Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-23-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Most of the ideas presented by Paul and the Gospels are presented in a matter of fact way that indicates they were a noncontroversial aspect of the zeitgeist. This is enough to realize the ideas were not novel.

For espousing these "noncontroversial" ideas, Paul and others were beaten, stoned, arrested and executed.

Except that there is no reliable source for Paul's travails, and no indication that any persecution of Christians had anything to do with most of their ideas.

Minimalist · 10-23-2008, 09:01 AM

The xtian apologist, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, spent some time explaining...or trying to explain away those annoying similarities between pagan belief and his own.

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html

Quote:

Ch. 22

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

No one takes out an ad in the newspaper to say " I am not a child-molester" if no one has accused them of being a child-molester in the first place. Justin is obviously reacting to criticisms in Greco-Roman objections to xtianity.

Of course, he goes on to provide a reason, the highly amusing concept of diabolical mimicry in which Satan...being apparently smarter than god... foresees jesus and creates all of these stories to discredit him!

Diabolical mimicry is discussed in the link provided, as well.

spamandham · 10-23-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

For espousing these "noncontroversial" ideas, Paul and others were beaten, stoned, arrested and executed.

I don't accept the official Church history. It's a fraud.

No Robots · 10-23-2008, 11:02 AM

Er, claiming that you have been beaten, stoned, and arrested on capital charges for professing something is itself controversial, no?

spamandham · 10-23-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Er, claiming that you have been beaten, stoned, and arrested on capital charges for professing something is itself controversial, no?

"Paul" has been too heavily mucked with over the ages to give much credence to anything attributed to him. Even if genuine, he comes across as a blow hard making things up to boost his authority.

andrewcriddle · 10-23-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

The xtian apologist, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, spent some time explaining...or trying to explain away those annoying similarities between pagan belief and his own.

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id11.html

Quote:

Ch. 22

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

No one takes out an ad in the newspaper to say " I am not a child-molester" if no one has accused them of being a child-molester in the first place. Justin is obviously reacting to criticisms in Greco-Roman objections to xtianity.

As has been argued in other threads Justin does not appear in the First Apology to see similarities between Christianity and Paganism as a problem. See for example Chapter 20

Quote:

And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

The criticisms of Christianity that Justin was responding to were not claims that Christianity was too similar to pagan religion, but that it was too different, too alien from the normal religions of the Roman Empire to be tolerated. In response Justin emphasises both plausible and implausible similarities between Christianity and Paganism as an argument against singling out Christians for persecution.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 10-23-2008, 07:37 PM

I don't see that in Chapter 22, Andrew.

He may, or may not, regard it as a problem but he assuredly makes a favorable comparison between xtianity and the "sons of Jupiter" and Aesculapius.

When, in Chapter LXVI, Justin writes:

Quote:

that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done.

Why would he write this if there was not some obvious overlap between xtian and Mithraic rites that he found "uncomfortable?"

spamandham · 10-23-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Why would he write this if there was not some obvious overlap between xtian and Mithraic rites that he found "uncomfortable?"

Excellent point! I've read that in Justin many times, and for the life of me I don't know why that never dawned on me.

me be stupid i guess. :banghead:

GakuseiDon · 10-24-2008, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

I don't see that in Chapter 22, Andrew.

He may, or may not, regard it as a problem but he assuredly makes a favorable comparison between xtianity and the "sons of Jupiter" and Aesculapius.

When, in Chapter LXVI, Justin writes:

Quote:

that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done.

Why would he write this if there was not some obvious overlap between xtian and Mithraic rites that he found "uncomfortable?"

He didn't find it uncomfortable. He WANTED to find the similarities.

Keep in mind to whom Justin addressed this Apology: "To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher... and to the sacred Senate".

Why tell them that Mithras had things in common with Christianity? Because he was uncomfortable about this? Or because he wanted to show them that they were similar? At a time when Christianity was thought to be a barbaric superstition, it was the latter. For Justin, the problem was that the Romans DIDN'T see the similarities.

I've updated an earlier article on diabolical mimicry that I think is relevant to this discussion:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...al_Mimicry.htm

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

He didn't find it uncomfortable. He WANTED to find the similarities.

True, but he still feels the need to try to claim priority with this odd devil mimicry business.

If his point was soley to argue that Christianity was like the other religions, why did he add the wicked devil phrase? His argument is stronger without it.

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

10-23-2008, 11:02 AM	#14
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Er, claiming that you have been beaten, stoned, and arrested on capital charges for professing something is itself controversial, no?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.