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 06-05-2012, 09:37 PM   #431
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,779
Default

Gday Gakusei Don,

You may be right about Osiris - the myth started on Earth and was euhemerised.

But Mithras killed the bull in the sky didn't he? i.e. heaven.

AoI - we've thrashed that out a million times - I think there is evidence of a heavenly crucifixion there.

Been a bit busy lately - I only get snatches of time to post.


K.
Kapyong is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:41 PM   #432
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday Gakusei Don,

You may be right about Osiris - the myth started on Earth and was euhemerised.

But Mithras killed the bull in the sky didn't he? i.e. heaven.

AoI - we've thrashed that out a million times - I think there is evidence of a heavenly crucifixion there.

Been a bit busy lately - I only get snatches of time to post.


K.


im not sure about that bull sacrifice being complete mythology.


the mythras worship had two major parts among their polytheism

bull sacrifice, and a feast. the feast wasnt mythical, and it was roman custom to have another cult process sacrifices.

im not sure beef wasnt on the table as part of the feast, or the blood not brought into the caves.


the only reason their isnt historicity to a bull sacrifice is the lack of a alter, but with roman tradition of having victimarius doing the sacrifice's and the romans syncretism regarding religion. I dont now why we could rule out beef on the plate.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 02:40 AM   #433
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday Gakusei Don,

You may be right about Osiris - the myth started on Earth and was euhemerised.
I'm not sure what you mean by "euhemerized" in this context. Many seem to misunderstand what it means. The Gospels are not an euhemerized account, since no such account would start with a virgin birth and end with the person rising to heaven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
But Mithras killed the bull in the sky didn't he? i.e. heaven.
There is conjecture between Mithras and the Zodiac. But I'm not aware of any text that states that Mithras killed the bull in the sky. If you have any cites on that, I'd love to read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
AoI - we've thrashed that out a million times - I think there is evidence of a heavenly crucifixion there.

Been a bit busy lately - I only get snatches of time to post
Yeah, same here. We can leave AoI for another time, I think.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 04:59 PM   #434
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Ehram presents an argument in a lecture entitled Text and Tradition: The Role of the Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies that suggests that gnostics interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews to indicate a spiritual rather than earthly Christ. A key part of Ehram’s argument is that in Hebrews 2:9 a phrase had originally stated that Jesus experienced death apart from God. Ehram states that gnostics would use this verse to argue that the divine Christ had left Jesus before he died. To counter this view Hebrews 2:9 was allegedly altered to indicate that Jesus experienced death by the grace of God.
Interestingly I can't find a reference to Hebrews in Irenaeus. .
If gnostics were using Hebrews to support their views then it's not surprising that Irenaeus would avoid any direct references to Hebrews. Below are some quotes from Irenaeus which seems to argue against a particular interpretation of Hebrews 2:9 i.e., Jesus dying apart from God.

Quote:
Christ suffered, and he himself was the Son of God, who died on our behalf, and with his blood he redeemed us at the pre-appointed time . . . he [Paul] proclaimed most plainly that this same one who was apprehended and suffered and shed his blood for us, this is the Christ, this is the Son of God, who also rose again and was taken into heaven. . .

They understand Christ to be one, and Jesus another, and they teach that there was not one Christ, but many. And if they say that they are united, again they show that this one underwent suffering, but this one remained impassible; that one ascended to the Pleroma, but the other remained in the intermediate area, and that this one in invisible and unnameable areas feasted and reveled, but this one sat by the Demiurge emptying his power.

Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 7) by Stephen Hebert
arnoldo is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 05:02 PM   #435
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
arnoldo - that suggest that gnostics interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews to indicate a spiritual rather than earthly Christ.
Interestingly I can't find a reference to Hebrews in Irenaeus. That's very curious especially given the fact that his Roman contemporary Gaius said it wasn't written by Paul.

The answer perhaps is that Hebrews is 'to the Alexandrians' on the Muratorian list. This might explain why Clement is so enthusiastic for Hebrews authenticity.
That's long been posited, but ECW says Barnabas could be meant.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 05:44 PM   #436
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

But that would mean the marcionites usef hebrews. That's new. New to me at least
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 06:11 PM   #437
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday Gakusei Don,

You may be right about Osiris - the myth started on Earth and was euhemerised.

But Mithras killed the bull in the sky didn't he? i.e. heaven.

AoI - we've thrashed that out a million times - I think there is evidence of a heavenly crucifixion there.

Been a bit busy lately - I only get snatches of time to post.


K.


im not sure about that bull sacrifice being complete mythology.


the mythras worship had two major parts among their polytheism

bull sacrifice, and a feast. the feast wasnt mythical, and it was roman custom to have another cult process sacrifices.

im not sure beef wasnt on the table as part of the feast, or the blood not brought into the caves.


the only reason their isnt historicity to a bull sacrifice is the lack of a alter, but with roman tradition of having victimarius doing the sacrifice's and the romans syncretism regarding religion. I dont now why we could rule out beef on the plate.

Mithras must be real because the Romans wouldn't worship a dead Persian peasant.

QED HISTORIC MITHRAS.

:wave:
James The Least is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 04:48 AM   #438
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
AoI - we've thrashed that out a million times - I think there is evidence of a heavenly crucifixion there.

Been a bit busy lately - I only get snatches of time to post
Yeah, same here. We can leave AoI for another time, I think.
Kapyong, now that I think about it, didn't you agree with my analysis on AoI in my review of Doherty's J:NGNM, where I looked at AoI in my review of Doherty's "World of Myth" concept? That is, the forms the Beloved takes at each level of his descent are explicitly specified, so the only level that is left that the Beloved can take on the form of Isaiah was earth? I'm pretty sure it was you who agreed with me there.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 11:36 AM   #439
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

FWIW Hebrews presents various probable/possible/optimistic allusions to Hebrews by Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 11:51 PM   #440
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
FWIW Hebrews presents various probable/possible/optimistic allusions to Hebrews by Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle
Come on Andrew!!! You very well know that we have NO original of Against Heresies so it is very little significance to attempt to argue that Hebrews is mentioned in Against Heresies.

Such an argument is like trying to argue that Josephus wrote about a Messiah called Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews.

But what is most disturbing is that NO epistle is identified as the Epistle to the Hebrews in Against Heresies--NONE-ZERO-NIL

It would appear that the author of Against Heresies did NOT know of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Top

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