GakuseiDon

All very good, except that F&G say on a different website that Jesus wasn't portrayed as having long hair and a beard until the 8th C. As F&G explain here:

Good, I'll look forward to what you find out.

But that's not what F&G are claiming, which is "Osiris-Dionysus was hung on a tree or crucified". I'd be interested if you can find where they give any evidence for that.

Why do they claim that Jesus was portrayed with a beard and long hair in their book, then as clean-shaven and short hair on a website? My guess: they don't care. What percentage of people who read their books do you think actually look into their claims?

Ted Hoffman

Celsus,
How do you know this?

I do not believe it would serve the interest of any one of us here if you were to get a copy of TJM (or read one if you already have a copy): it would only help you because your opinion of TJM is based on hearsay.

So, with due respect, I don't think anyone here is obliged to make any case that F & G are to be taken seriously. We don't have such a responsibility and would appreciate it if you ceased acting like its up to anyone here to persuade you to read the book.

Its your private choice and I am confident a majority of us here do not give a tinkers ass whether or not one who calls a book 'new age sewage' opens up their minds and examines a book they have formed an opinion about.

The best you can do is hang around threads like this and hope you learn some more about the thesis and form an opinion as you obviously have, or search the web, or make a request to a TJM proponent or their advertising manager to supply you with reasons why you should take F & G seriously.

Advertising your unwillingness to purchase the book doesn't argur well and, IMO, is not needed here. It smacks of immaturity and self-importance. And I am sure you are none of those, so why give a bad image?

Lets focus on the subject please and not bring in other factors like how we intend to spend our money or time and derogatory characterizations of materials we have not read.

Celsus

Because Albright made the same mistake through the 1930s-60s with the Nuzi and Mari tablets, and it wasn't till T.L. Thompson corrected him in 1974(!) in a comprehensive monograph that this was recognised as the question begging it was.
I suggest you don't presume what I have or haven't read. For your information, I have read TJM, and it's the Thorson's 2000 edition. So for example, the first footnote of the book reads "Gospel of Thomas, 62" which of course, is appallingly bad, since there's no indication which edition of GThomas they're refering to, since that would help greatly, or if it is a verse, which division of chapters/verses they're refering to. And then it doesn't help that the Gospel of Thomas is mentioned nowhere else in the book but for p.145 (according to the index, which should have mentioned the first page) with a brief mention, since it's possibly the most important Gnostic text we have. So all that from just the first footnote of the book. Can you see why it doesn't deserve a serious treatment?
You should have saved your breath, since I have read the book, and have it right here. But I suppose you did succeed in making me pull it off the shelf.

Joel

Celsus

Au contraire, I'm not angry in the least. I just like the way "New Age" and "sewage" run together in a sentence, and use it every opportunity I get. But anyway, follow the discussion with Jacob and me if you want to watch a nice little ruck.

Joel

Celsus

If further proof is required, Jacob, this is a review I'd written a long time ago (probably late 2002) which I donated to Secularlife.org en masse with a whole bunch of other reviews early last year. Needless to say, other than the descriptive portions of the review, I would distance myself from the entire first paragraph today (and my views have changed considerably such that I'd distance myself from practically all those reviews today, as an embarassment).

Joel

diana

Reply from Mr. Freke (with his permission):

d

GakuseiDon

Yes, I've seen this answer by them on other websites as well. Since I am actually questioning the evidence that underlines their argument, I can't see how I've "missed the point".

Yes, they've used that one before, as well. That's why I decided to look through an entire section ("Death of the Godman"). If the individual pieces nearly all fail, then the whole thing falls apart.

Well, for starters, they have Jesus as having long hair and a beard in their book (which they claim is a similarity to Osiris-Dionysus), but on their website they claim that Jesus was clean-shaven and beardless (link provided previously), and also claim that Jesus wasn't portrayed as having long hair and a beard until the 8th C CE. So which is it, F&G?

Nothing wrong with writing a popular book. All I ask is that it be accurate. "After all"? I'm not sure how it follows that attempting to question deep assumptions requires a popular book rather than an academic book.

I had to laugh at their use of "troubling facts" and "deep assumptions". They use similar language throughout TJM. Nothing better than inviting the reader to believe that they know something that the rest don't know! F&G are good at preaching to the converted.

Thanks for that, Diana.

diana

I agree with you that the "dots" they're connecting should be accurate--which is why I've requested evidence above and beyond "everybody knows" and "scholars said/knew" in another thread recently concerning this book. However, I think if their aim was to make their readers question old assumptions--an admirable goal, IMO--they have accomplished that.

They've succeeded in raising the question in my mind. I am not convinced, but I am intrigued enough to research the matter further. I can't expect a popular book to do more.

The issue of Jesus' hair/beard length is quite insignificant, IMO. There are far more important things to question, such as interpretation of symbolism and how we know what the various stages of mystery initiation were and what they were called, etc. But that may just be me.

d

Bede

Trouble is Diane, that creationists and fundies can (and do) say the same thing. Would you honestly be so sympathetic towards F&G if they were YECs asking people to think outside the evolutionist box? Especially after so much stuff that they said had been proven false.

People should be judged by whether they are telling the truth, not whether their ideas are unusual/appealing.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

diana

I don't see what that's troublesome, Bede. I applaud anyone who can provoke others to question their own assumptions.

If they--or anyone--forwarded a theory that was internally consistent and did not clash with scientifically-demonstrable facts, of course I would be sympathetic. What I'm seeing with the theory they've forwarded in TJM is that it explains many things that have never made sense to me in any context. I still want more substantiation for the "facts" they're resting that theory on. Considering that they wrote a popular book, the fact that they haven't provided the scholarly research/substantiation that I require does not mean it does not exist or that their theory is bullshit.

I don't know that "so much stuff" is an accurate assessment. Have you read the book? Just because evidence X, Y and Z has been disproven doesn't mean that the evidence A - W isn't still enough to convict the defendant.

Remember, Darwin said a lot of stuff that has been proven false. This does not disprove his theory, though.

I think what we should be focusing on is whether the theory is flawed or whether the evidence is inconclusive. The YEC theory has the insurmountable problem of contradicting all the myriad scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth. It isn't a matter of there even being evidence for it, let alone whether that evidence is conclusive or not. The "theory" (dogma, actually, as theories perforce are falsifiable) is thus shit, as it requires you to ignore science and learning and just believe. In the case of TJM, though, we're met with a theory that conceivably fits recorded secular history (as we know it thus far), and we must examine the evidence to determine whether there is enough to substantiate the theory.

I was judging a popular book, and how it presents a theory. In so doing, I had to make a judgment call on what the authors' intent was, and whether or not I thought they'd met that goal.

I agree that people should be judged by whether or not they are telling the truth, but theories should be judged on their own merits, regardless of whether the most trusted person in the world or a chronic liar suggests them.

d