Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 02-15-2009, 02:20 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Rubbish.
Most people around here are not much different.

I don't agree.
I see many people here who argue based on evidence and reason, and actually answer questions, and deal with weaknesses in their arguments.
aa5874 does none of that, he just repeats his preaching of the same claims with carefully placed bold words over and over. With no change to his preaching in years, no matter what holes are found in his claims.

Kapyong

ApostateAbe · 02-15-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I didn't know that the bread and wine thing is considered Dionysian. The last supper story I figured would be unremarkable enough to have originated with Jesus.

Well there is a story of Dionysos that involves him being ripped apart and then returning to life and, like with anything involving Dionysos, that would be linked with wine. I'm probably not the best person to consider whether it is right to tie it in with the last supper, but it is certainly being considered by some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysu...h_Christianity

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Who would be motivated to invent the Jesus story? Who knew of the earlier proposed myths? That sort of thing.

Wouldn't the myths of Dionysos and the beliefs about a potential messiah be common knowledge to pretty much everyone? Doesn't that then mean that the Jesus myth could have been developed by pretty much anyone?

If a profile of the originator or the originators can be built from information like that, then that is a step in the right direction. It can be tested with critical analysis and investigation and it can be confirmed or falsified. I think it would be interesting to look at original writings and directly compare Dionysus with Jesus. If the similarities are significant, then there could be a connection. Or the similiarities could be merely coincidental.

ApostateAbe · 02-15-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Rubbish.
Most people around here are not much different.

I don't agree.
I see many people here who argue based on evidence and reason, and actually answer questions, and deal with weaknesses in their arguments.
aa5874 does none of that, he just repeats his preaching of the same claims with carefully placed bold words over and over. With no change to his preaching in years, no matter what holes are found in his claims.

Kapyong

Yeah, guys like that, they sort of degrade the quality of conversation, and the best thing to do is to either ignore them or put little time into engaging with them. Not much else you can do.

fatpie42 · 02-15-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If a profile of the originator or the originators can be built from information like that, then that is a step in the right direction. It can be tested with critical analysis and investigation and it can be confirmed or falsified. I think it would be interesting to look at original writings and directly compare Dionysus with Jesus. If the similarities are significant, then there could be a connection. Or the similiarities could be merely coincidental.

Where it becomes problematic is that we have no way of knowing whether Dionysus formed the Jesus myth or whether it was a later influence. For example, from the same article I linked to before:

Quote:

Peter Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, is intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.

fatpie42 · 02-15-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Another clue to show that Jesus of the NT was purely mythical was the introduction of Marcion's Jesus, the phantom, the imaginary Jesus.

What difference do Marcion's ideas in the middle of the 2nd century have to do with the origin of the Jesus myth?

ApostateAbe · 02-15-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If a profile of the originator or the originators can be built from information like that, then that is a step in the right direction. It can be tested with critical analysis and investigation and it can be confirmed or falsified. I think it would be interesting to look at original writings and directly compare Dionysus with Jesus. If the similarities are significant, then there could be a connection. Or the similiarities could be merely coincidental.

Where it becomes problematic is that we have no way of knowing whether Dionysus formed the Jesus myth or whether it was a later influence. For example, from the same article I linked to before:

Quote:

Peter Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, is intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.

Yeah, it may be very difficult to prove even if it were true. Dionysus isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament as far as I am aware. It is an interesting pet theory, anyway.

fatpie42 · 02-15-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, it may be very difficult to prove even if it were true. Dionysus isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament as far as I am aware.

Well if Jesus was a re-imagining of the messiah figure based on the ideas surrounding the worship of Dionysus, you wouldn't expect Dionysus to be mentioned. What you might expect, however, is that some of the stories would overlap in their content and this, it seems, actually is the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is an interesting pet theory, anyway.

Yeah well it's not perfect, I'll admit, but I think it's got more promise than most explanations. In any case, Dionysus is fascinating anyway. I do wonder however, whether Dionysus wasn't also based on a real person? There's about as much reason to suppose. That's another thing which makes me a bit hostile to 'historical Jesus' theories: why is Jesus so blooming important that we must 'presume' his historicity when there are so many other figures for whom we take for granted their mythical origins?

Anyway here's a nice summary concerning Dionysus which you might find intriguing if you aren't already hugely familiar with him:
http://home.scarlet.be/mauk.haemers/...s/dionysus.htm

Petergdi · 02-15-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Where it becomes problematic is that we have no way of knowing whether Dionysus formed the Jesus myth or whether it was a later influence. For example, from the same article I linked to before:

Quote:

Peter Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, is intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.

In order to make such a case even slightly convincing, you would have to show a clearly better match than the more obvious John the Baptist vs Jesus comparison.

John baptises with water, Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit.

John's disciples fast, Jesus's disciples eat and drink while the bridegroom is with them.

These things can be seen easily in the story of the Wedding at Cana.

Peter.

aa5874 · 02-15-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Another clue to show that Jesus of the NT was purely mythical was the introduction of Marcion's Jesus, the phantom, the imaginary Jesus.

What difference do Marcion's ideas in the middle of the 2nd century have to do with the origin of the Jesus myth?

Are you impling that only a person who lived at the same time of the supposed Jesus can write about the creature.

Marcion's claim about Jesus that he was imaginary is an indication that Jesus was mythical or such admission helps to compound the case that Jesus was a myth.

aa5874 · 02-15-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

aa5874, it might be better for you to lay off the hyperbole. I know we have already discussed the evidence, several times. It is not that there is no evidence. It is that you don't accept the evidence. If a large host of educated critical scholars accepts a set of evidences, and you don't, then maybe you ought to adjust your claim.
Wrong: There is no evidence.
Right: The evidence is not strong enough for me.

Abe -
aa5874 has been preaching exactly the same claims here for years. He is impervious to reason.

Kapyong

And ApostateAbe has been preaching his Jesus without one single piece of historical evidence.

His Jesus is based on the assumption that it can be assumed Jesus did make make an assumed prophecy that did not come true.

From 2002 until today, he has not shown that his assumtption can be realised with historical evidence.

He has refused to accept that the so-called failed prophecy could have been fabricated by the author himself.

He has refused to show that his JESUS did exist only as human.

He has refused to accept that the church writers, the NT and non-canonised writings presented Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, truly born without sexual union, was truly resurrected and ascended.

ApostateAbe cannot explain why Jesus, being just a man and executed for blasphemy, would be worshipped by the Jews, or why people would think that a human being would come back to earth a second time for dead believers.

ApostateAbe cannot show that anything in the NT with respect to Jesus is historical.

In the NT, Jesus was crucified yet the very same authors claimed he rose from the dead.

ApostateAbe cannot say when his Jesus died unless he makes an assumption.

All things without historical evidence and described as myths can be reasonable considered to be myths, and Jesus of the NT is one of them.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.