to do, I would say that there is no mention of Jesus that can be confirmed as dating before the first century. It's unfortunate that the most reliable techniques for dating require the destruction of the subject.
Also, to split hairs, the Ryland Papyrus never actually mentions Jesus, it is only an alledged part of a larger passage that does so.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2002 : 14:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DVF wrote:
..., I would say that there is no mention of Jesus that can be confirmed as dating before the first century. It's unfortunate that the most reliable techniques for dating require the destruction of the subject. Also, to split hairs, the Ryland Papyrus never actually mentions Jesus, it is only an alledged part of a larger passage that does so.
I agree. Permit me three questions: (1) What date range would you suggest for 1 Thessalonians and/or Galatians? (2) Can you suggest any scholarship that would date these to the 4th century or later? (3) What value would you assign to the writings of authors such as Raymond Edward Brown and Udo Schnelle?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
