Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-27-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A very strange source - outdated, and contains an egregious error based on a lack of knowledge of the Greek word ektrwma.

What was the lack of knowledge you refer to out of curiousity? The fact that as the "w" sound (represented at one time by the greek letter wau) died out in early greek, and therefore even by the time of Attic g[r]eek (let alone koine) no greek word would be transliterated ektrwma?

'w' represents omega in beta code, for those of us too lazy to use a Greek keyboard.

The word έκτρωμα or ektrwma means abortion, in the sense of miscarriage. (It has some symbolic significance to gnostics, which you can read about in Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G. R. S. Mead and this archived thread)

In 1 Cor 15:8, Paul refers to himself as an 'ektrwma' in the list of appearances. This is translated as

and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

"Untimely born" is a euphemism for abortion, in which the fetus is expelled too early - before being fully formed. But Durant assumed that Paul regretted having been born too late to meet Jesus in person. This verse was part of Durant's proof that Paul thought that Jesus was a real human.

This is the sort of "evidence" that people have relied on to prove that there was a historical Jesus.

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

it was the worst regional flood since the ice age in the whole area dealing with people who migrated to Israel, and originates exactly where noahs story is said to. This was a devistating flood and loss of life was extreme due to the early civilizations that set up next to the river and had no idea what a 5000 year flood could do.

Outhouse, it's well known that the flood stories in the Bible are dependent on earlier traditions. What can't be shown with any surety is which of the many floods in the middle east drove the development of the general flood legend there. Large floods are common, and some scholars argue that it was the flooding of the Black Sea that sparked the development of the myth. Even within Mesopotamia archaeology there is disagreement. You cite Woolley and Mallowan from the 1920s and 30s. By the 1960s Mallowan was rethinking the whole thing (see his 1964 paper on it).

It would be nice if things fell into nice neat holes but it doesn't work that way in real life.

Vorkosigan

except for one problem.

there were not many floods of this magnitude, there is only the one.

The floods on the Euphrates have all been logged.

the flood im taking about was the worst flood the area has seen since the ice age. Nothing even compares to the magnitude of the 2900 BC flood.

Now its a fact the Mesopotamian legends started with this flood, the Ziusudra epic has the historicity. It describes a 6 day thunderstorm that overflowed the banks of a already swollen Euphrates river. the man in their legend also has historicity and was a real person named in the kings list.

All of the other flood explanations fall short, the BSF is the worst and falls in line with the ending of the ice age, long before any civilizations existed. No oral tradition goes that far back.

On a side note, im not citing anyone, its my own research but this guy has taught me the most.

http://noahs-ark-flood.com/

Toto · 02-27-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Seriously - do you know how many people have come here and preached that mainstream scholars reject mythcism and have not been able to score a point?

Ah but its on you to prove he was a mythical charactor, and so far everyone who has tried lacks education on the subject and has failed.

Price has given the best rebuttle and his arguement is so weak I busted it.

We have yet to see evidence of that.

Quote:

Doherty isnt even a scholar is he??

He has a degree in classics, but no academic appointment.

Quote:

No matter how you slice it, there is more evidence for a HJ then romans creating a myth from nothing.

....

There's not a lot of evidence for either scenario, but most mythicists don't blame the Romans for creating the myth.

steve_bnk · 02-27-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi steve_bnk,

While there are Western motifs in "Star Wars," more directly, it came from George Lucas' desire to remake "Space Soldiers," the first 1934 Flash Gordon serial.
Perhaps the largest historical event that influenced Space Soldiers was the Boxer Rebellion, when the Chinese rose up in 1898 and tried to throw out the imperialist western powers that had established spheres of influence in their country. The imperialist powers portrayed this as "The Yellow Peril" forecasting that if the fanatical Boxers won in China, they would invade and enslave America and Europe. This was simply attributing to the Boxers what the Western Powers of the United States and Europe had already done to China.
In any case, the leading villain in Space Soldiers, Ming the Merciless, was based on the evil Fu Manchu character which developed out of Yellow Peril propaganda and first appeared in a serial The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu in 1912, by Sax Rohmer, published by William Randolph Hearst in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

So we can say that Star Wars is based on a fiction (Space Soldiers) which is based partly on a fiction (Fu Manchu) which is based on historical prediction/propaganda/fantasy projection (Yellow Peril Propaganda), which is based on an historical event (The Boxer Rebellion)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Star Wars was a scifi remake of the good old western cowboy movies, which in turn were mythical versions of the real west.

Lucas went on record saying it was the low tech Vietnamese vs the technically stronger Americans as an inspiration.

As to weterns, nncle/aunt of orphan Luke woring the family farm get killed by the evil land barons.

Luke hooks up with retired sheriff(OB1) who teaches Luke to fight. Luke/OB1 hook up with grey good/bad gunslinger outlaw Han Solo and his Native American sidekick Chewbacca.

The outmatched farmers join together to fight. Numerous chase scenes/gun fights.

In the end Han chooses truth, justice and rightiousness over greed, and gets the girl. Land barons defeated, order and justice restored, and peace reigns in the valley...sigh.

Before the Buck Rodgers serial there was the western serials.

You can google Gilgamesh/flood and see how the orioginal tale was adpted by successive generations.

My point is to understand how the JC myth evolved, one only has to look at contemporay history.

The developemnt of the vampire tale up through the most recent movies is a good example of how human creativity tales one small past story with roots in legends to the modern stories.

Look at crop circles, ghosts, and alien abductions.

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Ah but its on you to prove he was a mythical charactor, and so far everyone who has tried lacks education on the subject and has failed.

Price has given the best rebuttle and his arguement is so weak I busted it.

Doherty isnt even a scholar is he??

No matter how you slice it, there is more evidence for a HJ then romans creating a myth from nothing.

Mythers cannot agree on how the legend started and have not even built a decent replacement hypothesis that makes sense, they have created a straw house with a wolf outside called scholarship's

The fact roman's hellenistic influence on the story create's myth all on its own, does not discredit the core.

There is no evidence for an HJ, no coorborating contemporary accounts or Roman records. To me it makes more sense that there was an historical charater on which the tale began, but that is an opnion.

Buddhists have the same problem, no historical coorboration. When I raised the question on the eastern forum some time ago there was some suprise when some looked for validation and there was none. They had assumned it was there.

There is no way to know how much of what became Buddhist theology can be attributed to a single source. As with a possible HJ in the numerous wandering Jewish mystics, in India there would have been no lack of wandering mystics which could have been the base of the story.

Thwe gospels plus acts take the form of a modified Greek action/adventure tale of the times. The gospels were promotiional not theological, written as a script to talk to when adressing potential converts.

all good points bud.

But as with most historical figures, there is no concrete proof, but there is plenty of evidence. All pointing to a teacher/healer of judaism put on a cross by romans

We know before the fall of the temple exactly when jesus us said to live, many branches of judaism were splitting off, more so then normal.

They were all unhappy about the roman infection to the jewish government.

Romans were their enemies, and what are we left with? A roman version of jesus and his legend that took off after his death due to Paul.

heres some facts

there was a man named jesus in Galilee, there were many.

Unique parables from this time period began to circulate

there were movements in judaism away from roman infected government. there had been long before and after jesus.

there were followers of this reform movement.

There were leaders of this reform movement.

There were martyrs in some of these movement's.

there is no good reason a HJ did not exist

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

We have yet to see evidence of that.

earlier in the thread [or another] I gave my rebuttle to his 3 pillars

Quote:

There's not a lot of evidence for either scenario, but most mythicists don't blame the Romans for creating the myth.

Theres alot of evidence for a HJ, its why most scholar dont debate a HJ, only the level of his historicity.

that would be a serious mistake on their part. Romans are responsible for the foundation of the NT. Paul was a roman born and wrote a hellenistic version of the oral legends floating around. Gmarks author wrote to a roman audience.

Toto · 02-27-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

We have yet to see evidence of that.

earlier in the thread [or another] I gave my rebuttle to his 3 pillars

The normal procedure when you want to claim such a victory is: first of all, you provide a link to where Price announced his "three pillars" and then you outline your rebuttal, using full sentences and providing links or citations for your sources. Then you would email this to Price for his response, and see if you can answer his objections.

I don't recall that you actually did any part of this.

There are a lot of people claiming victory in one debate or another on the internet. These claims are worthless.

Quote:

...

Theres a lot of evidence for a HJ, its why most scholar dont debate a HJ, only the level of his historicity.

I know that this is not the case. There is not a lot of evidence, and scholars avoid the entire question of historicity.

Quote:

that would be a serious mistake on their part. Romans are responsible for the foundation of the NT. Paul was a roman born and wrote a hellenistic version of the oral legends floating around. Gmarks author wrote to a roman audience.

Paul was not Roman born. He claimed to be a Roman citizen, and he wrote what his inspiration told him, not oral legends that were floating around.

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

and he wrote what his inspiration told him, not oral legends that were floating around.

you have what to base this on???

Quote:

These claims are worthless.

as are all the MJ hypothesis that none of the M class agree on.

Quote:

and scholars avoid the entire question of historicity.

Not even accurate

many scholars claim Josephas and Paul are all they need, while others use later sources are being relevant.

If anything scholars recognize there is no real need to debate the historicity with the vast majority of scholars and historians finding enough evidence to back a HJ

LegionOnomaMoi · 02-27-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

'w' represents omega in beta code, for those of us too lazy to use a Greek keyboard.

Even for those of us too lazy to use a greek keyboard, there are transliteration standards. Hence ektroma, not ektwma.

Quote:

The word έκτρωμα or ektrwma means abortion, in the sense of miscarriage. (It has some symbolic significance to gnostics, which you can read about in Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G. R. S. Mead and this archived thread)

Why would I read about gnostics in a publication written before the Nag Hammadi find? More importantly, as both the LSJ and BDAG include "untimely" as a possible meaing, why would I necessarily accept the following interpretation:

Quote:

In 1 Cor 15:8, Paul refers to himself as an 'ektrwma' in the list of appearances. This is translated as

and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

"Untimely born" is a euphemism for abortion, in which the fetus is expelled too early - before being fully formed. But Durant assumed that Paul regretted having been born too late to meet Jesus in person. This verse was part of Durant's proof that Paul thought that Jesus was a real human.

ektroma can mean anything from a late birth (i.e., in which the fetus was expelled to late), to an insult. Hence interpretations of Paul's use range from him addressing an insult to Durant's interpretation of being born too late.

Paul clearly wasn't aborted. So either he is obviously either using the term metaphorically or using another sense of the word which already metaphorically extends the term's meaning "miscarriage/untimely birth." Probably he means "abomination" or something similar (in that he is in someway flawed), but it's certainly possible he meant "born at the wrong time."

steve_bnk · 02-27-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

and he wrote what his inspiration told him, not oral legends that were floating around.

you have what to base this on???

as are all the MJ hypothesis that none of the M class agree on.

Quote:

and scholars avoid the entire question of historicity.

Not even accurate

many scholars claim Josephas and Paul are all they need, while others use later sources are being relevant.

If anything scholars recognize there is no real need to debate the historicity with the vast majority of scholars and historians finding enough evidence to back a HJ

What evidence beyond writers after the events relating what could only have been hearsay?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.