Emil

Good point.

Emil

You have not shown that it is pure speculation. I already gave base reasons, which you have not dismissed.

I may, however, be following Toto's call. There is no reason why I must have an opinion on the subject.

andrewcriddle

FWIW I posted on the sacraments in Mithraism here http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...and-early.html.

IMO the parallel Justin is drawing is between the special form of the baptismal Eucharist, and initiation in Mithraism. It is probably not a parallel between the regular Christian Eucharist and the ritual fellowship meal in Mithraism.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You confuse reason with speculation. I have already shown that your so-called "three truths" can only be valid if Jesus existed, and may be half-truths or not true at all once Jesus did not exist.

Emil

You haven't shown their falsity nor that I have confused reason with speculation. What you have shown, though, is extreme hostility. :huh:

Clivedurdle

A short discussion on myth ritual story and theatre.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152470

Oh, and the view of professional historians is

To some extent, the study of religion has suffered from the barriers between disciplines, and this fact is increasingly recognized in the formulations, notably in the United States, of the idea of religion as a subject that should be institutionalized in a university department or program in which historians, phenomenologists, and members of other disciplines work together. There are some, however, who consider that there are dangers in such an arrangement; thus Eliade prefers to work rather tightly within the framework of the history of religions, concerned lest the social sciences overwhelm and distract the interpreter of religious meanings. Similarly, the theological tradition in the West remains powerfully operative (quite legitimately) in regard to the articulation of the Christian faith and sometimes resists any attempt to treat Christianity itself in the manner dictated by the history and phenomenology of religion. Thus, the history of religions and the comparative study of religion still tend to mean in practice “the study of religions other than Judaism and Christianity.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/...20Encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Solitary Man
That there is genuine 'scholarship' amongst mainsteam NT scholars is a joke

Originally Posted by J.D. Crossan
historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke

Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1991), xxvii.

Originally Posted by J.P. Meier
it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history.

Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier

Originally Posted by M.H. Goshen-Gottstein
However we try to ignore it — practically all of us are in it [Biblical studies] because we are either Christians or Jews

As quoted by Jacques Berlinerblau in The Unspeakable in Biblical Scholarship


"I'd be very careful about historical kernels if I were you" said Yair Zakovitch with a twinkle in his eye."The whole story sounds very much like a fairy-tale to me."

Michael Woods In Search of Myths and Heroes (or via: amazon.co.uk) p 148, quoted specifically in the context of the Queen of Sheba. The chapter then goes on to provide evidence that she probably did exist!:devil1:

Jeffrey Gibson

And why is that, I wonder.

Jeffrey

Yellum Notnef

I think the problem here is reverence.

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you please give the names of the members of this group whom you know for a fact do what you say they do, i.e., go around and say, let alone harrumph, that Jesus existed [B]"just like [as?] like Adam, and Noah, and Moses.....existed"?

Jeffrey

mountainman

The consensus is a dynamic. Long term changes over the last few hundred have seen the historical jesus examined and rejected, while alternative theories have emerged trying to understand jesus via myth. History is not cutting any evidence for Jesus. There have been no recent discoveries by which further data has enabled advanced evidence concerning jesus to come forward into the light. There have of course, in the same timeframe, the continuous avalanche of pious forgeries. And red herrings like the DSS.

That is because historians have been shepherded down into the prenicene epoch and forced to take along Eusebius as their guiding light. If you were to take the guiding light of Eusebius' texts out of the picture, we would have nothing.

The consensus on Jesus is a dynamic which makes an interesting study. In the introduction to this my best recommendation is to visit Historical Jesus Theories at ECW, and to wade through the last few hundred years. Then take a look at the radicals.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown