ApostateAbe

Yeah, Christianity was seen as a bizarre variation of Judaism at the time, which it was. All relevant scholars (even all relevant pseudo-scholars including Earl Doherty) always use the word "pagan" in a way that is non-derogatory, and they often use that word. The word is shorthand to refer to the diverse swath of religions and mythical systems surrounding Christianity that was neither Christian nor Jewish.

Clivedurdle

Then there should be a general ban against derogatory comments about people who say barbar and similar.

Possibly a core issue is about how one group says they have the truth and everyone else doesn't?

This trait has probably psychological roots in the feelings of disgust. I am holy, or chosen, or Jesus has saved me or Mohammed is his prophet and everyone else is filthy or pagan.

And then maybe we can actually discuss myth and story and emotion and hope and fears.

MrMacSon

I agree understanding is important; as is appraisal and other higher thinking concepts. Trying to over-understand myths, and over-appraise ancient peoples' understanding of myths of their time, seems counter-productive.

ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I would like to move on to the next citation in Appendix 6 of The Jesus Puzzle. It is a set of quotations from Julian the Emperor's Oration 5: Hymn to the Mother of the Gods. I have provided the full quotation below, from the translation at http://www.esotericonline.net/group/...er-of-the-gods.

Accordingly, since for the forms embodied in matter a wholly immaterial cause has been assigned, which leads these forms under the hand of the third creator -- who for us is the lord and father not only of these forms but also of the visible fifth substance -- from that creator we distinguish Attis, the cause which descends even unto matter, and we believe that Attis or Gallus is a god of generative powers. Of him the myth relates that, after being exposed at birth near the eddying stream of the river Gallus, he grew up like a flower, and when he had grown to be fair and tall, he was beloved by the Mother of the Gods. And she entrusted all things to him, and moreover set on his head the starry cap. But if our visible sky covers the crown of Attis, must one not interpret the river Gallus as the Milky Way? For it is there, they say, that the substance which is subject to change mingles with the passionless revolving sphere of the fifth substance. Only as far as this did the Mother of the Gods permit this fair intellectual god Attis, who resembles the sun's rays, to leap and dance. But when he passed beyond this limit and came even to the lowest region, the myth said that he had descended into the cave, and had' wedded the nymph. And the nymph is to be interpreted as the dampness of matter; though the myth does not here mean matter itself, but the lowest immaterial cause which subsists prior to matter. indeed Heracleitus also says: "It is death to souls to become wet." We mean therefore that this Gallus, the intellectual god, the connecting link between forms embodied in matter beneath the region of the moon, is united with the cause that is set over matter, but not in the sense that one sex is united with another, but like an element that is gathered to itself.

Am I correct in presuming that this passage--"...embodied in matter beneath the region of the moon..."--represents the primary piece of evidence that the ancient mystery cults believed in a "sub-lunar" world of myth? I would interpret the phrase as referring to the physical Earth, composed of the four elements, and everything above the Moon would be composed of the fifth substance (Aristotle's aether). The Milky Way would be seen by the ancients as being above the moon, not below the moon, and therefore above the moon is where Julian would place the River Gallus. I know there is other evidence that would be in favor of your theory, but maybe you can find something wrong with my interpretation of this particular passage?

Horatio Parker

What does of any of this have to do with singular vs plural worlds?

ApostateAbe

Well, I think it is just a matter of a difference of vocabulary between a field of academia and the public, which often causes a lot of misunderstandings between the two communities. I have noticed that Bart Ehrman in his writings to lay audiences has often gone out of his way to convince the reader that when he uses the word "pagan" he doesn't mean "evil" or "wrong." Just non-Christian, non-Judaic and ancient. That is the way I mean the word, also.

ApostateAbe

"Diversity" is plural and "uniformity" is singular. I am sorry I wasnt clear. Feel free to have me spell out my reasoning as much as needed.

aa5874

Again, this thread is about the logical fallacies and mis-representations in Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?".

Let us not get diverted. Some people here do NOT want to discuss Ehrman's "Failure of Facts and Logic"

I don't know if Doherty mentioned this but let us look at page 180-184.

If ApostateAbe is serious then he should attempt to address the absurdities in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Ehrman claimed the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient wourld even though hr admitted he did NOT really know what they wrote, when they wrote, and that they are filled with discrepancies, contradictions and events that most likely did NOT happen.

Even stories about the crucifixion are claimed to be Implausible by Ehrman. See page 184.

Ehrman has mis-represented his own findings.

Clivedurdle

Worshippers of the True Gods?

ApostateAbe

I knew a guy who believed in the ancient grecco roman gods and worshipped them. There is a modern community of such people. They themselves use the term "pagan." They call themselves "modern pagans."