EARL: What is the evidence that the mystery traditions would likely have begun on the day the known first written records of them originated? As I understand the traditions, they are very old and pass from one form into another from different countries. The myth of a dying and rising godman was symbolic of the change of the seasons and was therefore widely present in ancient religions. We also have the early Christians' admission that the pagan traditions predated Christianity; only they claim Satan was behind this fact.

SWL: Give us some quotes and let's examine them.

Earl: We also have the fact that the early Christians burned a lot of pagan texts, which should make us wonder why they did this.

SWL: You're free to wonder. But wonder isn't going to get you out of the realm of possibility....Even if we assumed that you could show that the Christians which burned the pagan texts were doing so because of alleged similarities with Christianity (which, of course, you can't), we still wouldn't know whether or not those similarities PRE-DATED Christianity and were copied by Paul and the Gospel authors.

Earl: Were they embarrassed about certain connections they wanted to cover up? All of this is admittedly highly speculative given the lack of direct evidence of copying from traditions. But early Christianity's totalitarian handling of alternative religious traditions at the very least makes the modern Christian's triumphant declarations as to the lack of direct textual evidence of copying somewhat tasteless.

SWL: You may find them tasteless because you're desperate to throw every argument in the universe against Christianity, no matter how flimsy they are. But the bottom line is "modern Christian's triumphant declarations as to the lack of direct textual evidence of copying" are entirely factual.

SecWebLuerker

Meta =>I think its that kind of conspiritorial argument that makes the Chrit-myth cause so odious to real scholars. It's merely argument from silence with a bit of conspiracy theory thorwn in, and by that logic not having evidence is better than having it. The Romans persecuted Chrisitains so they must have kown that Christianity was true and they couldn't take it. (by that logic)


MEta =>That just tells me that what you really care about is debuncking Christianity at all costs and you really don't care what the evidence says.

It's ture that the pagan traditions were old, and they didn't start on the day the "texts" were written (we actually don't have any texts, and it's not because Christians destoryed them all, that's silly, they couldn't destroy all of them. We have artifacts why would they just destroy the texts and not the artifacts themselves? Becasue they didn't write much, they were oral traditions and they didn't depend upon texts like the keeping of the Hebrew law did).

But there was an admixture of clutures in the lavant.

"Jewish and Hellenistic thought both grew up together in the Eastern end of the Mediterranean. Both owed a little to Egypt and a great deal to the civilization of the Trigris-Euphrates valley. Both alike deriving something from Aegean culture." [D.E.H. Whitely, Jesus College Oxford, Theology of ST. Paul, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 5].

But than he goes on to debunck the idea that Paul was indebted to the mystery cults. And we do know that Julian the apostate tired to consciously forge a paganism with Christian elements to compete with Christianity.

But the main thing is, the symbolic universes of religious traditions are based upon culutre and needs must be. So there is always some cultural crossfertilization. That in no way means that they made up the Jesus story to fit pagan myth. And the evidence isn't there to justfy any notion of barrowing. There are some influences in the background of the symbolic universe but that's all, and it goes both ways.

Earl,

I found some of your comments absolutely fascinating.


I'm not sure, but you make a pretty good point. There probably isn't any more evidence for that than the silly idea that the traditions preserved in the Gospel of Mark did not begin until the day that his gospel was written.


So. Because we know that Matthew and Luke relied heavily on another Christian gospel and the Old Testament, we must assume they also relied on pagan myths?


Interesting point. Are they similar to the early Jewish admission that Jesus was a real person who died on the cross and left behind an empty tomb?

Do you think these arguments through before you make them?

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
SWL: Let's see them. And let's see them from the primary sources, and let's see the dates on the primary sources, and then let's see the actual evidence that borrowing took place. Given that life after death is pretty much a universal amongst religions, similarities that just amount to post-death survival (bodily or not) are meaningless. Given that gods in other religions could die, the fact that some of them did die is also meaningless….

The burden of proof as far as the copycat thesis is concerned, goes way beyond pointing out similarities...There are enough religions in the ancient world to find a parallel to pretty much anything. You have to show that there indeed WAS borrowing - not just similarity.

Quote:

EARL: On the contrary, the higher burden of proof is on the Christian to show that a god actually died, whereas the skeptic can justifiably assume that copying of some sort--even in the absence of any direct evidence of this--was much more likely and helped to develop Christian theology.</font>

Meta =&gt;1) That's just contrary to the rules of debate and common sense. YOu are advancing the thesis so you must prove it.

2) It's contrary to the rules of evidence becasue you are saying that one can assume without a warrant for assumption and make the other guy prove its not so.

3) It's contrary to the consensus of scholarhsip--and I do not mean Biblical, but all scholorship. Meyer, whom I quote above is a classicist and not a Christian. He speicilizes in Mithrism. He says that scholars [in his field] today do not assume assume any kind of conscious barrowing, that is looked upon as arguing that history is a conspiracy of the Illuminanti or something, and that unconscious cultural influences are the order of the day.

4) It's totally absurd to exect that we have to show that Jesus was God before we can argue that barrowing didn't take place. There is no reason to assume barrowing, everyting in the Jesus story is accounted for in Judaism, even the Virign birth (Is 7:14). So there is just no reason to assume it, and Jesus doesn't have to actually be God for them to explian his death in that way.

5) This just confirms what we have said, you just invent the rules you want to helpl your case as you go along and the facts be dmaned.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I'm not claiming that every piece of Christian theology can be found intact in other ancient cults or religions. The early Christians were free to be inventive in interpreting certain events that they thought happened.</font>

Meta =&gt;O thank you! I'm still waiting for you to prove any barrowing at all!

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> We know, however, that the gospel writers felt free to borrow and edit other texts, since at the very least Matthew and Luke did just that with Mark.</font>

Meta =&gt;No! They didn't "feel free to borrow" that is a total misunderstanding of what textual ciriticism and redaction are about. That is not the way the process of redaction works.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> They also took ideas from the OT using midrash. It's not unlikely a priori that these writers also took ideas from pagan traditions, especially given Paul's special interest in taking Christianity to the pagans.</font>

MEta =&gt; That has nothing to do with the writting of the Gospels. That was done by a totally differnet group of people who did not have that interest and it began as a process before Paul ever wrote. So that is a spurious argument at best. As Midrash, they were Jews! they were just doing what came naturally with that, that's not barrowing that's just making use of their own clutural tradition. Why would they barrow from Pagans?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Paul himself said he wanted to be all things to all people, and he used certain pagan terms to explain his gospel, such as the Jewish-pagan combination of the "spiritual body."

Meta =&gt;Paul didn't write the Gospels! Q was obviously emergent from a core of Judaistic-Christianity which knew nothing of taking it to the Gentiels, as was the Passion narrative. So the basic concepts that latter found their way into current form were all pre-Pauline.

i'm still waiting for anyone to show me documentatoin that any gourp had that concept before neo-platonism. Do you hear me? I say again, prove it! Show the docs!

I haven't read through all or even most of this thread, so forgive me if I bring up a point that has been adressed or already brought up in some form. I am thus going to randomly comment on some points that I wish to adress. If you are ok with this, fine, thanks. If not, too bad.

Having said that, I must also exclaim my surprise at the ignorance of the Christian apologists here. They are some of the most flat out weak-minded people on the internet. People of such low intelligence are not even worthy of the 'honor' (to such fools it would be an honor) of changing my diapers or burping me.

Lets discuss the relevant points here.

First, Jesus was obviously ripped off to a significant degree from pagan mythology. Virgins and/or young women giving birth to God/s is one of the oldest and most ubiquitous tales in all of mythology in general, so there is no need to further elaborate on that.

Jesus ;coincidentally' closely resembling other mythical figures is also quite obvious. The resemblance to Hercules, for example, is quite interesting - Hercules was the Son of the most high God (zeus) born to some broad (just like Jesus was the son of God born to Mary). He was almost the victim of Herra's forces trying to murder him when he was a baby. He survived though, by killing the snake or whatever was sent to kill him (Just like Jesus was nearly killed by Herod's forces when he was a baby, but survived. Different ways, same concept). He then grew up, was fucked with by the bad diety (Herra), then had a vision which allowed him to either live a tempting life of ease among the Gods (or something like that) or else be virtuous and honorable by living a life of hardship but good deeds. Hercules chose the latter (just like Jesus was fucked with by Satan, who temped him to live the easy life, but instead chose the positive, honorable, though much more difficult route). Hercules then went on to do tons of fantastic shit,(like Jesus did miracles) was betrayed by somebody,(like Jesus was betrayed by Judas) and, while dying (or shortly after he died, I cannot recall which), was taken into Heaven and immortalized (just like Jesus).

Thats enough for now, suffice to say though that Hercules bears more than a passing resemblance to Jesus.

Second, Jesus resembled other dieties to a significant degree. That does not mean his story was copied word-for-word from all other religious texts, or that he didn't have some interestingly unique features. Overall, though, the son of a divinity, born of a mortal woman, growing up to either do miracles or make significant teachings, only to die and end up going to some happy place in the sky, is the overall concept of the Jesus story, and is quite similar to a number of other, older mythologies popular in and before Jesus' time. Face it; Jesus is described first and foremost as "The Son of God", which usually goes hand in hand with "and he was sent down to do yadda yadda yadda (perform some righteous mission of some sort)". Clearly a ripoff of pagan mythology overall most likely.

Third, you have to understand that, since Jesus was probably a real person (lets leave this far fetched "Christ Myth" babbling aside), and was Jewish, there is all the more reason to expect the story of him to differ in many details from his pagan counterparts, both because he was really just an ordinary man and would therefore be more troublesome for--though hardly so famous and significant that his existence would stop any nonsensical stories being concocted about him by--those seeking to make up stories about him (its more difficult to just pull any idiotic idea out of your ass about somebody and atribute it to them if people who knew that somebody were really around to refute it because that somebody really existed); and also because he was from a completely different culture than those enveloped in paganism. For an example of the latter, God not physically fucking Mary in the Gospels was probably because of the sexophobic culture of the Hebrews and Judaism (from which Christianity plagiarized many of its teachings), which greatly contrasts to the sex-loving culture of the pagans (some mystery cults even engaged in massive sex orgies as a requirement for their religion. Too bad they didn't beat out Christianity in terms of popularity). Theres other shit too but you get the point.

Fourth, if you Christian apologists out there cannot even figure so much as 30% of this shit out for yourself, then quit trying to figure out the deepest mysteries of the nature of God and go back to something more on par with your intellectual level, like mastering the art of shoe-tying, or the intricately delicate skills needed to work that oh-so mysteriously complicated device known as a 'can opener'.

Fifth, it would be best for this debate if the freethinkers dropped this "Christ-myth" shit, at least for now.

this shit posted twice. Sorry.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited May 25, 2001).]

Jesus ;coincidentally' closely resembling other mythical figures is also quite obvious.

I don’t think that Jesus really does resemble other pagan gods all that much – I think a lot of the "parallels" between Jesus and the PG’s are pretty weak. Of course, the way people re-tell the pagan myths is another story. Have you ever noticed the obscene lengths people will go through to create parallels? Prometheus was tied to a rock and tortured by birds until he was released by Heracles – Okay, I guess that can pass for a crucifixion, maybe the rock was T-shaped. Mithra? Born of a virgin of course… well, the rock he emerged from had never slept with a man, right? Dionysus was also born of a virgin: that is, his dad slept with his mother and then vaporized her; he then sewed Dionysus' fetus into his thigh until he was ready to be born. The similarities are uncanny... I am fairly certain that I can draw 10 parallels like this between Jesus and Ronald McDonald (or just about anyone, I guess).




[This message has been edited by Eustace Scrubb (edited May 26, 2001).]

CLB: Having said that, I must also exclaim my surprise at the ignorance of the Christian apologists here.

SWL: You're probably the most ignorant skeptic on this board, CLB.

CLB: First, Jesus was obviously ripped off to a significant degree from pagan mythology. Virgins and/or young women giving birth to God/s is one of the oldest and most ubiquitous tales in all of mythology in general, so there is no need to further elaborate on that.

SWL: No, this is just a common skeptical lie. You probably picked it up reading Acharya S or some other internet bunk-peddler.

1. Show me a VIRGINAL CONCEPTION where a virginal woman is found with child - not an instance of a god having sex with a woman - something that was hardly out of the ordinary in pagan myths just because of their very ontology.

2. Show me that this instance is close enough to the Gospel accounts that we should assume borrowing from this pagan source as opposed to the Biblical tradition of miraculous births.

3. Make sure you give the DATE of the pagan writing that this alleged virginal conception occurs in, give me the direct quote from the primary source (i.e. - the actual pagan writing - not some mention in a laughable non-scholarly work like a book by Acharya S. or Freke & Gandy).

CLB: Jesus ;coincidentally' closely resembling other mythical figures is also quite obvious. The resemblance to Hercules, for example, is quite interesting - Hercules was the Son of the most high God (zeus) born to some broad (just like Jesus was the son of God born to Mary).

SWL: Given the fact that the greek gods had kids with mortals all the time, this isn't surprising. But in the Gospels we don't see Jesus becomign God's son by virtue of His having been born to Mary as he is pre-existent, so there's no genealogical link through a 'divine seed', and the title "Son of God" is just a very Jewish title anyway - related to David in Psalm 2, related to angelic beings, and interpreted Messianically even at Qumran.

CLB: He was almost the victim of Herra's forces trying to murder him when he was a baby. He survived though, by killing the snake or whatever was sent to kill him (Just like Jesus was nearly killed by Herod's forces when he was a baby, but survived. Different ways, same concept).

SWL: The Jesus story parallels that of Moses much closer. Jesus doesn't kill any snakes. I'm going to request that in giving us summaries of pagan stories, you quote that actual literature. I don't trust your accounts in the least.

CLB: He then grew up, was fucked with by the bad diety (Herra), then had a vision which allowed him to either live a tempting life of ease among the Gods (or something like that) or else be virtuous and honorable by living a life of hardship but good deeds. Hercules chose the latter (just like Jesus was fucked with by Satan, who temped him to live the easy life, but instead chose the positive, honorable, though much more difficult route). Hercules then went on to do tons of fantastic shit,(like Jesus did miracles) was betrayed by somebody,(like Jesus was betrayed by Judas) and, while dying (or shortly after he died, I cannot recall which), was taken into Heaven and immortalized (just like Jesus).

SWL: I need all the primary sources on this stuff for Hercules and the dates. As far as the temptation goes, the typology resonates better with the Israelites in the wilderness-

Forty years/days in wilderness (Exod 16:35; Q 4:2)

Temptation by hunger (Exod 16:2-8; Q 4:2-3)

Temptation to put God to the test (Exod 17:13; Q 4:9-12)

Temptation to idolatry (Exodus 32; Q 4:5-8)

Death or Hercules and post-death survival means absolutely nothing - as even the death of Jesus, had he not resurrected - would have entailed a type of post-death survival in 2nd Temple Judaism.

CLB: Thats enough for now, suffice to say though that Hercules bears more than a passing resemblance to Jesus.

SWL: Its garbage...

CLB: Second, Jesus resembled other dieties to a significant degree. That does not mean his story was copied word-for-word from all other religious texts, or that he didn't have some interestingly unique features. Overall, though, the son of a divinity, born of a mortal woman, growing up to either do miracles or make significant teachings, only to die and end up going to some happy place in the sky, is the overall concept of the Jesus story, and is quite similar to a number of other, older mythologies popular in and before Jesus' time.

SWL: Again, we need primary sources and dates. But that a person considered important was born to a woman ('we've already discussed the 'Son of God' issue), did great things, died and went to heaven is how pretty-much any story about any great person would be told in that time-period. That's the most vague meaningless outline imaginable.

CLB: Face it; Jesus is described first and foremost as "The Son of God", which usually goes hand in hand with "and he was sent down to do yadda yadda yadda (perform some righteous mission of some sort)". Clearly a ripoff of pagan mythology overall most likely.

SWL: Not at all - a very Jewish notion. I don't really even see any pre-existent pagan sons being sent down. Show me the literature (not that it will matter).

CLB: Third, you have to understand that, since Jesus was probably a real person (lets leave this far fetched "Christ Myth" babbling aside), and was Jewish, there is all the more reason to expect the story of him to differ in many details from his pagan counterparts, both because he was really just an ordinary man and would therefore be more troublesome for--though hardly so famous and significant that his existence would stop any nonsensical stories being concocted about him by--those seeking to make up stories about him (its more difficult to just pull any idiotic idea out of your ass about somebody and atribute it to them if people who knew that somebody were really around to refute it because that somebody really existed); and also because he was from a completely different culture than those enveloped in paganism. For an example of the latter, God not physically fucking Mary in the Gospels was probably because of the sexophobic culture of the Hebrews and Judaism (from which Christianity plagiarized many of its teachings), which greatly contrasts to the sex-loving culture of the pagans (some mystery cults even engaged in massive sex orgies as a requirement for their religion. Too bad they didn't beat out Christianity in terms of popularity). Theres other shit too but you get the point.

SWL: Actually we have angels in Judaism coming down to have sex with the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6 (interpreted as such at Qumran), so this just isn't true, and besides that, like I said - miraculous births accompanied by angelic announcements were already prevalent in Judaism.

CLB: Fourth, if you Christian apologists out there cannot even figure so much as 30% of this shit out for yourself, then quit trying to figure out the deepest mysteries of the nature of God and go back to something more on par with your intellectual level, like mastering the art of shoe-tying, or the intricately delicate skills needed to work that oh-so mysteriously complicated device known as a 'can opener'.

SWL: Right...Can you take that dunce-cap off, come out of the corner, and stop chewing on that eraser before you begin teaching class though?

CLB: Fifth, it would be best for this debate if the freethinkers dropped this "Christ-myth" shit, at least for now.

SWL: I doubt the freethinker's on this board have any respect for your opinion, CLB.

SecWebLurker

uh oh! the Christians seem to be winning this one, They're comming over the walls!!

Oh my God they've killed Farrel Till! those bastards!

run away! run away faster!

click click click
and I'm out of Ammo!

I've just about had it with historians Christian or otherwise, I'm sick of reading one 'expert' saying X only to find another 'expert' saying Y. I've noticed this more & more even with mundane aspects of history having no significant consequence other than someones thesis, history has become nothing more than a matter of opinion.

Another one bites the dust...

Skeptics can't provide evidence for their copycat nonsense, therefore all history is nonsense.

These guys sound more like YECs every day.

SecWebLurker