Dean Anderson

I've got the UK paperback, so my page numbering might be different. My version also directs you to plates 4 and 5, although since I couldn't reproduce the plates here I instead included my own note where I attempted (rather badly, unfortunately) to describe them.

This is the same explanatory text that is in my version. I should probably have quoted it directly, rather than paraphrasing it in my rather poor description of the plates.

I've often wondered about that - I mean people are generally rubbish at keeping secrets. If thousands of people are in some kind of 'secret' religion then it's hardly going to remain secret for very long... After all, what happens (for example) to those people who are presented with the 'inner mysteries', but don't accept them? They have no reason to keep the secret.

Bede

Well, the amulet looks like a crucifixion to me and says Jesus on it with a person praying below. Anyone who wants to claim it is something else had better come up with some evidence for the alternative.

Rick is right about Frazer. Like many nineteenth century scholars with their grand theories, he is no longer taken all that seriously. A professional classicist on my acquaitence wrote on the dying/rising god motif:

This looks like another thread where the view of internet scribblers and out of date scholars will be taken to trump modern scholarship.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Roger Pearse

Thank you for making the effort to help! Actually I had in mind *Ancient* sources. Some modern writers will say anything. I always think that, if they say what those there at the time say, then they are superfluous -- let's go direct; while if they say something different, they are wrong. So it's ancient stuff we need.

By gum, I haven't half had some strange responses to my simple question, as to what the raw data might be! Some people are so desperate to pour out their religious hate, that they quite failed to read what was being asked. Beats me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

True. But... well ... it all depends on the social structure, doesn't it? I think it can be done, with appropriate social pressures. Consider the manner in which the social pressure against saying words like 'wog' has been created in our society over the last 30 years. Now imagine the same social presure on discussing the mysteries. How many people will not feel intimidated?

Of course the other side of it, is whether we today would know either way. Everyone might know something, in ancient Athens; but if it didn't find its way into the surviving literature, we would know nothing of it. Silence, as ever, is never evidence of absence (or anything else).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Thanks for this! It's all rather shadowy, isn't it? Not a single hard relevant fact in the lot.

I did enjoy the idea that people wearing purple must be Dionysius. Or Jesus, if more convenient. It must be hell -- you stick on your purple toga, and half the audience thinks you're about order drinks and an orgy, and the other half that you're about to ban both. Must have made it a bit dodgy in the forum... <chortle> Almost like wearing a moustache in LA.

But I wonder how we know that these pictures are what they say they are?

I don't know, but what none of these references amount to is an ancient statement that Jesus=Dionysius. They all seem more or less irrelevant.

The problem, tho, is whether the data given adds up to the conclusion suggested. I don't think it does.

My dear chap, I thought that was the way this group operated! Heaven knows I had enough in this thread directed at me (by people who know nothing about me, fortunately). Or is it only atheists who're allowed ad hominems?

But, you don't think it even a teensy-weensy bit relevant? Noooo?

Ah well, then. Good! (One man's failure is another's opportunity). There's this guy I know who will sell you a really good insurance policy. YOU won't care that he is a convicted conman, will you?

Be serious. If you want to pretend to be dim, feel free.

<snigger> Do you speak from personal knowledge of his technique? Or are you just saying something without any knowledge of the matter at all...?

Be serious. Normal people don't peddle smut. To me, the guy looks a lot like a sleazeball who will write anything for money. Are such books written for any other purpose? Of course people can pretend otherwise, if they like -- but the rest of us will laugh and make jokes at them if they do. Now he's peddling a new line of doodoo. Are you buying? <chortle>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dean Anderson

It's not 'rather shadowy' at all. They present 3 assertions, and name the sources of these assertions, even giving page numbers.

1) A mask representing Dionysus was hung on a wooden pole.

2) In his myth, Dionysus was dressed in purple before his execution.

3) In his myth, Dionysus was given vineger and gall to drink before his execution.

They also give two photographs of sarcophagi displaying scenes from the Dionysis myth and showing his crucifixion, saying that these are two of many and telling us where the originals of the sarcophagi are held.

Now whether these assertions are 'hard fact' depends on which of the following possibilities is true:

a) They are lying and their sources do not exist.

b) They have misquoted their sources. Their sources do not say whay they claim.

c) They have correctly quoted their sources, but their sources are wrong.

d) They have correctly quoted their sources and their sources are correct.

Of course, you have not mentioned which of these possibilities you think is correct. In fact you do not address any of their points, or even acknowledge the existence of said assertions. You merely dismiss the whole thing as 'shadowy' (a completely meaningless term designed to make people doubt it's veracity without you having to actually provide any reason for such doubt).

So which do you think is the correct possibility, and what 'hard relevant facts' do you have as evidence for your conclusion?

Of course, Freke and Gandy never said that, and you know that they didn't. You are just picking up a sub-clause in one sentence ('...and initiates at Eleusis wore a purple sash around their bodies.') and extrapolating it ad-absurdum in order to obfuscate the fact that you are ignoring the rest of the (presicely referenced) points that they make.

If I were more cynical I would think that this was because you haven't got a good response to their points and want to divert attention away from them.

We don't know one way or the other. Of course, if either of us feels like going to the Princeton University Art Museum and asking about their discovery and context then we are quite free to do so.

Of course not. I have quoted a part of a single paragraph from a book with a few hundred pages. I would be surprised in the extreme if these few sentences added up to this conclusion on their own.

However, the hypothesis that Jesus=Dionysus is not what we are debating here. The question was 'Was Dionysus crucified?' The quote and pictures are totally relevant to that question since (if they are accurate) they show that the Dionysus myth did include crucifixion in at least some versions.

Just because some people on both sides of the argument use the technique doesn't make it a good technique. Besides, if someone makes such a statement about you then you can defend yourself. However, Freke and Gandy are not here to defend themselves, so it is especially unfair to attack them in such an ad-hominem manner.



Being a convicted con-man is very relevent when financial dealings are involved, since it shows a history of cheating on such dealings in the past.

How is writing a book about exotic massage relevant to writing a book about the history of religion?

I don't need his techniques. I can give my wife all the exotic massage she needs without needing to learn any new techniques, thank you very much.

Still, you obviously have enough knowledge of the matter to think that the contents of this earlier book are very relevant to the reliability of the current one.

Care to quote me sections of his earlier book that cast doubts on the veracity of the current book? You have obviously read it, and found things in it that are false, otherwise you wouldn't have enough knowledge of the matter to make such an informed decision.

You are right here. Imagine! The horror of an author who will get his books published for the purposes of income! All decent books are published purely for the edification of the public with all the money going to charity.

Grow up!

a) Just because someone writes a book on massage doesn't make him a 'abnormal sleazeball smut peddler'.

b) Just because someone writes a book on massage doesn't mean that any other books he writes are automatically invalidated.

If you have a problem with people discussing or writing about sex, don't bring it to this discussion.

We are talking about the claims made in 'The Jesus Mysteries' that can stand or fall on their own merits, not morally judging authors based on our own prudishness.

It's ironic, really. I came into this discussion with an open mind about whether Freke and Gandy's claims were right. Now all your frothing about the source of the claims without addressing the claims themselves is pushing me towards agreeing with them rather than putting me off.

After all, if you had any actual evidence or argument that refuted those claims then you would have used it. All this hot air seems to signify that you can't refute them, but desperately want to discredit them for personal reasons.

Bede

I have actually debated Gandy at the Cygnus's study website and found him evasive and dishonest. As Roger says, he is just in it for the money. I reviewed their book here and mention a few inaccuracies and apparently deliberate lies

B

Dean Anderson

Its 'obviously' taken from the 72BC diving championships. The amulet commemorates the tragic death of the famous diver Sarai of Judea.

The main figure is Sarai seen from the rear as she gets ready to leap in a swallow-dive (she is scoring quite well for posture as her knees are together and her arms are symmetrical). You can see that she is wearing an 'Alice' band and her hair is in a French-Plait.

The smaller figure is the Roman diver Lucia, who can be seen giving Sarai a surruptitious push.

Tragically, this push resulted in Sarai slipping from the diving board and breaking her neck.

This blatant cheating by Rome, and the death of Judea's diving champion caused great outrage that resulted in the sacking of Rome a couple of centuries later.


But then again I was never any good at Rorshasch ink-blot tests, either...

Toto

From your tektonics.org review:

Given that Freke and Gandy are not writing as scholars, but as neo-pagans, Gandy probably thought that your question was based on a mere appeal to authority, and was irrelevant. Or he may have just not wanted to talk to you. Without seeing the actual exchange, we can't know.

Your claim of lying (which you are too fond of) is based on this:

Actually, although I don't have the book in front of me, I don't recall F&G saying that the other godmen were actually crucified - only that they died and were reborn, and/or hung in a tree. I see some obvious parallels between crucifixion and being hung in a tree (as discussed above.)

But even if crucifixion as the mode of death is unique to Christianity, that doesn't mean that Christians did not borrow elements from pagan myth, or incorporate mythical themes into their story.

After all, we know that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet, and you can't disprove that by pointing out that there are no musical numbers in Romeo and Juliet.

I think you have missed the point of Freke and Gandy. At one point in the book, they state that there is enough evidence for a historical Jesus so that a person who wants to believe he existed could hold to that belief. They just prefer their interpretation of history, and they would have preferred that the gnostics had survived and been dominant in the Christian church.

Toto

Interesting comment on Frazer, magic, religion, Marxism:

Scottish Literature handout