Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-24-2009, 05:21 PM

I'm one of them but I actually didn't think there were that many. I like public polls better.

Rick Sumner · 08-24-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sol Invictus is only a title. And it is used for Mithras. (See A.D. Nock, The Genius of Mithras, JRS, 27, inscription from Ostia, p.112, and a reconstructed inscription, p.109.)

A D Nock is considerably less confident than you on the use of the title for Mithras. He's even less inclined to think it is "only a title."

The paper is available online for anyone so inclined:

http://www.ecclesia.relig-museum.ru/Researches/nock.htm

If Nock is prepared to allow his renderings open to question, why are you so quick to state them so certainly? What translational and reconstructive issues do you propose to address so that we may share your confidence and reject the reluctance of your source?

Nock is also horribly out of date. Cumont's Mithraism is dead. It never really existed as anything more than a modern construct.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Yellum Notnef · 08-24-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon

I'm more than surprised by the number of 1's...

Not surprising since #1 is the only choice any of the Christians here would vote for. Everyone else is all over the map.

Rick Sumner · 08-24-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I'm one of them but I actually didn't think there were that many. I like public polls better.

There's a general tendency towards extremes in any scaled poll.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

IamJoseph · 08-24-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Is Jesus winning?

Absolutely not. It begins with a fiction: there was never a Jew by that name, and there is no proof with regard the title christ - which means Redeemer. This is one redeemer who did not confront the Roman oppressors.

Vinnie · 08-24-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Is Jesus winning?

Absolutely not. It begins with a fiction: there was never a Jew by that name, and there is no proof with regard the title christ - which means Redeemer. This is one redeemer who did not confront the Roman oppressors.

The race is already won. Its just still happening.

There was never a Jew with the name Jesus?

spin · 08-24-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sol Invictus is only a title. And it is used for Mithras. (See A.D. Nock, The Genius of Mithras, JRS, 27, inscription from Ostia, p.112, and a reconstructed inscription, p.109.)

A D Nock is considerably less confident than you on the use of the title for Mithras. He's even less inclined to think it is "only a title."

The paper is available online for anyone so inclined:

http://www.ecclesia.relig-museum.ru/Researches/nock.htm

If Nock is prepared to allow his renderings open to question, why are you so quick to state them so certainly? What translational and reconstructive issues do you propose to address so that we may share your confidence and reject the reluctance of your source?

Nock is also horribly out of date. Cumont's Mithraism is dead. It never really existed as anything more than a modern construct.

Reading deficiency strikes again. I didn't cite Nock for the title issue, just the inscriptions. I suppose in your world the inscriptions get out of date as well. I'll see you next blunder.

spin

IamJoseph · 08-24-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Absolutely not. It begins with a fiction: there was never a Jew by that name, and there is no proof with regard the title christ - which means Redeemer. This is one redeemer who did not confront the Roman oppressors.

The race is already won. Its just still happening.

There was never a Jew with the name Jesus?

If you called out "HEY JESUS!" in Judea, I imagine you would get a response like so:

'HUH? WHAT'S WITH THE LATINO NAME, SCHMUCK!'

Roger Pearse · 08-25-2009, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sol Invictus is only a title. And it is used for Mithras. (See A.D. Nock, The Genius of Mithras, JRS, 27, inscription from Ostia, p.112, and a reconstructed inscription, p.109.)

A D Nock is considerably less confident than you on the use of the title for Mithras. He's even less inclined to think it is "only a title."

The paper is available online for anyone so inclined:

http://www.ecclesia.relig-museum.ru/Researches/nock.htm

If Nock is prepared to allow his renderings open to question, why are you so quick to state them so certainly? What translational and reconstructive issues do you propose to address so that we may share your confidence and reject the reluctance of your source?

Nock is also horribly out of date. Cumont's Mithraism is dead. It never really existed as anything more than a modern construct.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Thank you Rick very much for this; I was unaware that the paper was online, since otherwise I would have queried spin's comment further. The passage he referred to as if talking about a Mithraic celebration was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nock

Mithras had a character which was all his own. A man might hope to be delivered as Attis, Adonis, and Osiris were delivered; he might hope to be delivered by them; but we can hardly suppose him to have desired to be like them. On the other hand, a man could follow Mithras, not only as leader but also as exemplar. An Ostian dedication has the noteworthy Arase antistes del iubenis (sic) inconrupti Solis invicti Mithra[e] [27]. Mithras .iad from of old been god of justice and truth as well as god of light. In the Graeco-Roman world one feature of his story perhaps acquired a new importance. Unlike the gods of Greece and the gods of Rome as seen in the light of Greek ideas, and the gods of Syria and Egypt who had come into the picture, Mithras had no erotic mythology. It may be that the god thus drew to himself some of that sentiment glorifying sexual abstinence which is illustrated in the Greek novel (above all in Heliodorus) and in the Historia Augusta [28].

This has, in fact, nothing whatever to do with such a thing. I wish I'd known that before, very late on a hot and tiring day, I went to find an inscription and to work out what it said.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi · 08-25-2009, 05:17 AM

I voted 5, because I don't have data to support either extreme position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

It begins with a fiction: there was never a Jew by that name, and there is no proof with regard the title christ - which means Redeemer. This is one redeemer who did not confront the Roman oppressors.

How do you assert this with such certainty?

What about the hypothesis that the Jesus myth was an elaboration of the fable about the release of Barabbas by Pilate. I have forgotten the precise meaning, in Aramaic, of "Barabbas", Joe, isn't it:
Son of the Father?

Was Barabbas a "robber", i.e. ordinary thief, or a revolutionary, who had fought against the Roman occupation? Would the Governor of a Roman colony be involved in a decision involving pardon from capital punishment for a mere thief?

Was property theft in Palestine, two millenia before the present day, so uncommon, that the governor of this Roman colony was consulted on the punishment suitable for all captured prisoners?

View Poll Results: Jesus Christ at some point was alive on the earth.
1 Strongly Agree	16	13.01%
2	6	4.88%
3	16	13.01%
4 Neutral Don't Know	19	15.45%
5	18	14.63%
6	20	16.26%
7 Strongly Disagree	28	22.76%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-24-2009, 05:21 PM	#161
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I'm one of them but I actually didn't think there were that many. I like public polls better.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.