Dargo

One possible explanation for the Josephus alteration is that the orginal manuscript seriously contradicted the Biblical accounts forcing early Christians to modify the wording to something more suitable.

Pantera

Does Paul spell it the same way? Had it been constructed by the gospel writers, it would not have been used by Paul, who everybody (including mythicists - hell, Paul being the earliest source is essential to the mythicist case) agrees predates the gospels. Freke and Gandy seem to be getting a bit carried away here.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Undercurrent

Pehaps your precieved "everybody's out prove christianity wrong" notion derives, not from the origins of christianity being subjected to undue scruteny, but the widespread emotional investment that a great number of people have in the veracity and uniqueness of christianity, as opposed to the veracity and unqieness of the norse pantheon.

I truly doubt that if archeologists were routinely asked about the origins of zoroasterism, that any would say "It spang forth from nothing". Throughout history we have seen a great many religions and sects arise, most largely derivitive from some already existing religion or sect, until we get so far into the past that historical data fades out. It's hard to imagine Christianity being terribly different. Certainly, (to again come back to the book whose title this thread bears as its own,) the criticism of Celsus near the time of the origin of christianity that this new religion uses mainly recycled theology lends specific creedence to this hypothesis.

That being said, "You're unfairly looking for data which opposes christianity above and beyond other religions" is hardly a refutation of the data uncovered.

m.

Someone7

Having read Wells' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975429X/internetinfidelsA/102-9107800-9773725" target="_blank">The Historical Evidence for Jesus</a> and Helms' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755725/internetinfidelsA/102-9107800-9773725" target="_blank">Gospel Fictions</a>, I have to conclude that the pagan exegesis of Christianity is not as strong and convincing as the mythicist case that could be made using these two books.

As Pantera shows, you can find many, many parallels between Jesus and Old Testament characters, and this is a much more appropriate place to begin looking for the origin of Christian myths, in my opinion.

I highly recommend Helms' book. It does what Pantera does in this thread, only better (no offense). While Helms' himself does believe in a historical Jesus, Wells' doesn't and shows in his book that the case for the mythicist position can be made on the opinions of Christian historians/theologians alone. I believe combining the ideas in these two books presents the best argument for the mythicist position I've ever seen, one which does not suffer from the inherent drawbacks of a pagan exegesis of Christianity.

Anunnaki

I don`t have time to read a single page of the book until after Christmas is over,but I will indeed be back to offer whatever info I can from the book since most of you show no interest in actually reading a book you are so quick to criticize.

Btw,
Who the hell picks the "book of the month" around here? Better yet,which of the moderators and those in charge of II are actually even reading these books?

I did not buy the book ($12.00 used at Amazon) because it was the II book of the month,but I had assumed that SOMEBODY must have read it for it to to have been selected.
Even OPRAH reads her suggested book of the month so I don`t think this is too much to ask.

Pantera

A few of the parallels offered by Anunnaki strike me as irrelevant or particularly weak.

The assumption of Mary and the date of Christmas are both late additions to Christianity. While possible pagan influences on these may be interesting, they are completely irrelevant to the origins of Christianity or the historical Jesus.

Jesus' physical appearance is not discussed anywhere in the New Testament, or as far as I know anywhere else in the early Christian writings. I was under the impression that the classic view of him as a bearded man with long hair came from Renaissance paintings, which are hardly relevant to the issue at hand. Or do they have sources which suggest that such a portrayal was common much further back in time.

Also note that the alternative would be short hair and/or no beard - there would be a 50/50 chance of each of these details agreeing anyway, so it's hardly a striking parallel.

Also by Jewish religious figures like John the Baptist (whose historicity is not in doubt - he is discussed in an undisputed passage in Josephus). Which is the more likely source of the practice?

It may well be that the Jews had previously got the idea from pagans, but that would hardly affect the study of the origins of Christianity.



As both of these are presented as fulfillment of alleged Messianic prophecies, what is the most likely source for the stories?



This cannot possibly be true. Jesus is said to have died at the Jewish Passover, which occurs on a different date each year. Since we don't know the year of Jesus' death, it is impossible to say which date he was said to have died on. Even now, Easter takes place on a different date every year - as it has done throughout Christian history.

The author of John in particular is keen to play up comparisons between Jesus and the lamb sacrificed by the Jews at the Passover feast. If we assume that Jesus' crucifixion at the time of Passover is not historical, what is the most likely inspiration for the idea - Jewish or Pagan ideas?

{Edited for a couple of typos}

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Pantera

Personally I'm not sure who makes the selection, but bear in mind that most of the moderators and some of the administrators (myself included) are simply volunteers whose only connection with the II is to help run the discussion forum (which is only one small part of the site) and have nothing to do with the other areas of the site, like the bookstore. Apart from Bill, most of the members of the Board of Directors, who run the Internet Infidels, don't get much time to spend on the forums, prefering to concentrate on the other parts of the site and on running the organisation. So the fact that no administators or moderators who have read the book have yet posted on the thread in no way suggests that the book has not been read by the person who chose it as book of the month. If you want to find out why it was chosen and who chose it, I suggest you ask in the Feedback forum.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael: Well let's see. The title of the thread is "The Jesus Mysteries", and my post discusses the thesis of "The Jesus Mysteries", therefore it only stands to reason that the source of the material is, "The Jesus Mysteries." To wit, from page 116 of said book: quote: [following a discussion of the practice of numerology and the numerology of the name "IESOUS" in particular] The fact that Jesus' name equals [the sacred number] 888 is no lucky accident. The Greek name Iesous is an artificial and forced transliteration of the Hebrew name Joshua, which has been deliberately constructed by the gospel writers to make sure it expresses this symbolically significant number.

No! Please don’t tell me they actually made this argument. If this is true, then this book is even more worthless than I would have guessed.

“Iesous” was a very common name. Josephus uses “Iesous” for no fewer than ten different men with the name in his works, some of whom lived prior to the time of Jesus of Nazareth. To say that the gospel writers constructed the name for symbolic purposes is sheer stupidity. I hold this book in even lower esteem than I did previously.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunnaki: I don`t have time to read a single page of the book until after Christmas is over,but I will indeed be back to offer whatever info I can from the book since most of you show no interest in actually reading a book you are so quick to criticize.

Does this mean you only criticize books you've actually read? So I'll just quote from all of my favorite scholars while heralding their works, and then I'll only listen to critiques from those who've read the book. That'll make for great dialogue. You've summarized some of the arguments, so unless you've misrepresented the authors we should be able to discuss the merits of the arguments without reading the entire book.

Michael provided an excerpt demonstrating the sheer depravity of one of their arguments. I'm not going to waste $12 on a book that provides as much useful information as the back of a Cocoa Puffs box.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Pantera: A few of the parallels offered by Anunnaki strike me as irrelevent or particularly weak.

All very good points, Pantera ! You saved me a lot of time.

Peace,

Polycarp