Metacrock

I dont' think you understand the issues invovled.

(1) Mormaonism is not a true mythology. Mythology is more a literary genre and it emrges from a certian conscoiusness in history. You can't say that any time someone has a wrong idea its mythology.

(2) Morman lore was written down right after it was made up, in fact its' first from was written. So that means no chance for it to spread in diffrerent forms.

(3) Mandeans, you have no proof that they had only one strory, but they were an offshoot of Christianity, so they part of the profussion of multiying Gnsticism that marked heretical christainity.

Metacrock

<snipped for bandwidth>

please see this link, which is easier to read:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...s/versions.htm

Toto

The last thread on Metacrock's claim that Jesus had no variants is here. Peter saved his reply on ChristianOrigins here.

I will let the readers decide.

Metacrock

see this Toto's version of winning an argument. So slipshod I don't see who would be fooled. But apparenlty Toto is.

Rich Summer, in response to that thread, says


Originally Posted by Metacrock
Bull. You telling me there's a version that says Jesus wasn't crucified? Now we've been through this. this comes up every time. Gosptic belief that it was an illusion of Jesus and not really jesus doesn't count.


summer:
Actually, it comes from the Talmud, where Jesus was stoned and then hanged. That doesn't have much to do with Gnostics.



Right, so in other word, he totally ignores what I said were the peratiors for the arugment and uses an example almost a thousands years latter. Those Talmudic passages are middle ages. So that's way beyond the limit of first 400 years that i set for the argument.

hey you there's this thing called "The golden legond" where mideval Christians make up a bunch of wild legonds. Those really do change things. LIke they give jesus a twin brother. But that's like 500 years latter.

My argument mainly pertains to the first 50 years, becasue onece they start writiting things down the propensity for proliphoration goes way down. But then wait long eough and people began making new storeis, centuries latter.

the point is that durning crucial period of formation there are no other versions, and these guys have to reach into the middle ages to find them.

Now I argued taht agsint Peter. No one remembers it beause that wouldn't give the glory to the atheists. But I bet his argument with that and you conviently overlook it.

Metacrock

Ok look, time out. Just time out! let's come together and have a meeting of the minds ok?


<snipped for bandwidth>

please use this link: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...28#post1828928

Metacrock

what do atheists mean by the statment "so and so took you to taks for this?"

They mean "if an atheist ever disagrees with a believer in anyway, he has beaten that beliver's argument."

Toto

Metacrock: let's have a meeting of the minds.

This debate happened over a year ago. There is no need to cut and paste all of your previous arguments, whether they are on your website or a previous thread.

If you have something new to say, say it. Otherwise anyone who cares can read the old threads.

Toto

moderator and clean up crew on BCH

Metacrock

Ok fair enough. fair enough. i wont that debte. you want proof, read the deal. So stop saying otherwise.

funinspace

Hum, do you make your definitions up as you go? Is "true mythology" akin to "true Christianity"?
Yahoo dictionary: myth:
I would think Mormonism would explain very well the worldview, customs, and ideals of the majority of people from Utah, but oh well... Ah, I get it, your definition fits Christianity perfectly...it emerged from a certain consciousness in history, and is a literary genre. The Jews borrowed from the Babylonians and got their flood myths (Note: all the differing flood myths out there showing that all flood myths are in fact myths. That's how it works, right?). And then the mythmakers of the gospels drew from the Moshe myths to build another variant of birthing a god/prophet. Yeah, that didn't emerge from a certain consciousness in history. Certainly Paul wouldn't want to mention such an amazing birth to evidence this god, when the first Xian writings emerged 10-15 years after Jesus' death. Yep, makes more sense that Paul let the magical virgin tales be told by others at a later date, like they were really concocted... I think your onto something here...so the Mormon, post Judaic, god was smarter than the Trinitarian god of true xianity, and built better fail safes into the mythos.

The bolded part...Huh?...oh, I get it... You were thinking it was an example of non-divergent stories for a single mythos within Mandeanism. Not at all my point, but an interesting argument. So because I can't prove their mythos to be a singular thread, then it must be multiple? Well, then why don't you provide proof that Jesus had only one story; and that alternate myths were not destroyed by the tyrannical church of Rome....that should be a fun demonstration.

My point was that the Mandeans have a very different mythos surrounding this same guy you call Jesus. Thereby providing an example as to why the Jesus story has in fact proliferated (or is part of differing tales) into multiple mythos. I'll agree the Mandeans were an offshoot of something, but more like Judaism and a mish mash of others. So are you agreeing that there were other understandings of "Jesus" outside of your original claimed "only one basic Jesus story" view like Gnosticism? The Mandeans held this "Jesus" to be a liar and deceiver that formerly followed John the Baptist. And JtB supposedly taught some form of ancient dualism. Sounds a little different than that "one basic story".

Metacrock

Typical atheist fallacy. The atheists take the no true scottsman fallacie and conclude from it there is no such thing as a true anything.


Read Joseph Campbell and Marceia Elliade. they are the experts on the nature of mythology.








It wasn't invented in Utah, it might be important to understand how the people of that state have been shaped, but it was invetned by one guy. It didn't rise out of the culture over time. It's not a unqiue Grenre it's a cheap and badly done copy of King James Bible.





Right, the flood story is a myth,it is borrowed from the Sumerians and Babylonians. I am a liberal, I am not a Bible thumper. In fact I'm not a theist either.








I dont' know what you think you are saying but it's absurdly childish. The NT is not mytholgoical. You don't know the difference. Mythology is not just any supernatuarl tale. Go read Elliade.

Now Mormonism is copied after KJV. it's a badly done ignorant coutner fit because Smith assumed that any divine writting must sound like the Bible, so he tried to copy the KJV (forgetting the Bible was writtenin hebrew and Greek). He didn't have a true mythology to wokr with, so he used a bunch of bs that sounded holy because it copied the Bible. In his enthusiasm he plagerigzed a new York School teacher and he also said the Indians were the 10 lost tribes, not knowing that anthropologists can tell a genetic difference in the teeth of natrive amerians and the teeth of Jews.

so moromon is just a bad attempt at forging a holy document. The OT is a collection of writtings that come from people who experinced the power of God, and as all power must, they tried to encode that experience into the clutural constructs.





I did. I did prove it. The only way you can possibly counter it is to provide another version. let's hear it. But don't forget now, it has to be fore 400 AD.

I showed that all those verwsions are the same and I shoed over 100 documents that all affirm those same 11 points. That's proof enough to meet a prmia facie case. Now you must prove your assertions against it.


It's not different. They don't deny any of those 11 points. Now they do combrine mythos with that of the Ot/Nt but they don't screw with the actual story line; Jesus is still from Nazerath, he still crucified in jerusalem, his sides kicks are still matt and Peter, he is stil cricufied at noon on passover and mother named mary and so on. Same 11 ponits, don't contradict them.





People have researched that you know. There is actually of literature on that subject. I think if you would research it you would find they are usuallky thought of as an offshoot of Gnsoticism.








I dont' know why it's so hard for you to understand the differnce between story line and criticism. It may be that there are a milliions ways to look at the same facts, but none of them deney the facts--those 11 points, the "story line"! its' the events I said are historical, so that might be your clue. The Events of his life are not changed, only the ideas about what the mean!