FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-24-2011, 04:11 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsonic View Post
roger, do you believe that no other man god before your man god came back to life on earth? you don't believe that the idea of ressurection only came into existence after christianity?
You probably need to start a separate thread about whatever it is you are saying here. I'm not very interested in general religious argument. What I want to see is people getting the raw historical facts -- not opinions, for I'm sure yours are as good as mine -- correct.

Because, whatever our religious views, I don't see how any of us are helped by making crude errors like "Mithras was born on 25 Dec." if in fact no ancient source records it and it is a modern myth.

To address your second sentence briefly, I would imagine that the idea of the dead coming back to life is primeval, and probably connected with the earliest men seeing corn sown as seed and sprouting in the spring. It is an idea which requires no explanation as to origins; I can see that some such story would naturally occur to any child independently. Somewhere in this thought is the research that Frazer did for the Golden Bough (although if you verify his statements in that work against the ancient sources, they don't always back up his theory!)

But to discuss it, we would need to know a lot of primary data. And if the real argument is not about facts, but that Christianity must be untrue because some of its arguments and myths are recorded before it came into existence -- a religious argument, usually insinuated rather than stated clearly -- then I would point out that this is a non-sequitur; the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, and I know Christians who argue the opposite, that the similarities prove the truth of Christianity. The argument would need to be made much more carefully before we could consider it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What that all boils down to, mrsonic, is that Roger believes not only that Jesus was special among the gods of antiquity, but also very real and magical.

I think that probably answers your question. Not that it means anything Roger said is incorrect, just that there is a bias which certain facts may be filtered through.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 04:45 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef View Post
What that all boils down to, mrsonic, is that Roger believes not only that Jesus was special among the gods of antiquity, but also very real and magical.

I think that probably answers your question. Not that it means anything Roger said is incorrect, just that there is a bias which certain facts may be filtered through.
If everything Roger Pearse said is correct, and well-reasoned to boot, then why try to explain it with anything but a capably-thinking mind?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 04:59 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I inevitably avoid these debates because I am never sure whose side I'm on. Nevertheless if we are going to look at the facts it has to be said that the two most important pieces of evidence are (1) Justin's statement that the Devil was responsible for the similarities between Christ and Mithras and (2) Celsus's statement that the Christians stole their mysteries from the Persians (Book Six from memory). Most people ignore the last reference and it is difficult to put in context because it is clearly the Alexandrian Church he is criticizing (it immediately follows a claim that the evangelist - presumably Mark - stole the Question of the Rich Man pericope from Plato's Laws). This is a Carpocratian gospel interpretation which seems to have something do with similar statements made in Book Three of the Stromateis. Celsus seems to connect the Persian mysteries and their interest in the seven planets with some sort of an Alexandrian diagram with nine or ten circles which Origen identifies as 'Ophite' but Celsus never identifies it as such. The ten spheres are clearly known to Clement in the Stromateis which - once again - demonstrates the Alexandrians original rooting in such 'heresy.'

The point again is that if we are to have a meaningful discussion about Christian or Persian 'borrowings' from one another we have to be careful not to simply walk down traditional debates about Xmas. There is more to it than that.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 05:06 PM   #34
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef View Post
What that all boils down to, mrsonic, is that Roger believes not only that Jesus was special among the gods of antiquity, but also very real and magical.

I think that probably answers your question. Not that it means anything Roger said is incorrect, just that there is a bias which certain facts may be filtered through.
If everything Roger Pearse said is correct, and well-reasoned to boot, then why try to explain it with anything but a capably-thinking mind?
There's a lot here that we just have to take Rogers word on and I'm not so sure that someone with a bias that Christianity is true can be trusted to look at all the material without a little tint in his glasses. He did , after all, take up the mantle of Mithra detective as a bit of a crusade against it before he had even seen much of the alleged evidence. In other words, he found and didn't find what he expected/wanted/needed to and the baby Jesus still sleeps snug in his bed.

Roger may or not be correct about Mithra, who knows? I'm just saying that anyone who thinks the matter is important enough to demand an answer might want take Rogers final judgement on it with a grain of salt.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 05:22 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Since Dave31 kindly responded to my query about where Mithras -- or indeed Osiris -- is described in ancient sources as having a "Last Supper" with some material, I thought it might be interesting to research that material and see what it said.

None of the references in Acharya S are to Mithras -- not something Dave31 made clear -- but all are instead to Osiris. We can find them using the online preview at Google Books. Here's what I found.

There are two references in the book to a "Last Supper".

Quote:
Page 336: "We have already seen how Osiris and Horus both were betrayed and murdered by their brother/uncle Typhon/Set, with Osiris's death plotted during a sort of "Last Supper" gathering.1"

"1. See Plutarch, "Isis and Osiris", Moralia V, (13, 356 B-C); Babbitt 35, 37."
But when we look at the Plutarch, as above, it merely refers to some "festivities", not to any "sort of Last Supper". "Babbitt" is the Loeb editor, whose translation we quoted above, so Acharya S is using the same translation that we are.

Quote:
Page 276: "Also in the Coffin Texts, Osiris is repeatedly referred to as "sitting at the head of the Ennead", instantly invoking the image of Christ and his disciples at the Last Supper.5 In CT Sp. 648 appears a reference to "Horus at the head of the Ennead".6

5. See, e.g., CT Sp. 317:111 (Faulkner, AECT, I, 251).
6. Faulkner, AECT, II , 224.
It seems that Dave31 has simply reproduced whatever he found in Acharya S, although I don't think he actually says that this is what he has done. The unwary might suppose these references were things he had collected and verified himself. That's rather unfortunate, as liable to mislead other atheists.

So what do we think of this? Well, I think we can immediately see that the statements of Acharya S are dodgy. The term "Last Supper" is intruded into this, by her, without obvious reason. This leads people like Dave31 to suppose that she's actually produced evidence, when all she has done is stick Christian terminology on something not evidently related to it in any way.

The second piece quoted is curious -- just why is Osiris sitting at the head of the Ennead somehow like the Last Supper of Jesus? If anyone sits on top table in college, does that mean they are Jesus at the Last Supper?

This seems to be the Acharya S method -- find a rock and call it a virgin, find a zodiac and call it 12 disciples, find a meeting and call it a last supper. And then, based on this misuse of words, assert that the Christians borrowed their ideas from this.

Still, I suppose she would say it sells books.

What about the references to "Faulkner"? This is to "Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts", which is in two volumes. Unfortunately I have no access to this. But I am quite prepared to believe that an ancient Egyptian text refers to Osiris at the head of the Ennead of gods, or Horus likewise after Osiris' death. But what I don't believe, and nothing in Acharya S gives us any reasons to think that we should, is that this is described in the ancient Egyptian sources referenced, as a "Last Supper".

To summarise: in response to a direct demand for ancient evidence for Mithras or Osiris having a "Last Supper", a phrase used by Dave31 without prompting, we get some stuff from the Acharya S book about Osiris (only), all rather dodgy and none of which justifies the point made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 05:34 PM   #36
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
If everything Roger Pearse said is correct, and well-reasoned to boot, then why try to explain it with anything but a capably-thinking mind?
There's a lot here that we just have to take Rogers word on and I'm not so sure that someone with a bias that Christianity is true can be trusted to look at all the material without a little tint in his glasses. He did , after all, take up the mantle of Mithra detective as a bit of a crusade against it before he had even seen much of the alleged evidence. In other words, he found and didn't find what he expected/wanted/needed to and the baby Jesus still sleeps snug in his bed.
Well, I think you can trust him on this point, because, if there was any evidence to be found, then you can be sure that it would have been found by Acharya S or any one of her resourceful allies in the mythicist business, and yet she keeps on citing 19th century Christian universalist authors and mythicist authors as her primary evidence. I went on the hunt for the evidence, myself, repeatedly, and I found nothing, except, of course, modern myths. That is how I first changed my mind about it.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 05:58 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

Wasn't Mithra that giant caterpillar which kept spraying Gamera and Godzilla with silk in that Japanese movie from the 1960s?

DCH
DCHindley is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 07:29 PM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef View Post

There's a lot here that we just have to take Rogers word on and I'm not so sure that someone with a bias that Christianity is true can be trusted to look at all the material without a little tint in his glasses. He did , after all, take up the mantle of Mithra detective as a bit of a crusade against it before he had even seen much of the alleged evidence. In other words, he found and didn't find what he expected/wanted/needed to and the baby Jesus still sleeps snug in his bed.
Well, I think you can trust him on this point, because, if there was any evidence to be found, then you can be sure that it would have been found by Acharya S or any one of her resourceful allies in the mythicist business, and yet she keeps on citing 19th century Christian universalist authors and mythicist authors as her primary evidence. I went on the hunt for the evidence, myself, repeatedly, and I found nothing, except, of course, modern myths. That is how I first changed my mind about it.
Changed your mind about a historical Jesus or just Christians copying Mithra?

I think those are both questions we can't answer one way or another due to lack of evidence and dubious sources for evidence we do have.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 07:36 PM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Well, I think you can trust him on this point, because, if there was any evidence to be found, then you can be sure that it would have been found by Acharya S or any one of her resourceful allies in the mythicist business, and yet she keeps on citing 19th century Christian universalist authors and mythicist authors as her primary evidence. I went on the hunt for the evidence, myself, repeatedly, and I found nothing, except, of course, modern myths. That is how I first changed my mind about it.
Changed your mind about a historical Jesus or just Christians copying Mithra?

I think those are both questions we can't answer one way or another due to lack of evidence and dubious sources for evidence we do have.
I changed my mind about Christians copying Mithra, after looking for the evidence and finding only modern myth. Concluding that there was a historical Jesus was later and of a different argument.

There are a handful of things that we do know about the ancient mythical deities, which makes the proposition that Christians significantly copied from them to be prima facie implausible. We can leave it open as a possibility, but it is no more probable than any other bizarre proposition of history out there. The substance of it is wishful thinking, not evidence or probability.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-24-2011, 07:37 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
... if there was any evidence to be found, then you can be sure that it would have been found by Acharya S or any one of her resourceful allies in the mythicist business, and yet she keeps on citing 19th century Christian universalist authors and mythicist authors as her primary evidence....
I doubt that this is the case. Acharya S has read the old 19th century authors, but she and her followers have not brought modern scholarly methods to the area to bring it up to current standards.

Richard Carrier wrote on Kersey Graves in 2003
Quote:
There is great need of new work in this area. There really is a huge gap in modern scholarship here--this is one of the few subjects untouched by the post-WWII historiographical revolution. Most scholars today consider the subject dead, largely for all the wrong reasons. And there is little hope. The subject is stuck in the no-man's-land between history and religious studies, whose methods and academic cultures are so radically different they can barely communicate with each other, much less cooperate on a common project like this.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.