Elijah

Has Haile Selassie been brought up in the thread?

spin

That's because Pat didn't read my post referring to Imhotep. As I said, Pat is making things up, creating artificial claims about reality.

In fact, Pat probably doesn't know the history of the origin of any of the ancient gods beside the best chronicled one. So take such pronouncements for what they're worth. (I don't have a smilie with empty pockets.)

ETA: you understand the Pat Cleaver approach here:

PC: No clowns have ever been deified.
XX: But Bozo the Clown was deified.
PC: What I meant to say was no Armenian clowns were deified.
XX: But Armin Melcunian was deified.
PC: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear here. No mediaeval Armenian clowns were ever crucified... umm, on mid-winter's eve.. ahh, wearing polka-dots.


spin

mountainman

Dear Ben and Pat,

Additionally we have a reasonably secure large and generous inscription to Apollonius of Tyana, a translation of which is as follows:
Best wishes,


Pete

Analyst

Hitler - at least before he took Germany into calamity and subjugation. Priests actually proposed he replace Christ in their churches.

aa5874

A story about George Washington with a cherry tree while he was alive, living on earth as human, does not in any whatsoever mythicise George Washington, the story of the cherry , whether true or not, may be used to show that George Washington was a person of history and was living at a certain time.

To mythicise any character, it must be shown that the character was never living as human, and that all records of their life on earth was fabricated or could not have been true.

The cherry tree story with George Washington did not try to disprove that George Washinton was human, or that he was living on earth in America, and did not try to show he was some kind of unnatural creature.


Good examples of characters that were presented as myths are Jesus of the NT and Homer's Achilles, both were the offsprings of some kind of Gods or Holy Ghosts.

Now, which writer ever claimed Chuck Norris was not human, was never on earth as human, and that all records of Chuck Norris as human are fiction?

If false information alone is the sole factor for determining myths, then it would then be possible for persons to make themselves myths while actually presenting false information about themselves.

Based on your argument or post, the president who said," I never had sex with that woman," made himself a myth, if he was lying.

Clivedurdle

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...are-there.html

rlogan

As a methodological issue, it is a fresh and exciting way to analyze literature, and one almost trembles at the kind of apopogetics it contrives for the "historical Jesus" crowd.

As a junior varsity sidekick I ventured out on my own to apply this ingenious strategy to the pericopes in PETER RABBIT. (Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

It never pays to prioritize things such as who wrote it, when they wrote, who it was written for, and to what purpose - along with all the historical context & etc.

So....

Peter is a baby bunny along with other baby bunnies.... unquestionably reasonable.

Lives in hole under tree... reasonable

Eats from Mr. MacGregor's garden.... reasonable. Many MacGregor's own farms too

Talks....... unreasonable
Wears Clothes......... unreasonable


In sum, the historical rabbit underneath the mythological PETER is actually quite reasonable, and you'd have to be some kind of idiot to approach the problem from an understanding that it is taught by mothers to little children in order to convince them why they should listen to their mother.

There are a lot of pericopes that are difficult to categorize. For example, Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail had bread and milk and blackberries for supper.

Some elements of this pericope are quite reasonable. The list of food items. Some of the details are a little questionable, like the mother going to the bakery to buy the bread. Rabbits are better known to nibble where they find food and not bring it back home in baskets covered by pretty checkered cloth.

But it is understandable that certain elements of the story would be exaggerated after having been passed orally from generation to generation. Historical Peters undoubtedly abound with fathers who were put into a pie. By farmers named MacGregor, even.

Anyone who uses the argument from best explanation in addressing why, how, where, when, and who Peter Rabbit was written for is a blind idealogue incapable of seeing the genius in apologetic historical rabbit research.

We need real science here, such as determining the proportion of elements in the story that could be possible.

That allows us to retain the faith that a real rabbit did exist in the distant past, and this rabbit was the linear progenitor to the PETER RABBIT story. Sadly, the exact rabbit happened too long ago and without sufficient documentation to convince those mean old skeptics of his historicity.

But clearly those skeptics aren't using any kind of scientific methodology to reach their silly conclusions. They are more like a religion, actually. And we all know how stupid religious superstitions are.

So we place our faith in science.

Without such faith, certain individuals would cry themselves to sleep even with their cuddly blanket clutched tightly to the breast.

Clivedurdle

Of course Peter Rabbit is true.

I have evidence.

I have several plates in our cupboard, some of which describe the incident of Mr McGregor's pie!

I have the archaeology!

patcleaver

I read you post but I knew that Aesculapius was not an ordinary man and I had no wish to point out your error.

There is nothing wrong with backing down from a position without abandoning the field. I have never seen you abandon the field when it was pointed out to you that you were mistaken about some point. Poking fun at me for doing it just seems hypocritical.

What is your evidence that Aesculapius was a real man. In Homer''s fictional story, he was supposedly the son of Zeus. There is no reason to think that he was a real person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius

It is controversial whether Imhotep was a full God, but he was at least honored as a demigod. Imhotep was chancellor to the pharaoh and high priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis. He was also famous for being a healer and the architect - he designed the step pyramid. We have writing about hem in his lifetime and we have his tomb and his mummy. I will admit that he was a man that became a God.

Is a chancellor to the Pharaoh an ordinary man?

Jeffrey Gibson

Really?

Please show me where Homer mentions in either the Iliad or the Odyssey who Asklepius's parents were, let alone that one or the other or both were divine.

And while you are at it, please show me that any source from the ancient world that does profess a belief that Ascelpius had a divine origin (i.e, Pindar, etc.) testifies to his being the son of Zeus.


Jeffrey