Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 02-23-2006, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

As others have noted, there is no exact match.

Some figures that may be relevant include :

MITHRAS - from Persian Mitra, a later Roman myth, many possible similarities, but the evidence is mixed and much of late (consider the name of the hat that the Pope wears.)

What were the similarities between Persian Mithra and Jesus? Roman Mithraism is not very useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Apollonius of Tyana - possibly or probably a real figure, travelling sage, performed miracles, attempted reforms, same period as Jesus, in Greece, Syria, Turkey.

Miracle workers and itinerant teachers were a dime a dozen those days so this is not very useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Osiris - ancient egyptian legend, god of underworld, rebirth, died and brought back.

Osiris died and remained a dead god and was depicted as such (mummified and belly-up). And he remained with the dead in the underwold. To make any meaningful arguments here one must confront J. Z. Smiths argument regarding the meaning of "resurrected". Osiris never dwelt among the living after his death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Dionysus - or Bacchus, Greek myth, born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, returned from the dead, transformed water into wine.

Epicurus is late so Dionysus is not useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Attis - Phrygian Myth, death-and-rebirth, castrated under a pine tree, but did not decay, reborn as pine tree.

One cant meaningfully comment on this because the main brains behind using Attis is Frazer, James G. Adonis, Attis, Osiris. University Books, 1967. And Walter Burkitt rebutts his arguments in Ancient Mystery Cults (1987). So one must first address Burkitts refutations first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Iasius - Greek myth, son of God, born of virgin mortal woman, died, but ascended to heaven, "healer".
Iasion

Iasus is equally late.

When I write "useful", I mean useful in arguing pagan influence on Christianity, which I presume is what makes these figures of interest.

I intend to one day walk to Tektonics and dismember every bogus argument Holding has made. The unfortunate thing is that Archaya and F & G themselves made serious blunders and engaged in shoddy scholarship.

Chris Weimer · 02-23-2006, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I intend to one day walk to Tektonics and dismember every bogus argument Holding has made. The unfortunate thing is that Archaya and F & G themselves made serious blunders and engaged in shoddy scholarship.

What's the point in even bothering with either Tektonics or Archaya S? Sides of the same coin to me - both are terribly in error and attract a loyal fanbase of noddleheads. I think it would be an absolute waste of time to even bother to address Tektonics or AS. Let's stick with real scholarship, shall we? Now, about that kata sarka...

Ted Hoffman · 02-23-2006, 02:54 AM

Chris, you are funny

. Anyways, leftist crackpot meets right-wing crackpot and what we get is a swirling cesspool of mud whose emications land on serious people caught in the middle.
If nobody refutes Holding, we will keep having underinformed buggers thinking the copycat saviour counterargument, as Holding has presented it, is an effective rebuttal. I just think there is need to provide a ready website/link to anyone who comes asking whether Holding is right without having to rehash the arguments.
Now, kata sarka has been beaten to death already. Last time I remember, someone was imagining a scholars unstated response and using it to discredit Carrier's argument. It shows you the straws have been grasped and there is nothing more to grasp.
I remember GDon claiming he was writing something on it - when is it coming out?

Chris Weimer · 02-23-2006, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Now, kata sarka has been beaten to death already. Last time I remember, someone was imagining a scholars unstated response and using it to discredit Carrier's argument. It shows you the straws have been grasped and there is nothing more to grasp.

I think we can differentiate between people. Besides, Carrier isn't even in full support of Doherty, so it's pointless to debate Carrier when we can get to the heart of the matter. HOWEVER, this is for a different thread.

Quote:

I remember GDon claiming he was writing something on it - when is it coming out?

No idea. You'll have to ask GDon about this. I also thought about mentioning it on my blog, but I don't think it's necessary. I need to finish up educating my readers on the rest of the HJ quest (you ought to read it sometime).

The Colourful Jester · 02-23-2006, 03:13 AM

By the title, I would have said Elvis.

Chris Weimer · 02-23-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Colourful Jester

By the title, I would have said Elvis.

That would be post-dating. But amazingly enough, their lives are remarkably similar. Huge followers until they died worthlessly and then the followers imagined their resurrection and whitewashed their past.

ziffel · 02-23-2006, 06:19 AM

I am new to this, so is it the case then that you guys (Mr Hoffman, Mr Weimer) are saying that there are no solid examples of a single figure that the Christ legend could've been drawn from?

What do you believe about the claims of Jesus' attributes, and where they came from? Was it a collection of sources, like Iasion seems to suggest above?

My purpose here is that I'm collecting information from many different areas for establishing my own personal case against the judeo-christian world view. I came from, and was heavily indoctrinated in that view, and now I want to erase it completely

RidingtheScree · 02-23-2006, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that this Mithras stuff is all unsound. It relies on assertions by Franz Cumont in the conclusions section of Textes et Monumentes. While it was a great compilation in its day -- the beginning of scientific Mithras study -- it is now a century old and scholars have largely rejected it. In particular his identification of Persian Mitra with Roman Mithras does not explain the lack of iconographic archaeology for Mithras (especially the Mithraea) in Persia.

All the literary texts and archaeology for Mithras date to 80AD and later. Only one -- Plutarch's Life of Pompey -- suggests that Mithras was known before then, and I understand from Manfred Clauss, The Roman cult of Mithras, that the archaeology points so suggestively to Rome as the origin of the cult ca. 50-60 AD that scholars tend to think Plutarch got confused with Perseus.

I have found, from experience, that you should presume any statement about Mithras-as-image-of-Christ made online is nonsense unless it gives a specific reference to the ancient source on which it is based, and even then, you need to be wary. The classic example are supposed 'quotes' which really come from medieval Persian literature (and so are based on Christianity!).

After discovering this, I made a collection of every passage in ancient literature known to me which mentions Mithras, even in passing. It is here and includes a nice photograph of a relief from the Museo Nazionale in Rome which shows how the Mithraic reliefs were originally coloured.

From this, if I recall correctly, I find that the only real parallel is limited to the fact that both Christianity and Mithraism had ritual meals (although Mithras seems to have had seven such, with different ingredients, and derives such from mystery religions). But as Clauss says, such things originate in the common environment in which both arose, rather than being copied one from another. It's worth bearing in mind that Mithras was syncretistic (like all paganism) and would adopt material from others, while Christianity notoriously was not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

did you read the rest of my post?

I happen to think that mithras has had some impact on Jesus, but that I do not know if he is Jesus.

I said mean't a relationship is well substantiated, not a congruent entity.

edit, however, I trust some of the earlier crap and say he is, although I do not know

I have a conviction that he is, but I do not know,

I do feel I know, however, that he makes up part of the Jesus myth...

RidingtheScree · 02-23-2006, 06:34 AM

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebus is just a weakness class leader... a preist. Every preist is a Jesus. Jesus is a weak conceptual character who hates the life-affirming, the intelligent and the independent. Who is a professional denier of life, like any priest. He is a prime example in that he kills himself (sacrifices himself in the biblical interpretation, not put to death because he is the son of God and can choose, remember that a historical interpretation is only a illogical stripping down of the religious stupidity) in denying "material" life and in embracing fantasy worlds. He kills himself, embracing death and nothingness, the ultimate denial of life.

He is the role model for all priests.

Mithras is more of a warrior, more life-affirming.

They only bear the relation of using some of the same god-attributes.

jjramsey · 02-23-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

What's the point in even bothering with either Tektonics or Archaya S? Sides of the same coin to me

I wouldn't go that far. Tektonics, for all its faults, is pretty good at debunking the "low end" skeptics (and I use the term "skeptic" loosely here) like Acharya S, and I'd say that a good sign that a counterapologetic argument is a good one is when Holding can't put up a good defense against it or glosses over a crucial point in it. His material is about as reliable as much of the stuff hosted on Infidels.org, and for about the same reasons. (If you aren' t sure whether that's a compliment or an insult, the answer is yes.

)

Unfortunately, it's usually the Christian apologists who end up debunking the low-end skeptics rather than the scholars. The apologists are afraid that these low-enders will seduce some of the flock, so they go through the trouble of doing the library research to deal with the counterarguments, while the real Biblical scholars either are unaware of the low-enders or feel that dealing with them is a waste of time.

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

02-23-2006, 02:54 AM	#13
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Chris, you are funny . Anyways, leftist crackpot meets right-wing crackpot and what we get is a swirling cesspool of mud whose emications land on serious people caught in the middle. If nobody refutes Holding, we will keep having underinformed buggers thinking the copycat saviour counterargument, as Holding has presented it, is an effective rebuttal. I just think there is need to provide a ready website/link to anyone who comes asking whether Holding is right without having to rehash the arguments. Now, kata sarka has been beaten to death already. Last time I remember, someone was imagining a scholars unstated response and using it to discredit Carrier's argument. It shows you the straws have been grasped and there is nothing more to grasp. I remember GDon claiming he was writing something on it - when is it coming out?

02-23-2006, 03:13 AM	#15
The Colourful Jester Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 626	By the title, I would have said Elvis.

02-23-2006, 06:19 AM	#17
ziffel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Florida east coast, near Daytona Posts: 4,969	I am new to this, so is it the case then that you guys (Mr Hoffman, Mr Weimer) are saying that there are no solid examples of a single figure that the Christ legend could've been drawn from? What do you believe about the claims of Jesus' attributes, and where they came from? Was it a collection of sources, like Iasion seems to suggest above? My purpose here is that I'm collecting information from many different areas for establishing my own personal case against the judeo-christian world view. I came from, and was heavily indoctrinated in that view, and now I want to erase it completely

02-23-2006, 06:34 AM	#19
RidingtheScree Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts, United States of America Posts: 583	Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebus is just a weakness class leader... a preist. Every preist is a Jesus. Jesus is a weak conceptual character who hates the life-affirming, the intelligent and the independent. Who is a professional denier of life, like any priest. He is a prime example in that he kills himself (sacrifices himself in the biblical interpretation, not put to death because he is the son of God and can choose, remember that a historical interpretation is only a illogical stripping down of the religious stupidity) in denying "material" life and in embracing fantasy worlds. He kills himself, embracing death and nothingness, the ultimate denial of life. He is the role model for all priests. Mithras is more of a warrior, more life-affirming. They only bear the relation of using some of the same god-attributes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.