|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2002 : 13:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My guess is that he's Basque/Navajo (but I can't prove it). 
I've read folks like Fagan and Redford and Mazar, and everywhere I turn Anatolia crops up (e.g., Catal Hoyuk, etc.). If the Levant/Mesopotamia is viewed as the cradle of civilization, it seems as if Anatolia is the womb. I really need to find something decent about its (pre)history. It's my next history project, but first I want to read those "transcripts" that Computer Org found, i.e.: "There are, today, massive numbers of people who read the transcripts of what Jesus had to say some 2,000 years ago." It's embarrassing to think that "massive numbers of people" have read this stuff and I didn't even know it existed! 
I'm afraid that what I meant by "transcripts" are the Gospels by Matt., Mark, Luke, and John. I am deeply skeptical that they were little more than fiction.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 08:32:01 [Permalink]
|
"I would much rather continue reading a back-and-forth between you and Slater regarding this subject than someone like darwin alogos, whose entire argument consists of "Jesus existed because the Bible says so, period.
I don't want either one of you to throw their hands up and walk away"
Now TD where on earth did you get that view? I quickly reread my post and I don't see anything even remotely similar to me saying "Jesus existed because the Bible says so" but then again youall seem to enjoy rewrighting history. quote:
Mithraism. Not an influence on Christianity
Mithraism. Not an influence on Christianity Texts Outside the Bible Mighty Mithraic Madness Did The ...
... the points are: mithra was born of a virgin on december 25th in a ...
... bull of the sun," mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. he was ...
... of christ. mithra had his principal festival of what was later ...
... supper," at which mithra said, "he who shall not eat of my body nor ...
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html • Saturday, 1 June 2002, 12:20pm GMT • 51.5k
Edited by - darwin alogos on 06/30/2002 08:36:05 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 11:04:35 [Permalink]
|
Tektonics.org, right they are an apologetics ministery. Apologetics takes it's name, I believe, from Justin Martyr's (only known through Bishop Eusebius) First Aoplogy. I which he argues that Mithraism was a myth started by the devil with the sole purpose of spreading doubt about the later "True" Christianity.
That's what Apologetics do, they use their own brand of logic to prove Christianity is correct.
When I did a web search for "Mithra" Tektonics.org turned up on page three. The first two and one half pages had sites that held the dirivitive myth opinion, as did all the sites on the following three pages. You must have had to dig to find them.
Other people who insisted that Christianity was taken from the Mithrains were the Mithrains themselves. An interesting read about this would be Gore Vidal's Julian.
And don't forget that Catholic/Mithraism was the main stated cause of the Protestant reformation.
The Pope had some trouble denying that because.
The name Pope was that of the head of the Mithric church. The Mithric Pope ruled from Vatican Hill in Rome. Their temple makes up part of the sub-basement of the Vatican--they give tours now. The shepherds staff, the robes-right down to the cross on them, the mitre are all from the Mithraic Pope. Even the throne of St. Peter (replaced in the 1600's but still on exhibit) is from him and is covered with carvings of Mithra slaying the bull.
The Protestants made a very good case.
When the French revolution came it was not only against the crown by against the Catholic Church. That is why you see pictures of them wearing Phrygian caps.
But this is all really besides the point and is only circumstantial evidence-the only type of evidence you can get when you try to prove something does NOT exist.
You however are lucky. You are trying to prove that something actually does exist.
Circumstantial evidence means nothing to your claim, all you have to do is provide ACTUAL evidence that Jesus really existed and the debate is over.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 06:33:20 [Permalink]
|
To Slater,actually the word apologeticsis greek for -to make a defense-and gets its claim to fame in Plato's APOLOGY(399 BC).As far as Justin he wrote couple of his own books way before ole Eusiebus(165AD).Now I know that "little" facts like this don't mean much to YOUbut for those of us who like to keep our opinions based in Realityit helps.Jesus
Shattering the Christ-Myth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus
J. P. Holding
During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"
It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.
At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).
Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.
"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."
As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.
Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?
Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!
If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):
When I had said this, my beloved friends, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. B |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 12:34:52 [Permalink]
|
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awcnotes/cn4/0370Mithras.html#Mithraic%20Practice%20and%20Christianity
http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm
As far as Justin he wrote couple of his own books way before ole Eusiebus(165AD).Now I know that "little" facts like this don't mean much to YOUbut for those of us who like to keep our opinions based in Reality it helps.
If you were interested in staying within the bounds of reality you would know that our one and only source for the "writings" of Justin Martyr is Eusiebus.
It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth"
If your date for Justin Martyr is correct then "recently" means within the last one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven years.
Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar.
One would wonder what Holding requires in way of education before he will listen to their research. He himself has only an MA in Library Arts, and a website ministry some where in Florida, yet he does not seem to feel that that disqualifies him.
"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong.
That was cute, did you catch it? He's not actually saying " because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong" because of course they don't. But you could be forgiven thinking he said it.
Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones.
All of the professional historians? Funny the ones I've talked with at UC Berkeley consider it "common knowledge."
Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field.
Consensus can be dismissed as an argument however when you find that there is no consensus.
The rest of this seemingly endless chatter is an attack on G. A. Wells. In this piece at least (Holding is nothing if not prolific) Mithraism isn't dealt with.
Wells replies to Holding at this URL http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html
He remains a gentleman and a scholar. Even though he admits Characterization of me as "a measly professor of German spouting balderdash dug up from old books by F.C. Baur" well illustrates the abusive and vituperative material that dominates these responses he does not return in kind.
-------
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 - 07/01/2002 : 14:54:51 [Permalink]
|
I am always amazed when arguing with Xians how they will change their definition of what god is. Sometimes in mid thought.
DA posted this similar argument
As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time.
It goes on and on in the same vein. And it gives a decent argument about why historians of the time kept no record of Jesus. It neglects to explain why there were no records from non-historians, but no matter.
This argument throws the baby Jesus out with the bath water.
It is a fine explanation of why Skeptics can find no record of Jesus having lived. BUT it is also an explanation of why the Faithful have no record either. And after all it isn't the Skeptics who are claiming that they have information on him.
It also makes Jesus out to be a nobody who was beneath notice and did nothing out of the ordinary. This would negate all the claims of the spectacular feats that Jesus is supposed to have done. All the seemingly mythological abilities become just that--mythological.
My argument is that we have the story of a god that is imposed on the life of nobody.
This counter argument is we have the story of a god that is imposed on the life of a nobody.
The difference is so small as to be almost invisible.
Either Jesus was a 'blip', or less than a blip since we haven't heard even the slightest of blips. Or he was Jesus Christ. You really can't have it both ways
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2002 : 23:43:20 [Permalink]
|
There was no option to vote for:
I don't know.
Since it is a debate now. I assumed that he existed because it's something everyone talked about. Like saying there's a president in the White House. I don't know that either, to tell the truth, because I've never seen him in person either.
I have one problem with the original poll from this folder. It said '....the Christian religion'. I also have been under the impression that xians are just an extension of Jews. It's all the same religion. Deal with it!!!
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever
---------------
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2002 : 06:36:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have one problem with the original poll from this folder. It said '....the Christian religion'. I also have been under the impression that xians are just an extension of Jews. It's all the same religion. Deal with it!!!
The poll question was "Was there really a first century Palestinian Jew named Jesus upon whose life the Christian religion was founded?".
That is 100% accurate. The Christian religion was founded upon his [mythological] life. The Jewish religion is much older, and has nothing to do with Jesus (they think he was just another prophet).
And no, it's not the same religion at all! 
[added clarification, as I am of the opinion that it is completely reasonable to assume the Jesus never existed.]
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/22/2002 06:37:16 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2002 : 18:49:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is 100% accurate. The Christian religion was founded upon his [mythological] life. The Jewish religion is much older, and has nothing to do with Jesus (they think he was just another prophet).
And no, it's not the same religion at all!
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
If it wasn't for the Jews there would be no idea of a messiah which is what Jessus the Christ was supposed to be. It's part of their religion. Therefore, Jews=messiah=christ.
How can you say it "has nothing to do with Jesus"?
Whoops, that should have said Jews=messiah=Chirst=Christians.
Some Jews followed Jessus others are still waiting for a (true) Messiah.
I could be wrong but that is what I was taught.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S.
Edited by - snake on 07/22/2002 18:58:20 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2002 : 19:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I know very well what I'm talking about, thank you very much! If you don't understand, that's not a problem with my knowledge.
quote:
If it wasn't for the Jews there would be no idea of a messiah which is what Jessus the Christ was supposed to be. It's part of their religion. Therefore, Jews=messiah=christ.
How can you say it "has nothing to do with Jesus"?
Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judiasm. But in the context of the poll question, your "problem" with it is not justified or reasonable.
But whatever...
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/22/2002 19:26:42 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 00:44:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judiasm. But in the context of the poll question, your "problem" with it is not justified or reasonable.
But whatever...
Mohamad, Joseph Smith or any of the others who saw visions were worshiping the same god as the Jews. Muslums, Mormans, Catholics, are all Jews if they believe in that god.
I can see that someone (various kinds of xians) who is anti-Semitic would have a problem with that. They are Jewish AND that's that, no problem as far as I'm concerned.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 10:25:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They are Jewish AND that's that, no problem as far as I'm concerned.
And another thing.....
Tell me this, why does the Pope wear a bennie if he's not Jewish? |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 10:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
They are Jewish AND that's that, no problem as far as I'm concerned.
And another thing.....
Tell me this, why does the Pope wear a bennie if he's not Jewish?
He also wears a Mithran tiara (or would that be mitre?). Is he Mithran also?
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/23/2002 10:39:37 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2002 : 23:25:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
And another thing.....
Tell me this, why does the Pope wear a bennie if he's not Jewish?
He also wears a Mithran tiara (or would that be mitre?). Is he Mithran also?
What the hell is that? Is it a religion? If you tell me what it is then I can tell you if he is one.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2002 : 02:05:37 [Permalink]
|
Let me summarize:
Snake: "Why are we trying to distinguish between Christianity and Judaism? They are basically the same, since the former came from the latter."
Tokyodreamer: "That may be true, but that's not really the point of the discussion. Besides, Christianity came from a lot more than Judaism."
Is this a reasonably accurate asessment? If so, I will say, first: the original question only asked if Jesus Christ the person existed, and how closely is he related to the one on whom Christianity is founded.
Yes Snake, Christianity, in its current incarnation, was founded on the (real or mythical) stories of Jesus Christ. A large part of this discussion (parts one and two) deals with the similarities between Christianity and many old-world religions, including Mithraism. The stance is held that Christianity in actuality had little do to with Judaism, the founders just pretended it did to make it seem more creditable at the time.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, otherwise a cursory re-reading of this topic may prove more enlightening.
-me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
