Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Butters · 03-12-2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

So, we're supposed to be bothered by all this? Oops.

A closer look at the full story behind any of the aforementioned dieties is all you need to see that none of them conform to the same mold. Rather than the exact same story with a few slight differences, it seems to me more like different stories with a few weird coincidences. The same was as with the Enuma Elish when you compare it to the account of creation in Genesis
Weird coincidences happen all the time. Why get your panties in a bunch about it? Especially when the coming of Christ had been foretold long beforehand and there was plenty of time for these ideas to get around.

Very typical Catholic answer!

They aren’t similar, and even though We don’t believe in coincidence, coincidences happen, and God was foretelling the coming of Jesus anyway. Cover all those bases.

I’ve never heard anyone compare Enuma Elish with Genesis, but the story of Gilgamish is quite similar to the story of Noah. Not that any of that matters when talking about the N.T.

What’s really funny is I know Fundies that will readily admit that the CATHOLIC religion if warmed over paganism. They claim that Constantine took over “Christianity” and mixed it with paganism. The first saints were pagan gods. The version of Mary thay present is a goddess. Etc. Etc. That’s why they don’t consider Catholics “true” Christians.

ziffel · 03-12-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire

So, we're supposed to be bothered by all this? Oops.

A closer look at the full story behind any of the aforementioned dieties is all you need to see that none of them conform to the same mold. Rather than the exact same story with a few slight differences, it seems to me more like different stories with a few weird coincidences. The same was as with the Enuma Elish when you compare it to the account of creation in Genesis.

Weird coincidences happen all the time. Why get your panties in a bunch about it? Especially when the coming of Christ had been foretold long beforehand and there was plenty of time for these ideas to get around.

Heh.

Osiris, Dionysis, and Mithras were various cultures' version of basically the same dying & resurrecting savior 'godman'. Osiris' story goes back to around 4000BC, when I doubt the 'coming of Christ' was being foretold, especially in such detail.

Even if the story parts were dispersed, that doesn't preclude that early Christians (perhaps the gnostics) were borrowing components of the story from each.

You dismiss them as "weird coincidences", but that's an awful lot of coincidences, especially ones that match almost ver batim. Sound reason would say that the simpler and most likely answer is that the story components were plagiarized from prior cultures, rather than prior cultures plagiarizing from as yet non-existant events being handed down from the little known Jewish culture!

Spitfire · 03-12-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butters

Very typical Catholic answer!

Ermmmm... thank you. I think.

Quote:

They aren’t similar, and even though We don’t believe in coincidence, coincidences happen, and God was foretelling the coming of Jesus anyway. Cover all those bases.

I don't believe that nothing is coincidental. I just don't believe that everything is ultimately coincidental.

Quote:

What’s really funny is I know Fundies that will readily admit that the CATHOLIC religion if warmed over paganism. They claim that Constantine took over “Christianity” and mixed it with paganism. The first saints were pagan gods. The version of Mary thay present is a goddess. Etc. Etc. That’s why they don’t consider Catholics “true” Christians.

"Admit?" Surely you mean "accuse." They accuse lots of people of lots of things, as you've probably noticed. Haven't you also heard how we forbid people to read the Bible and we're actually a Satanic cult?

Then again, maybe they're right..... wahahahahahahaha!!! :Cheeky:

Spitfire · 03-12-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

Osiris, Dionysis, and Mithras were various cultures' version of basically the same dying & resurrecting savior 'godman'. Osiris' story goes back to around 4000BC, when I doubt the 'coming of Christ' was being foretold, especially in such detail.

Osiris is also a giant centipede.

Jobar · 03-12-2006, 07:59 AM

Thanks, Yahzi. I didn't doubt that it was true, you know- but it's good to have Barna backing up what we observe here regularly! Sort of scary to think that we get the more informed believers coming to II, isn't it?

Yahzi · 03-12-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

...Personally I think there's more to consider like the context in which they were written.

Context does not change truth. Jesus either got nailed to a piece of wood, or he didn't. No amount of cultural context can change that simple narrative of actual event.

Quote:

It isn't reasonable nowadays but the approach to writing history then had less to do with an objective accounting of the facts then imparting a message through the telling of it.

In other words, you are admitting it is not true.

Quote:

I think it's most reasonable to assume the writers were telling stories that were circulating in the early christian communites and inserting their own ideas and theology.

Is there any reason to think those circulating stories weren't made up by someone else?

I keep labeling the Bible as fiction, and you keep saying, "Sure, it's fiction for you." Do you understand why this is an unsatisfactory response?

If your position is that the Bible is pure fiction, then please state so unambigously. On the other hand, if you think it contains truth, please explain how you distinguish between the truth and the fiction.

Yahzi · 03-12-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

I didn't doubt that it was true,

You should have. I didn't supply a source. No taking it easy on me just because I am an atheist.

Quote:

Sort of scary to think that we get the more informed believers coming to II, isn't it?

I guess. But it's also comforting to think that the vast majority of Americans don't realize how stupid Xianity is, and therefore might change their mind once presented with the facts. Kind of like racism, actually: most people had never really thought about it until MLK.

Alethias · 03-12-2006, 10:18 AM

This thread deals with Jesus Myth/Historicity stuff. I believe BC&H is a better home for it, so off ye go!

Whoosh!

Sword of Truth, GRD Moderator

jjramsey · 03-12-2006, 10:56 AM

GakuseiDon's review of The God Who Wasn't There touches on several points in the OP, including the "diabolical mimicry" stuff, so here's the link:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...e_analysis.htm

I did a review of The Jesus Mysteries on SkepticWiki. I didn't go through everything, but it was clear from it that several times, there was a discrepancy between what Freke and Gandy said and what their supporting cites actually said. Here is what I would say is the most egregious example of misquoting that I saw:

Quote:

On the next page, 52, Freke and Gandy attempt to offer more direct evidence that Dionysus was crucified.

It seems incredible that Osiris-Dionysus could have been portrayed as meeting the exact same death as Jesus, but this is what the evidence suggests. The Church father Arnobius is scandalized that in the Mysteries of Dionysus initiates passed around a holy cross.[Superscript for endnote 215] ...

(As previously, superscripts in the above quote are the endnote numbers, preserved as they are in the text of The Jesus Mysteries.)

Endnote 215 reads, "Arnobius, Against the Gentiles, 2.344, quoted in Dunlap, S. F. (1866), 106...." In vain, however, will one find Against the Gentiles 2.344. Here, Freke and Gandy misquote their source, Sod: The Mysteries of Adoni by S. F. Dunlap, which reads, "Arnobius is scandalized at the Golden Serpent, and the 'handled Cross' in the Mysteries of Bacchus at Alimunt in the Athenian territory.--Arnob. adv. Gentes; Nork, Bibl. Mythol., II. 344; see Spirit-Hist., 190. [emphasis original] Now there are two ways in which Freke and Gandy misquote their source. First, their source is not clearly describing initiates of Dionysus passing around a holy cross. Second, the reference "II. 344" is not of Arnobius' work Against the Gentiles (or Adversus Gentes in the Latin) but of the book abbreviated as Bibl. Mythol. This becomes clear from the Preface of Sod: The Mysteries of Adoni, which on page v. reads, "Besides giving the reference from which an extract has been taken, we have usually added other interesting references; connecting them by semi-colons immediately after the first authority [emphasis original]." It turns out, too, that this source is itself unreliable. This is what Arnobius really had to say about the mysteries at Alimunt:

I confess that I have long been hesitating, looking on every side, shuffling, doubling Tellene perplexities; while I am ashamed to mention those Alimontian mysteries in which Greece erects phalli in honour of father Bacchus, and the whole district is covered with images of men's fascina. The meaning of this is obscure perhaps, and it is asked why it is done. Whoever is ignorant of this, let him learn, and, wondering at what is so important, ever keep it with reverent care in a pure heart. While Liber [a.k.a. Dionysus], born at Nysa, and son of Semele, was still among men, the story goes, he wished to become acquainted with the shades below, and to inquire into what went on in Tartarus; but this wish was hindered by some difficulties, because, from ignorance of the route, he did not know by what way to go and proceed. One Prosumnus starts up, a base lover of the god, and a fellow too prone to wicked lusts, who promises to point out the gate of Dis, and the approaches to Acheron, if the god will gratify him, and suffer uxorias voluptates ex se carpi. The god, without reluctance, swears to put himself in his power and at his disposal, but only immediately on his return from the lower regions, having obtained his wish and desire. Prostmmus politely tells him the way, and sets him on the very threshold of the lower regions. In the meantime, while Liber is inspecting and examining carefully Styx, Cerberus, the Furies, and all other things, the informer passed from the number of the living, and was buried according to the manner of men. Evius comes up froth the lower regions, and learns that his guide is dead. But that he might fulfil his promise, and free himself from the obligation of his oath, he goes to the place of the funeral, and -"ficorum ex arbore ramum validissimum praesecans dolat, runcinat, levigat et humani speciem fabricatur in penis, figit super aggerem tumuli, et postica ex parte nudatus accedit, subsidit, insidit. Lascivia deinde surientis assumptâ, huc atque illuc clunes torquet et meditatur ab ligno pati quod jamdudum in veritate promiserat." Adversus Gentes, 5.28

Yahzi · 03-12-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Failing that, they make up crazy shit that completely contradicts what they said 5 minutes ago, and when you call them on it, complain that you're too rude to talk to.

Like, for instance:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...13#post2477513

Dang, I'm good.

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

03-12-2006, 07:59 AM	#15
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Thanks, Yahzi. I didn't doubt that it was true, you know- but it's good to have Barna backing up what we observe here regularly! Sort of scary to think that we get the more informed believers coming to II, isn't it?

03-12-2006, 10:18 AM	#18
Alethias Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 7,198	This thread deals with Jesus Myth/Historicity stuff. I believe BC&H is a better home for it, so off ye go! Whoosh! Sword of Truth, GRD Moderator

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.