Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fatpie42 · 04-09-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Let's say that I want to say that Dionysus was a real person. Someone might say, but all we have are mythical tales. I might reply that those tales contain historical figures of the time such as kings who we know existed.

Is that really true ?

Do the myths of Dionysus involve historical figures? If so which ones ?

Andrew Criddle

Okay, here are a list of kings which are found in stories of Dionysos. I don't know if any of them are actually historical. I've never bothered to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(Thrace)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelaus_I_of_Macedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athamas

In any case I would be very surprised if there was absolutely nothing within the Dionysos myths which wasn't in some way related to actual history. I am not saying that any of those myths accurately describe historical events, but simply that they may make reference to familiar elements from the period.

andrewcriddle · 04-09-2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Okay, here are a list of kings which are found in stories of Dionysos. I don't know if any of them are actually historical. I've never bothered to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(Thrace)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelaus_I_of_Macedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athamas

In any case I would be very surprised if there was absolutely nothing within the Dionysos myths which wasn't in some way related to actual history. I am not saying that any of those myths accurately describe historical events, but simply that they may make reference to familiar elements from the period.

Lycurgus and Athamas are pre-Trojan War and hence at best legendary

Archelaus I of Macedon is certainly historical but IIUC only involved with Dionysos in the sense of promoting the cult of Dionysos (He may have sponsored Euripides to write the Bacchae.)

Midas is more complicated. According to Midas one should probably distinguish a historical Midas c 700 BCE and a much older legendary Midas. The legendary Midas (the son or adopted son of Cybele Mother of the Gods) is the one who was involved with Orpheus and Dionysos et al.

Andrew Criddle

By the Way
Your link for Lycurgus doesn't work. It should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(Thrace)

bacht · 04-09-2009, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Are you saying that Yahweh was seen the same way by the Jews for the thousand years before Christianity appeared?

Not at all.

I am saying that there are written statements found to show that at around 135 CE the evolutionary process of Jewish tradition still included a real human Messiah that would kill and destroy enemies of the Jews.

I am saying that there are written statements to show that at around the middle of the 1st century, the evolutionary process of Jewish tradition did not include a real human Logos that was regarded as the Messiah that would fight, kill and destroy the Romans or the enemies of the Jewish people.

Fair enough. In terms of the subject of this thread I just wanted to make the point that ideas about God had evolved over time.

Would you agree that ideas about messianism were especially common and well-developed in the period between the Maccabees and bar-Kochba? This era is relevant to discussions with Christian believers, who are usually quite interested in the messiah figure.

fatpie42 · 04-09-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Okay, here are a list of kings which are found in stories of Dionysos. I don't know if any of them are actually historical. I've never bothered to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(Thrace)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelaus_I_of_Macedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athamas

In any case I would be very surprised if there was absolutely nothing within the Dionysos myths which wasn't in some way related to actual history. I am not saying that any of those myths accurately describe historical events, but simply that they may make reference to familiar elements from the period.

Lycurgus and Athamas are pre-Trojan War and hence at best legendary

Archelaus I of Macedon is certainly historical but IIUC only involved with Dionysos in the sense of promoting the cult of Dionysos (He may have sponsored Euripides to write the Bacchae.)

Midas is more complicated. According to Midas one should probably distinguish a historical Midas c 700 BCE and a much older legendary Midas. The legendary Midas (the son or adopted son of Cybele Mother of the Gods) is the one who was involved with Orpheus and Dionysos et al.

Andrew Criddle

By the Way
Your link for Lycurgus doesn't work. It should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(Thrace)

Not entirely surprised. I missed out one btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmus
I think he's another pre-Trojan guy though.

Dave31 · 04-09-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

2. Cite the work of Achyara S or Zeitgeist the Movie. Most of their claims are simply false. Tim Callahan has written an excellent article explaining why.

Actually, she responded and mopped the floor with him. Callahan even admits he's ignorant on many of the pertinent issues concerning Zeitgeist. If one is ignorant concerning the facts and evidence behind Zeitgeist part 1 then, it may not be wise to publicly attempt to debunk it - Callahan's review makes hims looks silly after reading Acharya's response.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
(and Religious History)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/sk...zeitgeist.html

Callahan has been scrambling to revise his article due to Acharya's response. Apparently, Acharya's response article will be mentioned in Callahan's "review" when it comes out in Skeptic Magazine in a couple months.

But will Michael Shermer and the magazine have the integrity to post her article in full or even actually read her new book? He should read the reviews at Amazon fpr her new book CIE.

Christ in Egypt video book description
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Zms...e=channel_page

aa5874 · 04-09-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Not at all.

I am saying that there are written statements found to show that at around 135 CE the evolutionary process of Jewish tradition still included a real human Messiah that would kill and destroy enemies of the Jews.

I am saying that there are written statements to show that at around the middle of the 1st century, the evolutionary process of Jewish tradition did not include a real human Logos that was regarded as the Messiah that would fight, kill and destroy the Romans or the enemies of the Jewish people.

Fair enough. In terms of the subject of this thread I just wanted to make the point that ideas about God had evolved over time.

Would you agree that ideas about messianism were especially common and well-developed in the period between the Maccabees and bar-Kochba? This era is relevant to discussions with Christian believers, who are usually quite interested in the messiah figure.

But, Jesus was worshipped as a God and offered salvation to the Jews if they believed on him. There is no such prophecy or expectation of the Messiah, as found in Daniel, to be worshiiped as a God and to be a human sacrifice to the God of the Jews.

By the way, the word Messiah is only found in the book of Daniel.

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews gave commentaries on Daniel and no where did he mention any character that was predicted to be equal to God and yet human, born of a virgin without sexual union who would be resurrected on the third day nd ascend to heaven.

Da 9:25 -

Quote:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Da 9:26 -
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Josephus on the prophet Daniel.

Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Quote:

...And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel......

It must be remembered that the Messiah as found in Daniel was expected to kill and destroy the Romans or the enemies of the Jews, like Simon BarCocheba, not like the mythical Messiah Jesus of the Roman Church or early Jesus believers..

bacht · 04-09-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It must be remembered that the Messiah as found in Daniel was expected to kill and destroy the Romans or the enemies of the Jews, like Simon BarCocheba, not like the mythical Messiah Jesus of the Roman Church or early Jesus believers..

Yes, it's important to remind believers that the Christian messiah bears little resemblance to the Jewish antecedent.

But this is religion, not science; logic is a small part of the process. Emerging Catholicism may have appropriated the christ idea and totally re-interpreted it, but to the faithful this is not as important as their belief in their own salvation (kind of an "end justifies the means" attitude)

aa5874 · 04-09-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It must be remembered that the Messiah as found in Daniel was expected to kill and destroy the Romans or the enemies of the Jews, like Simon BarCocheba, not like the mythical Messiah Jesus of the Roman Church or early Jesus believers..

Yes, it's important to remind believers that the Christian messiah bears little resemblance to the Jewish antecedent.

But this is religion, not science; logic is a small part of the process. Emerging Catholicism may have appropriated the christ idea and totally re-interpreted it, but to the faithful this is not as important as their belief in their own salvation (kind of an "end justifies the means" attitude)

Whether it's religion or science, Jesus believers must be reminded that veracity is fundamental.

The story about a man executed for blasphemy, yet worshipped as a God who was sacrificed for the salvation of the Jews, while Philo the Jew was on his way to Rome to ask and remind Gaius that effigies of the Emperor in Holy places were regarded as impious and acts of blasphemy, is consistent with fiction.

This is Philo in "Embassy to Gaius" written around the very time the supposed Peter and Paul were asking Jews to worship a man as a God for salvation.

Quote:

... but in this case what was put in motion was not a trifle, but a thing of the very greatest importance, namely, the erecting the created and perishable nature of a man, as far at least as appearance went, into the uncreated and imperishable nature of God, which the nation correctly judged to be the most terrible of all impieties (for it would have been easier to change a god into man, than a man into God), besides the fact of such an action letting in other most enormous wickedness, infidelity and ingratitude towards the Benefactor of the whole world, who by his own power givers abundant supplies of all kinds of blessings to every part of the universe....

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

2. Cite the work of Achyara S or Zeitgeist the Movie. Most of their claims are simply false. Tim Callahan has written an excellent article explaining why.

Actually, she responded and mopped the floor with him. Callahan even admits he's ignorant on many of the pertinent issues concerning Zeitgeist. If one is ignorant concerning the facts and evidence behind Zeitgeist part 1 then, it may not be wise to publicly attempt to debunk it - Callahan's review makes hims looks silly after reading Acharya's response.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
(and Religious History)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/sk...zeitgeist.html

Nitpick: Acharya writes:

Quote:

Even earlier than both these sincere Christian writers came the admissions by Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD/CE):

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. [First Apology, 21. Emphasis added.]

An interested scholar might inquire which of these "sons of Jupiter" was crucified?

But in fact, in the same Apology Justin specifically states that none of them were crucified. Justin writes (my emphasis):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

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. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse...

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified...

Justin was eager to point out parallels where he could. I suggest that if he had known of another god being crucified, he would have mentioned it in order to make his case stronger. That someone steeped in the mythology of the time didn't know of any examples strongly suggests that there weren't any. I think Acharya needs to rethink her use of Justin here.

GakuseiDon · 04-09-2009, 02:19 PM

Nitpick No. 2:

Acharya writes (my emphasis):

Quote:

Again in his Apology (16), Tertullian raises the subject of Roman gods in the shape of a cross or in cruciform:

We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above the gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses.

Hence, Tertullian attested that the Romans bore images of not only a man but also gods on crosses, that they additionally possessed gods themselves in cruciform and that these images were objects of worship.

But Acharya has badly misread Tertullian here. Tertullian is saying:
1. The shape of the cross can be seen in the trophies and standards
2. The hangings on the standards are "robes of crosses", i.e. they give the shape of the clothes of a man.

Like Justin, Tertullian is looking for parallels to strengthen his case. I think that if he had known of any gods being crucified, he would have mentioned them. But the nearest he could get was suggesting that the banners of the Romans were in the shape of the cross. In that, he is absolutely correct.

Here is a Roman standard pole, where you can see the cross-shape and the hangings, forming the "robes" of a human shape:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.