GakuseiDon

This is from the thread titled: "Humpty Dumpty's Derision of Tweedledee and Tweedledum"

I know that you don't regard TJM as a scholarly work, but I'd be interested to know which parts IYO that Christian apologists ignore and why?

If it is on Gnosticism, then, F&G claim (p. 145 in the paperback edition):
Is that an accurate reflection of Gnostic beliefs?

F&G also say in that section (p 152)
The reference they supply doesn't support their view. The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute occurs after the 4th C CE, so would be irrelevant to the development of early gnosticism.

F&G also raise the idea of gematria, like on p. 142 (paperback edition). F&G write:
I've never seen any Christian try to debunk this, for obvious reasons. (For those who were impressed by F&G there, "Joshua" was transliterated as "IESOUS" in the Septguaint, well before the gospel writers).

I'm not expecting a defence of TJM itself, but AFAICS, the whole book is fairly consistant in its approach and delivery. Which parts do Christians ignore that they shouldn't ignore?

Toto

I may take some time to get around to this, so anyone else is free to jump in.

My comment was based on observing Christians spend all of their time on the Copycat Savior argument, which I did not think was the most important part of the book

I have recently read the Dalton's Jesus: Pagan Christ or Jewish Messiah? mentioned in this thread which may aid in this.

Evoken

I ordered this book a couple of days ago, I should be getting it this monday and I am clear to start reading it right away.

I don't want to comment about anything in it before I read it.

But if it is anything like The Hiram Key..

Toto

The Dalton's book is nothing like the Hiram Key. They have read widely in respectable NT commentary and the NT, and come to some interesting conclusions (which may not be correct, but are still reasonable). Their sources include Doherty and Maccoby, and other authors featured on Peter Kirby's site.

Evoken

Actually I was refering to The Jesus Mysteries, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the comment concerning Dalton's Jesus, I will sure put that book in my books to order list.

Magdlyn

I think, GD, you are using a British copy of TJM? Your pg #s didn't work for me.

You quoted from the book:

"The Gnostic 'Illusionist' view of the crucifixion was not meant to be taken as an historical account of events...

(p. 149) The resurrection, they insisted, was neither an historical event that happened once only to someone else, nor a promise that corpses would rise from the dead after some future apocalypse. "

Then you asked:

"Is that an accurate reflection of Gnostic beliefs?"

Is this question for Toto only? Do you have an opinion on this yourself, or are you not conversant with gnosticism at all? That is, can anyone answer and comment, or is it only meant as some sort of Rosetta Stone question?

Next section, Iesous and gematria. I tried to understand the note on this from this section and didn't really figure it out. After going to the bilbiography, I think they seem to be referring to a book by a D. Fidler, from 1993, called: Jesus Christ, Sun of God. Do you have this book?

Could they have meant Septuagint translators themselves translated Joshua into Iesous to make it equal to 888? (Or was it Ioesous, perhaps, that equalled 888? I think I read that somewhere. Dunno. Some kind of relationship between Ioannes and Ioesous. I don't speak Greek so am at a disadvantage. )

BTW, GD and others, thanks for delving into this subject with me. I have been lurking. There are too many threads going at once! I think on the "load of old cobblers" one, I didn't get a reply from you, GD, on certain q's of yours I took a stab at.

On the closed thread, some of you were referring to a Dawkins and a Turkel and I do not know who they are or what their relevance was to TJM or Bede or Holding...? Waving madonnas...?

Toto

J P Holding is a pseudonym used by Robert Turkel. The closed thread concerned a review by Bede posted on Turkel/Holding's Tektonics site of The Jesus Mysteries. An unrelated article by Bede on his own site criticized something by British scientist, atheist, and evolution defender Richard Dawkins, who used a hypothetical example of a statute of the Madonna waving to illustrate a putative miracle.

Please let that be the end of that thread. If you have any more questions about it, PM me.

Celsus

Sort of off-topic, but JA was asking in the other thread, for anti-mythicist arguments. Rick Sumner, whom, contrary to popular belief, is alive and well, is currently writing a review of Doherty which will eventually go on a website, www.ahistoricity.com. I suspect it won't be full of pawing admiration for Doherty.

Joel

GakuseiDon

Yes, GB, Thorsons, 2000 edition.

Sure, anyone can comment, though I'd like to keep the focus on TJM. Perhaps a new thread on the ideas of 1st/2nd C gnostics may be required.

AFAIK, the gnostics were a diverse group, but from the material that remains (mostly quoted by the early Church Fathers) the gnostics believed that Jesus existed as a historical person at a particular place and point in time, who interacted physically with His disciples.

No, I don't.

F&G are pretty clear about their claim: "The Greek name 'Iesous' is an artificial and forced transliteration of the Hebrew name 'Joshua' which has been deliberately constructed by the gospel writers".

Sorry about that! I'll reply there.

BTW, I don't want to imply that I think Toto believes anything in TJM. I'm curious about what parts of TJM he thinks that Christians ignore.

Toto

If you want more information on the IESOUS = 888 connection, there is a website on Sacred Geometry that has a lot of material. You can take it for what it's worth. There are a lot of numeric coincidences, but who knows if they were deliberately constructed that way.

Briefly, this is my take on The Jesus Mysteries.

The history of Christianity in a nutshell (and it may be a little overbroad, but bear with me): Christianity is always in trouble. It promises great things - salvation, reconciliation, wholeness - but the reality of Christianity has been a corrupt institution that has never lived up to what its adherents want. So dissident Christians are always trying to "reform" it, and they look back to the early church, which may be a mythological past, as authority and inspiration for their reforms. Martin Luther opposed the institutional power of the Catholic Church by going back to sola scriptura, as if the scriptures reflected the real religion and the centuries of practice were irrelevant - but what else could he do? Other Protestant sects keep trying to "purify" the religion by stripping out the allegedly pagan influences. The Los Angeles Church of Christ wants to recreate the Christian Church of the first century.

Freke and Gandy are just the latest in this line of "reformers". They don't like what they see in the current church, but they are not willing to give up on religion. They want a religion that fits the New Age, that honors the feminine principle, that honors individual exploration of one's relationship with the divine, so they have gone back to the earliest Christians and they have found that religion, by golly!

I realized when I read the book that it was not scholarship. It was more like journalism. I sometimes read a newspaper article about something that I have some depth of knowledge in, and I find myself noticing little errors or misinterpretations here and there - but still, the newspaper article does give me information. I got that same feeling with TJM. There were errors and exaggerations, and polemical statements, and a little spin doctoring. But overall, an interesting thesis.

As to what I think is the more interesting parts of the book (and its been a while since I read it): their use of classical authors for information on the mysteries, Platonism and Christianity, Gnosticism in Paul - basically everything after chapter 4. But as I say, I haven't read it in a few years.