Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-09-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Ding! Ding! Ding! Wait for it........

The one man anti-Mithra crusade should be here any minute now.

Well, thank goodness someone is doing it. I think anyone who provides corrections to misinformation like that should be commended, personally.

Does this mean, GakuseiDon, that you didn't know that Cilicia was the home of the mystery cult of Mithra (before it ever arrived in Rome)? And that Paul, being a citizen of a city of Cilicia, had to know about Mithra and his relationship as mediator with Ahura Mazda? That Mithra had already performed his salvific act on earth before returning to his wise lord (Ahura Mazda)? And that Mithra would lead the forces at the eschaton? Who better to tie the two traditions together than our good Cilician citizen, Paul?

spin

Lucretius · 12-09-2007, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REVROSWELL

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source. For example historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. It seems the ancients thought the bible was more important because copies were expensive and time consuming endeavors! A book was a treasure like a bar of Gold bullion.So we have 8 (eight) copies of Herodotus work possibility the most important credible writer of the ancient world. Then we have about twenty four thousand copies of the bible of ancient times! Call me Mr obvious, I am suggesting that if we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it is among the most reliable on record compared with others.

A couple of important non biblical writers documented the ministry and life of Jesus. Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus both well known and accepted in academic and scholarly circles. Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of ChristiansThey had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

If anyone wants to be so naive as to discount the existence of Jesus, I feel that most intellectual conversation would be lost on them even is the discussion is of something as simple as 2+2+=4.

; {>

Since you mention Tacitus you may wish to read this thread from way back in the mists of time (well 2004 in fact

)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=TACITUS

And this from me in particular

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...6&postcount=37

patcleaver · 12-10-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

They should discount the bible - it is just fiction - it has no historic reliability at all.

Forgive me butting in, my friends, but it is neither a reliable historic source, nor fiction.

Fiction is sometimes written with a moral to the story, but, more often than not it is a confabulation of the conflicts in the human condition. But everyone knows it is just a story. Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

There is another kind of fiction that contains historically accurate data. It is the historical novel. Set in the real past with fictional characters. The places are real, the words, acts and deeds of the protagonists fiction, with cameo appearances by known characters from the time.

The Bible (and Koran) go quite beyond being historical novels, although in many ways they are. They explicitly deny the fictitious nature of the writing and claim all is fact. It was written, not as an historic novel, but as a story with a moral. Its purpose not to entertain or even provide insight but to expose the moral of the story. Learn how to be good and social in a social society: just follow these complex rules to the letter (Pharisees) or take a big picture view and follow the moral principles (Christianity). But in the cases of the Torah, Bible and Koran, the intent is entirely social order through authority at the expense of justice and individual rights.

Those who reject the Bible by labeling it "fiction" are being a little shallow. It has served a noble purpose in providing a sense of unity and belonging, being in a group that shares a common morality and common purpose.

These are a good thing in small groups. When the authority idea is taken to extreme we get Crusades, Inquisitions, Jihads and Zionism. With groups this large unity thinking can be positively dangerous.

What we need is a Bible-like text we can rally round for unity. When that text is a constitution we get patriotic fervor. When that text is religious we get the British Protestant soldiers killing Catholic children without shame.

How can we get the unity that Bible-like texts provide without the drawbacks of religion?

Hi George nice to hear from you.

When goat herders sit around a camp fire and exchange fabulous stories about floods and talking snakes do you really think any of them believe that the stories are true? No they are just good stories.

What is your evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction for an audience that would know they were fiction just like Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I think there is lots of evidence that they were originally intended to be fiction and everyone knew they were fiction when they were originally produced and then at some point people started thinking that they were true.

Do you have any evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction or that anyone thought they were non-fiction anytime before the 4th century?

Do you have any evidence that the Quran was not developed as fiction or that anyone thought it was non-fiction anytime before the 9th century?

Solitary Man · 12-10-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

When goat herders sit around a camp fire and exchange fabulous stories about floods and talking snakes do you really think any of them believe that the stories are true? No they are just good stories.

Yes. Per example, people in "primitive cultures" still believe in something similar today. Heck, chupacabra is still believed in. So are ghosts.

Quote:

What is your evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction for an audience that would know they were fiction just like Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Fables and Fairy Tales usually are short stories featuring the unnatural for the purpose of exhibiting a singular moral point. Bunny and tortoise race. Tortoise wins because bunny procrastinates. Moral of the story: don't procrastinate. Or perhaps hard work pays off. But nothing near the sheer complexity of what we find in the gospels.

Quote:

I think there is lots of evidence that they were originally intended to be fiction and everyone knew they were fiction when they were originally produced and then at some point people started thinking that they were true.

Where is the evidence?

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that the gospels were not developed as fiction or that anyone thought they were non-fiction anytime before the 4th century?

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, not to mention the format of Luke models itself heavily off of Josephus. Genre was very important to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

patcleaver · 12-10-2007, 01:36 AM

[QUOTE=Fenton Mulley;5018208]

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Ding! Ding! Ding! Wait for it........

The one man anti-Mithra crusade should be here any minute now.

I might as well lay it out. Once you ignore what Eusebius forged then everything makes sense.
I believe that this is the most likely scenario:

Christianity is in fact the continuation of Mithraism.

In ancient Rome, a pontiff is the head of a religious group and all the pontiffs would meet (called the College of Pontiffs) and resolve disputes and agree to rules that applied to all the religions. The head of the collage was called the Pontifex Maximus. When Julius Caesar became the first emperor (60 BCE), he took over the collage and became the Pontifex Maximus. The Roman emperors regularly used the title Pontifex Maximus until the 5th century CE. There is only one example of the bishop of Rome ever using that title in ancient times (that was in 377 CE) and lots of examples of emperors using the title until well into the 5th century.

Emperor Aurelian (as Pontifex Maximus) in 274 CE combined all the "son of god" cults (Mithraism, Apollo, Osiris/Horus) into a single cult that he called the Catholic Church also known as Sol Invictus. They worshiped a crucified son of god they called Jesus Christ, but there was disagreement about where he was born - Persia, Greece, Egypt or somewhere else. They worshiped the crucifixion on Christmas and the resurrection on Easter. they practiced all the sacraments. They believed in salvation through faith. The counsel of Nicaea was attended by bishops of the Sol Invictus cult. There was no such thing at that time as "Christian bishops" separate from the Sol Invictus bishops. The attendees including Arius who claimed that the son of god was made by god the father. The counsel disagreed and decided that the son of god was "begotten and not made" which was a minor difference. The original Nicene Creed that was a adopted did not even refer to anyone from Judea or say anything that any Sol Invictus follower could not agree with.

Between 325 and 381 an "urban myth" probably developed that the son of god, that everyone in the Sol Invictus cult already worshiped, was born in Judea and that his crucifixion was ordered by Pontius Pilot. It may have been during this time that people started believing that the gospels were non-fiction.

It was not until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381, that the second Nicean Creed was adopted that first mentions Pontius Pilate. It was in 381 that Jesus Christ of the Sol Invictus cult was renamed Jesus of Nazareth the Jewish messiah. The followers of Sol Invictus simply accepted that the son of god that they worshiped had been born in Judea.

The Catholic Church is the same Church taken over by Julius Caesar, the same Church that Emperor Aurelia reformed, the same Church that Constantine ran, the same Church of the Nicean and Constantinople counsels. Prior to the 5th century all the heads of the Catholic Church (the Pontifex Maximus) were the Roman Emperors.

The conversion of Rome from (Mithraism/ Apollo, Osiris/Horus, Sol Invictus) worship to Christianity is a myth. All that happened was that in 381 the counsel of the Sol Invictus (aka Catholic Church) declared that the virgin born, crucified and resurrected son of god, that they already worshiped, was born in Judea and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and resurrected in Judea.

Toto · 12-10-2007, 01:44 AM

sources?

When Constantine became Emperor, his mother (St. Helena) traveled to Judea to look for relics, so I would assume that people thought at that time that Jesus was from Judea.

Roger Pearse · 12-10-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

I believe that this is the most likely scenario:

Christianity is in fact the continuation of Mithraism.

How so?

Quote:

Emperor Aurelian (as Pontifex Maximus) in 274 CE combined all the "son of god" cults (Mithraism, Apollo, Osiris/Horus) into a single cult that he called the Catholic Church also known as Sol Invictus.

You need to document this absurd claim from ancient sources. I think that I am familiar with every piece of ancient literary evidence on Sol Invictus, and none of it says this.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sol_invictus

I've snipped the remaining nonsense out of pity, but the same applies to all of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-10-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Textual dating (paleontological dating) is only used by historians to establish the earliest date that a work may have been written.

This is rather ignorant. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I am getting a little impatient with the quantity of ignorant hearsay without sources that you are posting in this forum, and I doubt I am alone in this.

Paleography is the technique to date *manuscripts*, not texts. The date of a manuscript has no bearing on the date of the text contained within it, since nearly all ancient literary texts are extant in manuscripts written after the 9th century AD or later (often much later).

Paleography is the standard means to date a manuscript.

Quote:

For aesthetic reasons, copiers often copied documents in ancient textual styles, so all you can really say is that the document was written after that style was first introduced.

I hate to imagine where you are getting this nonsense from. Before paleography was invented (by Dom Jean de Mabillon in the 18th century) it was impossible to forge old bookhands.

Quote:

For example, textual dating determined that the Khaburis Codex was from 120 CE. Later it was carbon dated to between 1040 and 1090 CE.

I have no idea what this 'Khaburis codex' might be; NT mss have numbers. Where are you repeating all this from?

Quote:

BTW, the oldest carbon dated copy of the Gospels is the Khaburis Codex dated 1040 and 1090 CE, and there is no reasonable evidence of what the gospels said before that date.

There may be some fragments that were carbon dated earlier. Do you know of any earlier carbon dated fragments of the Gospels?

Carbon dating is not used for dating manuscripts. The text of the NT exists in manuscripts from ca. 200 onwards (if you want to argue about this, go and find a professional).

Please stop posting nonsense without sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-10-2007, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'd also like to see where Julian is called 'pope' in ancient literature.

Pope just means father,

Ahem. You cannot go around calling people 'Pope' because they were called 'Father' by someone.

Quote:

and it was common to call anyone in authority father.

Evidence?

Quote:

The point was that Julian was the Pontifex Maximus which is the official title of the Catholic Pope.

You may certainly call him 'Pontifex Maximus', although I don't know if any ancient source does! But you cannot on this ground call him 'Pope'. Surely?

The Popes adopted the title after the abolition of paganism. I've never seen details on when and why.

Quote:

We know that the gospel of Judas existed in 280 CE. We do not know whether readers thought it was fiction or not.

Which readers have left an opinion, and what do they say?

Quote:

We do not know whether the Canonical gospels were written prior to that date. All we really know about the date that various versions of the Canonical gospels were written, is that they were written before the earliest version that are carbon dated.

Actually I think everyone does know that they existed, as we have copies in places like the Bodmer collection. Come, this is not a matter in dispute!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 12-10-2007, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Carbon dating is not used for dating manuscripts.

Yeah, sure, Rodge.

For interested people, see for example here.

spin

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

12-10-2007, 01:44 AM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	sources? When Constantine became Emperor, his mother (St. Helena) traveled to Judea to look for relics, so I would assume that people thought at that time that Jesus was from Judea.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.